Consider ethics 3rd edition pdf

Pearson New International Edition

International_PCL_TP.indd 1 7/29/13 11:23 AM

Consider Ethics Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues

Bruce N. Waller Third Edition

Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world

Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk

© Pearson Education Limited 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affi liation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.

ISBN 10: 1-269-37450-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-269-37450-7

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright_Pg_7_24.indd 1 7/29/13 11:28 AM

ISBN 10: 1-292-02742-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02742-5

ISBN 10: 1-292-02742-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02742-5

Table of Contents

P E A R S O N C U S T O M L I B R A R Y

I

1. Thinking About Ethics

1

1Bruce N. Waller

2. Egoism and Relativism

20

20Bruce N. Waller

3. Ethics, Emotions, and Intuitions

40

40Bruce N. Waller

4. Ethics and Reason

72

72Bruce N. Waller

5. Utilitarian Ethics

87

87Bruce N. Waller

6. Pluralism and Pragmatism

108

108Bruce N. Waller

7. Social Contract Ethics

134

134Bruce N. Waller

8. Virtue Ethics

153

153Bruce N. Waller

9. Care Ethics

169

169Bruce N. Waller

10. Ethical Nonobjectivism

186

186Bruce N. Waller

11. Moral Realism

200

200Bruce N. Waller

12. The Scope of Morality

211

211Bruce N. Waller

13. Free Will

230

230Bruce N. Waller

II

14. Freedom, Moral Responsibility, and Ethics

256

256Bruce N. Waller

15. The Death Penalty

275

275Bruce N. Waller

16. Abortion

291

291Bruce N. Waller

17. Should the Police Use Deceit in Interrogations?

303

303Bruce N. Waller

18. Homosexual Sex

320

320Bruce N. Waller

19. Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?

334

334Bruce N. Waller

20. Should Performance-Enhancing Drugs Be Banned from Athletics?

346

346Bruce N. Waller

363

363Index

Thinking About Ethics

ETHICS AND CRITICAL THINKING This is an invitation to think carefully about the nature of ethics and ethical inquiry. You’ve no doubt already thought carefully about a good many ethical issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, environmental ethics, academic honesty, and animal rights. We’ll be looking at some of those issues, and others besides. But we’ll also do something that’s not quite so common—we’ll be thinking about the nature of ethics itself: how do we have knowledge of ethical principles? Is knowledge of ethics similar to knowledge of physics? Can we have knowledge of ethical principles? Are ethical principles fixed or changing? Are they absolute or circum- stantial? These are sometimes called metaethical questions, that is, questions about the nature and concepts of ethics. Thinking carefully about those questions may help in thinking more carefully about such issues as economic justice, abortion, and treatment of animals. In any case, it may help us gain a clearer perspective.

Thinking carefully about ethics involves, rather obviously, thinking carefully. So it will be useful to start with some consideration of how to think carefully, critically, and effectively, and how to avoid some common errors. Some people maintain that ethics is not based on reasoning, but is instead built on emo- tions and feelings, or on intuitions. In fact, some maintain that ethics is not a matter of finding truth at all: there are no objectively true ethical principles, and thus there are no true ethical principles to be discovered through reasoning (nor by any other means). Those are interesting positions, and you may ultimately conclude that ethics is not based on reasoning. But even if that is your conclusion, it is still useful to start with some considerations about critical thinking, since in order to reach such a conclusion you will have to use careful reasoning. We will examine several readings by people who argue against reason-based ethics, as well as several readings arguing that reason is the foundation of ethics. Regardless, all of them give arguments for their views, and those arguments must be critically examined.

What’s the Question? Perhaps the first and most crucial step in critical thinking is the most obvious, but also the most neg- lected: be clear on exactly what is at issue. That is, when examining an argument, think first about precisely what the argument is supposed to be proving; get clear on the conclusion of the argument. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was the most vicious crime I have ever come across in all my years as dis- trict attorney. It was cruel, callous, heartless, and brutal,” the district attorney insists in her argument to the jury. Is the district attorney’s argument relevant?

That depends. It depends on what conclusion she is arguing for. Suppose she is arguing that the defendant is guilty of a brutal murder, but the question at issue is whether the defendant is the guilty party (the defense

From Chapter 1 of Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, Third Edition. Bruce N. Waller. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc. Published by Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved.

