Chapter 18: Thinking about values

 

Chapter 18: Thinking about values

•     Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers. In a letter to a student, he wrote: 

•     What is the use of studying philosophy if all it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions in logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?”

•      The same theory applies to critical thinking. It would be sad indeed if studying critical thinking helps us solve logic puzzles, but it does not improve our everyday thinking. 

•     Values are standards or ideals with which we evaluate behaviour, people, or situations. We admire certain people because their lives exemplify the values we approve of, such as kindness. 

•     But values also affect our choices. Some people treasure freedom, but others might prefer stability and harmony. The values we adopt are influenced by our personality, experience and culture. But because we often feel strongly about our own values, value differences can, unfortunately, lead to hatred and violence.

1.      DIFFERENT TYPES OF VALUES

•    Values can be classified into three types: personal, aesthetic, and moral. 

•    Aesthetic values concern the evaluation of art and literature and standards for beauty. 

•    Personal values are values accepted by individuals that affect how they evaluate things and make decisions about their lives. Some people value independence over relationships, whereas others are just the opposite and they prefer spending more time with friends and family even if that means more compromises and less privacy. Most of us would agree this is a matter of individual choice and lifestyle. However, here are some points to bear in mind:

•    Knowing someone’s most basic personal values is crucial for understanding that person. The same goes for understanding ourselves. People who regard pleasure as their most important value will behave very differently from others who treasure relationships, achievements, or social recognition.

•    Knowledge and experience help us make a more informed choices about values and lifestyles. We can think more imaginatively and realistically about the possibilities available to us. We might even become happier and more flexible if we know there are other ways to live a happy and meaningful life. 

•    Consistency is important for personal values. Conflicts among values create confusion in decision-making. Adopting values incompatible with your character might result in unhappiness, such as chasing fame and fortune because you were told to do so, when in fact you do not find them fulfilling. 

•    Moral values correspond to objective standards in ethics that are supposed to be universal and apply to everyone. They govern how we should interact with each other, and they determine when something is morally right or wrong. For instance, when we affirm the right to free speech, or that slavery is wrong, we are presupposing the importance of freedom as a moral value.

2.      MORAL VALUES AND NORMATIVITY

•    Morality is normative (relating to a norm). Normative claims are about what should or should not happen, or what is good or bad. It is a fact that many children are dying of starvation, but it is not something that ought to happen. Similarly, government officials should avoid corruption, but sadly that is not always the case. These examples illustrate an important distinction between moral vs. factual statements. The former is about what the world should or should not be like, what ought or ought not to happen. The latter is about what the world is actually like. 

•    This has two consequences in regard to moral reasoning. First, whether something is factually true is logically independent of its moral status. Suppose someone claims that eating babies will make your skin more beautiful. You might think the idea is disgusting, but this does not mean the claim is false. Maybe baby meat contains special chemicals that revitalise skin cells. Whether this is factually true is independent of the question of whether we should try it out. Similarly, it has been suggested that decriminalising drugs will result in fewer crimes. This is a factual claim about the causal consequences of a certain legal policy. Whether this is true or false is independent of the question of whether decriminalisation is morally justified or not. 

•    The second observation is that we should be careful of arguments that use purely descriptive assumptions to derive a normative conclusion. Here are some examples: 

•    There is nothing wrong being selfish because everybody is selfish. 

•    Woman should stay at home and look after children because this has always been part of the social tradition.

•    Eating meat is fine because we are more intelligent than other animals. 

•    Governments should not provide social welfare because survival of the fittest is just part of nature. 

•    In all these cases, a moral conclusion is derived from a purely factual claim. But factual claims by themselves have no normative implications. The four arguments above all require additional value assumptions in conjunction with the empirical facts to derive the normative consequences:

•    If everyone is doing it, then what they are doing cannot be wrong.

•    All social traditions ought to be preserved.

•    If X is more intelligent than Y, then it is fine for X to eat Y. 

•    Whatever that happens to animals in nature should also happen to humans in society.

•    Once these assumptions are pointed out we can see if they are acceptable. For example, should all social traditions be preserved in a modern society where equality is important? Should geniuses be allowed to eat idiots? It is a mistake to try to derive normative conclusions solely on the basis of descriptive claims. This mistake is known as the naturalistic fallacy. This is not to say that empirical (observed/experimental) facts are irrelevant to morality. It is a fact that alcohol impairs driving, and this is one reason why it is wrong to drive after heavy drinking. So getting the facts right is important for moral reasoning, but we should also be alert to the additional value assumptions needed to derive normative conclusions. 

