Tutorial #9. Moral Particularism. Discussion Questions

After having read Jennifer Flynn (2010). "Recent Work: Moral Particularism." Analysis 70 (1), try to think about these questions.

• Are there rules that may never be permissibly broken?
• Are there any useful moral rules?
• Are there any morally relevant pattern of features in the world?
• Can we say in advance, without taking into consideration the whole context, whether a certain feature in a situation is morally relevant? Think of whether the fact that an action makes others happy is always a reason to do it.
• Should morality be understood in terms of rules, principles and theory?
• Is holism in the theory of reasons true, and would its truth support “particularism”?
• What is a moral generalization? Give some examples
• Do moral reasons vary with context?
• Do some features of the world have a default moral relevance? For example, in the absence of appropriate justification is "killing" always wrong?
• If there are no moral rules, how can we know what we ought to do in particular situations?
• Do we acquire moral knowledge as if we were moral particularists

Tutorial # 9. Moral Principles and Moral Particularism. In a Nutshell

+ The (alleged) role of principles and rules in moral thought and judgement.

- Criteria of right and wrong actions that can be applied to any case and allow us to derive particular moral judgements that tell us what we ought to do in any given situation.
- Systematize morality.
- Justify and explain our particular moral judgements.
- Standards of moral evaluation and decision-making.
- Make our behaviour more predictable.
- Help us to perceive morally relevant features in a situation.
- Necessary in moral development and education.

+ Moral particularists have a negative attitude towards principles.

They defend some or all of the following claims:
- There are no or at most very few (true or defensible) moral principles.
- Moral principles are not necessary for moral reasoning.
- Moral principles are not even useful in moral reasoning.


From Dancy (2004: 7). Ethics Without Principles

"Generalism:
The very possibility of moral thought and judgement depends on the provision of a suitable supply of moral principles.

Particularism:
The possibility of moral thought and judgement does not depend on the provision of a suitable supply of moral principles."

From Jennifer Flynn (2010). "Recent Work: Moral Particularism." Analysis 70 (1).

"Two sorts of claims [for particularism]: one relates to moral principles, the other to moral reasons. Particularism as an overall position generally involves commitments about both sorts of claims: moral principles do not exist (or are unnecessary), and moral reasons function holistically."

"The holism of reasons maintains that ‘a feature that is a reason in one case may be no reason at all, or an opposite reason, in another’ (Dancy 2004: 7). Put slightly differently, the idea is that a reason can make an action right under one set of circumstances without always making an action right in all circumstances."

Tutorial #8. Virtue Ethics. Discussion Questions

After having read R. Hursthouse, (1996) ‘Normative Virtue Ethics’, in Crisp (ed.) How Should One Live (reprinted in Ethical Theory), think about the following questions.

• The question virtue ethics try to answer is: "How should I live?". The answer is: "Flourish by cultivating your virtues!". But what is a virtue? Is it a feature of our character? Is it a disposition to act in a certain way in determinate situations? Is it something different?
• How do we know what virtues we have or can hope to have?
• How can one cultivate \ educate his or her virtues?
• Can Virtue Ethics give a noncircular account of right action?
• What is the relation between virtues and emotions? Can we educate our emotions? How can we get our emotions in harmony with our rational recognition of certain reasons for acting so and so in a given situation?
• Can we motivate that certain behaviour and emotions are appropriate in a certain context rather than in others?
• What is the role of the environment in one's attempt to "flourish"? How much do your circumstances (e.g. where you live, your family, your friends, your education, the time when you live etc) affect the posibility of your "flourishing"?
• Do virtues change over time and across cultures? If so, would this undermine virtue ethics? Can we identify universal virtues?
• Being willing to have lots of sexual partners may be regarded as a virtue (e.g. an example of openness) but also as a vice (say, lust) at the same time. Is there a principled way to argue that a certain character is intrinsically virtuous (or vicious)? Are we condemned to “relativism”?
• Benevolence, Courage, Chastity, Wisdom, Honesty can be considered as examples of virtues. Drunkenness, Caprice, Egoism, Laziness, Lust, Stupidity, Dishonesty as examples of vices. For which reasons are they considered virtues and vices? Is there any particular virtue indispensable for the pursuit of happiness?
• Consider Mandeville's poem. Is vice necessary for a wealthy, and happy society?
• Do virtues presuppose a certain moral view?

A good introduction to Virtue Ethics is Virtue Theory by Gregory Pence, Originally published in Peter Singer, A Companion to Ethics (Blackwell Publishing, 1991).