Thinking About Ethics

claims this is a case of mistaken identity). In that case, the district attorney’s argument is irrelevant to that conclusion. Everyone agrees the crime was awful; the question is whether the defendant did it. (Incidentally, relevance is not determined by whether the claim is true or false, but by whether it matters if the claim is true or false. It may be true that the crime was brutal, but it remains irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt. And on the other hand, a false claim may be relevant: if an unreliable eyewitness falsely claims to have seen the defendant commit the murder, that claim will certainly be relevant to the question of whether the defendant is guilty. It’s relevant because if it were true, it would be strong proof of the defendant’s guilt: it’s relevant because it matters whether it is true or false). Suppose now that the defendant has already been found guilty, and since this is a capital case the trial has moved on to the sentencing phase. In that case, exactly the same argument (“this was a brutal and heartless crime”) will be relevant to the question of whether the person who did the crime should receive the death penalty. Of course the argument may be relevant without being completely convincing; the jury might decide that the crime was indeed brutal, but other mitigating factors (such as the age of the defen- dant) count more heavily against capital punishment.

When an arguer uses an irrelevant point in support of a conclusion, we say that the arguer has committed the fallacy (or argument error) of irrelevant reason. It is sometimes called the red herring fallacy. When fox hunters would send the hounds out to chase a fox, and then ride their horses across the fields in pursuit of the fox and hounds, they would eventually tire of the “sport,” and wish to go back to the lodge for tea and scones. But the dogs would still be chasing the fox, and thus be difficult to col- lar. So the handler of the dogs would drag a bag of oily cooked herring (herring turns red and becomes very oily when cooked) across the trail of the fox. When the dogs ran into the smelly oil from the red herring, they would lose the scent of the fox, mill around aimlessly, and thus be easy to catch. So that’s where we get the name for the “red herring fallacy”: the fallacy “drags a red herring,” drags a distraction, across the trail of the argument, and thus takes listeners off the track. We get so worked up about the red herring of what a brutal murder it was, we forget that the real issue is whether the defendant is guilty.

Red herrings are a common argument trick. When the Bush administration was arguing for an attack on Iraq, they spent a lot of time talking about the importance of fighting terrorism. Of course every- one is legitimately concerned about terrorism, but the real question was not whether we should fight ter- rorism, but whether Iraq was engaged in terrorism. By dragging the terrorism red herring across the trail of the argument, it was easy to distract people from the more difficult issue, for which proof was very thin: the question of whether Iraq was supporting terrorist activities or providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

So the first step in evaluating arguments is to be clear on exactly what’s at issue, exactly what the conclusion is. If I’m the defendant in a burglary trial, the prosecutor must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But my defense attorney does not have to prove that I didn’t do it; instead, he only needs to show that there is a reasonable doubt of my guilt. If you evaluate the defense attorney’s arguments as if they were designed to prove innocence, then you will evaluate them badly.

Ad Hominem Fallacy There are many argument fallacies in addition to the red herring fallacy, but one of the most important in the study of ethics is the ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem argument is an argument “to the per- son”; that is, an ad hominem argument is an attack on the person. And an ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the source of an argument. If someone gives an argument, we must evaluate the argument on its own merits, not on the merits of the person giving the argument. Suppose you come into your ethics classroom and discover an argument written on the blackboard, say, an argument against the death penalty. In order to evaluate that argument, you don’t need to know anything at all about who wrote the argument on the board. Suppose you read the argument and decide it is a strong and convincing argument, and then you find it was written by Bill Clinton, the politician you most despise. That would not change the argument. Then you learn that a mistake had been made, and the argument was written by Mother Teresa, one of your moral heroes. That does not change one word of the argument. So if you are evaluating arguments, the source of the argument is irrelevant. And if you attack the source of the argument in order to discredit the argument, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy.