3.      MORALITY AND GOD

•    Many people think morality is possible only if God exists. According to this line of thought, God is the basis of morality. Without God, there is no difference between right and wrong. "If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

•    One explanation to say that God is the basis of morality is that morality is determined by God's wishes and commands. Murder and adultery are wrong because God says we should not kill or commit adultery. Love, on the other hand, is good because God tells us to love each other. But there is a big problem with this divine command theory of morality. The problem is that it makes morality quite arbitrary (unpredictable). What if God says that murder and adultery are good? According to the divine command theory, in that case, we ought to commit murder and adultery. But surely morality is not so arbitrary. Someone might reply that God would not command us to do these things because he knows that they are wrong. But this implies that God is no longer the basis of morality since it is not completely up to God what he commands us to do. 

•    This is not an argument against the existence of God. Nor is it an argument against the idea that God created the universe and all human beings. It is rather an argument against the view that morality is determined solely by God's commands. Generally, the argument tells us that authority cannot be the basis of morality. Even if there are people or higher beings who display profound power and virtues, ultimately we should use our own critical thinking and judgment to decide whether we should follow their teachings or not. 

4.      MORAL RELATIVISM

•    Moral relativism is a popular view about the nature of morality. It says that moral judgments about right and wrong are never objectively true or false. Instead, actions are right or wrong relative to particular societies, persons, traditions or perspectives. 

•    For example, some people think abortion is wrong, whereas others think it is fine. Who is correct? Moral relativism says there is no objectively correct answer. Abortion is acceptable relative to some perspectives and wrong relative to others. There is no ultimate or universal perspective from which to decide whether abortion is really right or wrong. Here are some arguments people use to support moral relativism: 

•    Moral relativism reflects toleration and open-mindedness. Since there is no single true morality, we should tolerate and respect other people's moral opinions even if they are very different from ours. 

•    Moral relativism is confirmed by the fact that there is a wide diversity of moral beliefs across culture and time. 

•    When people disagree about objective facts we can use scientific experiments and observations to resolve the disagreement. But there is no scientific method for dealing with moral disagreement, and this must be because morality is relative and not objective. 

•    Some moral relativists might say they are only affirming toleration and respect from their own perspective. But the problem is that from other perspectives, intolerance might be desirable or even mandatory, and relativism does not provide a way to engage the other party in a rational discussion. For example, someone might think abortion is wrong relative to his moral theory, and that all violent means are justified to prevent women from having abortions, including the killing of doctors and nurses who participate in the operation. For a moral relativist, such a position is just as valid as thinking that abortion should be protected, and so no reason can be given to stop any such violent campaign against abortion. It is therefore a big mistake to think that moral relativism supports any kind of liberal moral outlook. This does not show that moral relativism is wrong. But it implies that under relativism, any non-liberal or absurd position is just as valid as any other. 

•    As for diversity in moral opinion, it is true that people in the past have held very different views from ours today. People in the past disagreed about whether the Earth is flat or spherical. Even if they could not resolve their disagreement, it does not mean the shape of the Earth is a matter of opinion. Obviously, there is a whole lot more to be said about objectivity and relativism in morality.

5.      MORAL ABSOLUTISM, RELATIVISM, AND CONTEXTUALISM

•    Moral absolutism, relativism, and contextualism are different approaches to understanding moral principles and ethical behaviour.

•    Moral Absolutism: This is the idea that there are objective moral principles that are true regardless of context, culture, or personal beliefs. In other words, moral absolutists believe that certain actions are always right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances. For example, some moral absolutists might argue that killing is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

•    Let’s take an example from the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He was a moral absolutist in regard to telling the truth. He said that lying is always wrong, regardless of the consequences. In the essay "On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives," Kant said we should not lie, even if there is a murderer at the door asking whether the innocent victim he wants to kill is in the house. The moral absolutist might perhaps say we should also call the police or warn the victim, but the bottom line is that we should never lie. 

•    Understandably, many people find Kant's position bizarre, and there are probably very few people who think lying is always wrong. 