Tutorial #8. Virtue Ethics. Virtue and Vices

From http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_oct2003.htm

By Alex Voorhoeve

"Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) was a doctor and pamphleteer, whose works had a large impact on the course of eighteenth century social philosophy. Mandeville was born and educated in the Dutch Republic. After being implicated in a popular uprising in his native city of Rotterdam, he travelled Europe and settled in London.

Mandeville started a practice as a doctor and soon began to write. In 1705, he published a poem, The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves Turn'd Honest. It tells of a wealthy and powerful beehive whose inhabitants act only in pursuit of gain and esteem. Nevertheless, they espouse an ethic that condemns this behaviour and frequently lament that their society is full of sin. Irritated by their constant complaining, their god decides to make them all virtuous. In a flash, their society comes to a stop: commerce and industry are abandoned, and the bees leave their once flourishing hive and withdraw to live simply in the hollow of a tree. The moral is that virtue can only lead to a poor, ascetic society, whereas the vices are the necessary engines of a wealthy and powerful nation"

Here is the Moral of the poem

by Bernard de Mandeville (1670 – 1733)

The M O R A L.
THEN leave Complaints: Fools only striveTo make a Great an honest Hive. [410]T'enjoy the World's Conveniencies,Be famed in War, yet live in EaseWithout great Vices, is a vainEutopia seated in the Brain.Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live; [415]Whilst we the Benefits receive.Hunger's a dreadful Plague no doubt,Yet who digests or thrives without?Do we not owe the Growth of WineTo the dry, crooked, shabby Vine? [420]Which, whist its shutes neglected stood,Choak'd other Plants, and ran to Wood;But blest us with his Noble Fruit;As soon as it was tied, and cut:So Vice is beneficial found, [425]When it's by Justice lopt and bound;Nay, where the People would be great,As necessary to the State,At Hunger is to make 'em eat.Bare Vertue can't make Nations live [430]In Splendour; they, that would reviveA Golden Age, must be as free,For Acorns, as for Honesty.

If you are curious, you can find all the poem HERE

Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. Discussion Questions

In light of the Introduction to Part X Contractarianism in Shafer-Landau R. ed., 2007 Ethical Theory: an anthology, and after having read "The Stag Hunt" by Brian Skyrms, think about the following questions.

• Where do norms come from?
• How should we study the origin and justification of citizens' duty to obey the law? Should we look at anthropology, history, sociology, etc?
  
• What does generate a duty to obey the law?
• What's the nature of the agreement envisaged by contractarianists? Does it need to be real, explicit and formalised? Consider Hobbes's state of nature and Rawls's original position.
• How should we characterize the contracting parties (ie the people who are about to agree on a "social contract")? Should they be smart? omniscient? emotional?
  
• How should we conceive of their conditions of choice? Are deliberations sensitive to time? Is there any external pressure? Should debate be allowed? Are all parties in the same position?
  
• What should the subject matter of the negotiations be? Should all aspects of social interaction be discussed? What kind of rules (particular or very abstract) should be fixed?
  
• Do you find it reasonable that you renounce in part to your liberty to be protected from murder, stealing and cheating?
• Why don't people generally free-ride (ie break some rule to reap a windfall) in our society?
• Do we have good reason to do something only if doing it will serve our self-interest?
• In which sense the Stag Hunt is the 'prototype of the social contract'?
• What are the differences\similarities between the prisoners' dilemma and the stag hunt?
  
• What is an "equilibrium"? Take a look at the game theoretic definition of the stag hunt.
  
• Are evolutionary game theoretic explanations of social phenomena irrelevant to understand the nature and dynamics of morality? Think about the kind of explanation of the social contract given by Skyrms.

Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. The Stag Hunt

Many authors focus on the prisoner's dilemma as the game that best represents the problem of social cooperation.
Some authors believe that the the prison's dilemma is the wrong game to understand social cooperation.

The prototype of the social contract is instead the stag hunt.

The Stag Hunt
Rousseau, in A Discourse on Inequality:

"If it was a matter of hunting a deer, everyone well realized that he must remain faithful to his post; but if a hare happened to pass within reach of one of them, we cannot doubt that he would have gone off in pursuit of it without scruple..."


For a formalization in game theory of the stag hunt check HERE

Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. Few Definitions

Fig. from Principiacomica

See also Contractarianism by Ann Cudd (SEP)

Contract theory places the foundation of morality in an agreement struck and kept by all moral agents. As with consequentialist and deontological theories, there are many variants of the theory.

Contract Theory –
The family of moral and political theories concerned with contract or agreement.

Contractarianism - (Hobbes, Gauthier).
Morality concerned with constraints in the face of rational pursuit of self-interest.

Contractualism – (Rawls, Scanlon).
Morality concerned with understanding and respecting others as rational beings who can justify their actions