2

It is especially important to keep that in mind when discussing ethics, because ethics discussions can get intensely personal and downright hostile. If you don’t believe me, have a nice discussion of the abortion question with someone who holds a view diametrically opposed to your own. Such “discussions” often gen- erate more heat than light, and one reason is because they often degenerate into ad hominem abuse: the pro-choice advocate is branded a “baby killer,” and the pro-life side is called a “neanderthal.” Difficult as it may be to discuss such issues without sliding into fallacious ad hominem arguments, it is essential if there is to be serious ethical inquiry. One way to avoid such abusive arguments is to keep in mind that the character of the arguer is irrelevant to the quality of the argument. When arguing about ethics—or anything else— you can attack arguments as vigorously as you wish, but attacking arguers is fallacious. To see why, consider this example. Spring break is approaching, and at the end of class I give you an argument for why you should not drink and drive: drinking and driving can be easily avoided if you plan in advance, it places others at unfair risk, and the negative consequences for you—if you are in an accident, or get arrested—can be very severe, certainly out of all proportion to any benefits you might derive from drinking and driving. Is that a good argument against drinking and driving? Not a very original one, but it does give some legitimate rea- sons to avoid drinking and driving. Now suppose later this evening you see me stagger out of the tavern, fumble around for my keys, finally get my car started, and weave away down the street, taking out three side-view mirrors and one fender in the process. If you now say, “Well, there goes Bruce, totally plastered, driving merrily away. And just this afternoon he was arguing against drinking and driving. Any argument that sleazy hypocrite makes against drinking and driving must be pure rubbish.” That would be an ad hominem fallacy. True enough, I’m a sleazy hypocrite who argues for one thing and then does another. But that does not change my argument. It’s still the same argument, whether I’m a sleazy hypocrite or a paragon of virtue. Suppose you learn that it was my evil twin brother you saw coming out of the tavern and driving away. Would that suddenly rehabilitate my argument? Of course not. It’s the very same argument, and it must stand or fall on its own merits, and it doesn’t matter whether the arguer is drunk or sober, hypocritical or sincere, vicious or virtuous.

Ad hominem attacks on arguers commit the ad hominem fallacy. But not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Some may be perfectly legitimate. Think back to the O.J. Simpson trial. One of the key wit- nesses for the prosecution was police officer Mark Fuhrman (he was the first officer to arrive at the Simpson residence, and he found the famous glove—the one that didn’t fit when Simpson tried it on). He testified under oath that he never used racial slurs, and that he held no prejudice against blacks. But he lied. It turned out that the man could hardly open his mouth without spewing out racial hatred (he once said that he would like to round up all African Americans and burn them), and he particularly despised interracial couples (like O.J. and Nicole) and often harassed them. This key prosecution witness was a lying, vicious racist. The defense made an ad hominem attack on Mark Fuhrman, but it was perfectly legitimate. Mark Fuhrman was giving testimony, not argument, and in order to evaluate his testimony you need to know if he is truthful, unbiased, and objective—or that he is not. If Mark Fuhrman were giving argument instead of tes- timony, then his vile character would be irrelevant: you would have to hold your nose and evaluate his arguments on their own merits. If I give testimony that I have seen extraterrestrials (“Take my word for it, I saw them with my own eyes, they’re here”), then you need to know about my drinking habits, my history of drug use, my mental stability, and my reputation for integrity. But if I give an argument for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (“Think of the billions and billions of stars in our galaxy, and all their planets and moons, and how many opportunities there would be for life to develop in other solar systems”), then my character, habits, and mental state are irrelevant to the quality of my argument. So when you are arguing about ethics, you can attack one another’s arguments with all the energy and ingenuity you can muster, but to avoid committing the ad hominem fallacy you must resist attacking the arguer.

The Principle of Charity and the Strawman Fallacy One other principle of critical thinking is especially important in thinking critically about ethics: the principle of charity. That is simply the principle of being charitable or generous toward the positions and arguments we oppose. In other words, you should interpret opposing views and arguments as generously, fairly, and honestly as you can. That doesn’t mean you can’t attack opposing views; by all means, subject them to the closest scrutiny and the fiercest criticism—and be willing to have your own views subjected to

Thinking About Ethics

3

Thinking About Ethics

the same criticism. After all, that’s one of the best ways of separating the wheat from the chaff when we examine ethical issues. But resist the temptation to score cheap points and win false victories by misrepre- senting opposing views. When someone distorts or misrepresents a position in order to make it easier to attack, that is called the strawman fallacy. It’s easier to knock down a strawman than a real man, and it’s easier to defeat a distorted version of a position than the real thing. In both cases, it’s not much of a vic- tory. Following the principle of charity—always represent opposing views in their strongest and most plausible form—is the best way of avoiding strawman fallacies, and it is also essential if you are to have any chance of convincing your opponents that your own view is more plausible. If you attack and defeat a dis- torted and inaccurate representation of my position, I am not likely to be convinced that your arguments are effective.