•    Many people think that incest (having sexual intercourse with immediate family relation) is always wrong, even if the parties involved genuinely love each other and they are never going to have children. Similarly, many people are moral absolutists in regard to abortion, rape, homosexuality, or sex with animals. 

•    We should realise that one does not have to be a moral relativist to reject moral absolutism. Furthermore, we can consistently be absolutist in regard to one action but not another—for example, rape is never acceptable, and abortion is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not.

•    Moral Relativism: This is the idea that moral principles are relative to the individual or the culture. Moral relativists believe that what is right or wrong depends on the cultural or personal context and that there are no objective moral principles that are universally true. For example, a moral relativist might argue that the morality of killing depends on the cultural context in which it occurs.

•    Moral Contextualism: This is a middle ground between moral absolutism and relativism. Moral contextualists believe that the morality of an action depends on the context in which it occurs. While they do not believe in objective moral principles that are always true, they do believe that certain actions are more or less appropriate depending on the context. For example, a moral contextualist might argue that killing can be morally justifiable in certain circumstances, such as self-defence or in war, but not in others. 

•    Moral contextualism is the claim that what is right or wrong depends on the particular situation in question. For example, a contextualist might refuse to judge whether abortion is right or wrong because she thinks abortion is acceptable in some situations (such as pregnancy due to rape) but not acceptable in other situations (as in pregnancy based on free choice). But this position is not relativism, for it is supposed to be an objective fact that abortion is permissible in cases of rape. A moral relativist will however insist that it is still a relative matter whether abortion is permissible for rape victims. 

•    Contextualism urges us to be cautious in regard to moral claims. Is lying wrong? That depends on the situation. Lying to small children is often of little consequence. Is killing wrong? Not when this is the only way to defend yourself. In thinking about morality, we should take into account special situations. But being cautious does not amount to moral relativism. 

6.      THINGS TO AVOID IN MORAL DISCUSSION

•    A Moral disagreement is widespread and often difficult to resolve. It is crucial that we can debate with other people calmly and rationally to achieve progress and understanding. Here are some unhelpful moves to avoid: 

•    Avoid verbal abuse and name-calling. See how debates on Internet forums quickly escalate into flame wars. Think of constructive ways to get people to see things differently. 

•    Do not be dogmatic. Find reasons to support your viewpoint. Avoid arguments based on religion because other people might not share your belief. Appeal to common ground to resolve differences. Think of solutions that people will regard as fair. 

•    Do not confuse differences in taste with moral disagreement. Actions that are morally wrong can be disgusting, but not all disgusting acts are wrong. Sometimes we find things disgusting only because of differences in taste or culture. Some people like urinating on other people as part of the sex act. This might seem disgusting, but it does not mean it is morally wrong. When we judge something to be wrong, it should be based on a legitimate reason and not simply due to a difference in taste. 

•    Avoid factual errors. Moral arguments often appeal to empirical (based on observation) facts, even if facts are not logically sufficient to establish a moral principle. An important part of moral thinking is to make sure that we get our facts right. First of all, what is the evidence? Second, what if those facts are wrong? How will this affect my moral judgment? For example, many people argue against homosexual couples adopting or having children, claiming that the children will be confused and will suffer from psychological problems. If this is factually correct, it might be an argument against gay adoption. But it turns out that this popular assumption is mistaken. Children raised by gay couples seem just as happy and well-adjusted compared to those who grow up in heterosexual families. 

•    Avoid double standards. It is easier to find fault with other people than to recognise our own mistakes. We often impose high moral standards on others but not on ourselves. Research suggests that power and authority can make people more hypocritical. Avoiding a double standard is important for maintaining objectivity and healthy relationships. Many religious traditions and ethical theories include some version of the Golden Rule—do to others what you would like to be done to you. Following this rule too strictly can of course be problematic.

•    Avoid slippery-slope arguments. Some people like to argue that if something is allowed (or prohibited), it would open a floodgate and more extreme things will also have to be allowed (or prohibited), which is not acceptable. Thus people argue that if homosexual marriage is allowed, then we should also let people marry their pets or their own children. Or sometimes people criticise laws that require drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. These slippery-slope arguments would be convincing only if it were indeed true that one thing inevitably leads to another, but that is often not the case. We might have to draw an arbitrary line at some point, but it does not mean that no line can be drawn.

7.      FOUR TYPES OF MORAL ARGUMENTS

•    Thinking about morality is hard and disagreement is common. So it is important to give reasons for our moral beliefs. Even when disagreements cannot be resolved, we can at least understand each other better. In the following sections, we look at four main types of arguments that can be used to justify a moral belief. 

i)       Arguments based on the moral principle: 

•    The moral principle is a general rule about some aspects of morality, such as when it is morally right (or wrong) to do something—for example, killing innocent people is wrong. An argument based on moral principle typically has two premises—one about the features of a certain action, and another a moral principle about the moral status of those features:

•   Example:
Cheating in exams is unfair and dishonest.
It is wrong to do something that is unfair and dishonest.
It is wrong to cheat in exams.

•    The second premise in the argument is a moral principle that offers a deeper reason for the conclusion. When we use moral principles to justify our opinions, it forces us to reflect on our moral beliefs and helps us discover inconsistencies. However, our beliefs often depend on the complicated details of particular situations. 

•     One famous moral principle is the harm principle, which is about the scope of freedom. It says that people should be free to do whatever they want unless they harm other people.

•    If you drink too much and end up with a headache and feeling sick that is your own business and nobody has the right to stop you. But you should not be allowed to drink and drive because you are likely to cause accidents and harm innocent people, and this violates the harm principle. 

•    But note that harm is different from annoyance. Physical injury, pain, and psychological damage are instances of harm, but merely being annoyed by someone’s dirty fingernails is not. 

ii)     Arguments based on moral arithmetic 

•    Many moral arguments conclude that something should be done because on balance there are more reasons supporting it than against it. For example, you might decide to lie to your friend that you have to work on Saturday and cannot meet her. On one hand, it is not nice to be dishonest to your friend. On the other hand, it is a harmless lie. More important, maybe you have to accompany another friend to the hospital, and you have promised to keep it confidential. 

•    One important and common type of moral arithmetic is consequentialist reasoning. This is a matter of deciding what is right to do based purely upon the projected consequences and in particular picking the choice that maximises the net balance of good consequences or bad consequences. Take water chlorination as an example. Adding chlorine to the water supply will introduce carcinogens and increase the number of people getting cancer. But a lot more people will die or suffer from waterborne diseases if we do not add chlorine. On balance then, water chlorination is the right choice. 

iii)   Arguments based on rights 

•    Rights are central to the legal system and our modern understanding of morality. Some rights are basic and common to all human beings. The UN declaration of human rights says that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Rights are entitlements to do certain things or entitlements against other people that they do certain things. For example, property right over your bicycle means you can use it any way you want, and other people cannot use it or take it away from you without your permission. 

•    Rights serve to protect our interests, and they are often seen as "utility trumps." The idea is that if I have the right to do something, then I should be allowed to do it even if not doing it will bring more social benefits. If I own a Picasso painting and hence have a property right over it, I am entitled to display it in my own home rather than a museum, even though fewer people will enjoy it. Rights, of course, are crucial for the protection of minority interests. 

•    However, most rights have restrictions and are not absolute. You can use your bike any way you want, but it does not give you the right to run it into other people or park it outside the fire station. We all have the right to free speech, but it does not mean we can talk loudly in the cinema.

•    Some people seem to think morality is exhausted by rights. "I am a good person because I have never violated other people's rights." But many philosophers argue that morality goes beyond just the protection of rights. We should not violate other people's rights, but morality also recognises that there are things we ought to do even if we are not morally required to do them. Virtuous actions such as courage, integrity, honesty, fairness, and generosity belong to this category. For example, we are not required to be nice or helpful, and failure to do so need not violate anybody's rights. If an old lady is carrying a heavy bag, it might be argued that I have no duty to help her. Even if I refuse to help, I have not violated her rights. But if nobody is around to help out, it would reflect very badly on my character if I don't. 

iv)    Arguments from analogy 

•    Many moral arguments are based on analogy, where we compare two similar situations and argue that our moral judgment about the first situation should apply equally to the second. For example, many people argue that the illegal download of songs and videos is similar to stealing and so equally wrong. Or consider the analogy that being a prostitute is like being a dancer or a yoga teacher, using one's body to make other people happy and getting paid in return. Since there is nothing wrong with being a dancer or a yoga teacher, being a prostitute is also acceptable. 

END OF THE PART