Strawman fallacies are depressingly common in ethical debate. Think again of the abortion contro- versy. If I am pro-life, I may accuse my opponents of believing that it is morally acceptable to kill infants up to age one. In fact, there are a few people who do hold that view. But obviously that is not the view of most pro-choice advocates, who favor elective abortion but vigorously oppose infanticide. If I represent my opponents as favoring infanticide of one-year-old children, then I am attacking a strawman. I may win that argument against the strawman position, but I’m not likely to convince those pro-choicers whose views I have misrepresented. Likewise, suppose I am pro-choice. I then accuse my pro-life opponents of wanting to outlaw not only abortion but also all forms of artificial contraception—there would be no birth control pills or condoms. Again, some of the opponents of legal abortion do take that view, but it is an extreme view, and certainly not the view of most persons who are pro-life. It is a much easier position to attack, and so I may easily defeat this strawman version of the pro-life position, but again, such a strawman “victory” is not likely to convince many people.

Consistency One last point concerning thinking critically about ethics. A key question in examining ethical views is whether they are internally consistent, and whether they are consistent with our other beliefs. Suppose I oppose elective abortion but support the death penalty, and you accuse me of being inconsistent in my principles. I will respond that my views are not inconsistent: I oppose abortion because it is the taking of an innocent life, but those who are executed are not innocent. Or suppose the argument goes the other way: I oppose capital punishment, but support the right to elective abortions, and you accuse me of inconsis- tency. I will respond that abortion kills a fetus, but a fetus is not a full person; capital punishment is carried out against persons. Or I might say that in the case of the fetus, the mother’s right to control of her own body takes precedence; in contrast, when an imprisoned person is executed there is no question of interfer- ence with a woman’s control of her own body.

Those may or may not be adequate answers to the charge of inconsistency; that will be a much debated question. However, I cannot simply accept inconsistencies in my ethical views. That is, I can- not legitimately say: Okay, so I have views that are in conflict and beliefs that contradict each other; so what? I can’t legitimately make that response, because allowing contradictions within my views makes it possible to prove anything, and thus makes careful reasoning impossible. Think about it for a moment. Suppose that you allow me both of these contradictory premises: “The sky is blue,” and “The sky is not blue.” Then I can “prove” anything at all. What follows from “The sky is blue”? Well, it follows that either the sky is blue or anything you like. (It’s true that I am a human; therefore, it is also true that either I am a human or I am the richest person on Earth, and it is also true that either I am a human or Oprah Winfrey is an extraterrestrial, and it is also true that I am a human or there is no corn in Iowa.) So it follows that the sky is blue or genocide is good. But remember, we also have the contradictory premise: The sky is not blue. So let’s put them together: Either the sky is blue or genocide is good, and the sky is not blue. (That’s like saying “Either Brendan is in the library or he’s at the tavern, and he’s not at the library.”) It follows that genocide is good. We could use the same reasoning to “prove” that Miami is in Maine, or that the Pacific Ocean does not exist, or anything else. If you allow a contradic- tion, then you can “prove” anything. And that makes accurate reasoning impossible. If your views con- tain contradictions, you have to deal with those contradictions (either by rejecting one of the conflicting views or by finding a way to reconcile them); you can’t just let them fester.

4

There is a well-known saying by American transcendentalist philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” People sometimes use that slogan to defend sloppy think- ing: to defend thinking that includes contradictions and does not insist on consistency. But that’s not what Emerson meant. Emerson knew the danger of internal contradictions. What he meant was simply that it is alright for your ideas and beliefs to change. Beliefs that you now hold don’t have to be held forever; it’s okay to change your mind. Maybe some of your beliefs, perhaps even some of your ethical beliefs, cannot survive careful scrutiny. If so, perhaps you should discard them and replace them with new ones. As Emerson suggested, it’s nice to keep an open mind. But it shouldn’t be so open that it allows internal contradictions.