Ethics

Today in English class we were shown a list of "moral developments" that seemed to progress linearly - how people determine what is moral when they are 5, and how they determine this when they are 40. At lunch, my friend said, "I think it is silly to say there are developments of morality". I replied, "No, they were not developments of morality, but developments how we DETERMINE what is moral. You cannot develop morality because there IS only one true answer to what is moral and what isn't. The list was just showing how people differ in the way they DETERMINE whether something is moral or not." My friend replied that there is NOT only one true answer to what is moral and what is not - that everyone has "his/her own" set of moral values, and there is not any set that is more correct than another, that I was just biased for thinking so. (In other words, she claims that although murder might seem immoral to me, this does not mean that is IS immoral, only that is is immoral by my moral standards. Nothing IS or ISN'T immoral- it's all opinion, according to her). Do ethicists think about whether or not there is one true set of moral values, or whether it is all a personal opinion? What is the accepted view (if any)? --A 15-year-old

Comments

You and your friend have articulated extremely well a philosophical problem that's been debated for thousands of years. Some of my favorite ancient places to think about the question are Plato's Republic and Gorgias and Cicero's De Finibus. I'm afraid I must tell you, however, that the matter really isn't settled--though I do think we're a bit more sophisticated today in working through the alternatives. Some philosophers think there is an objective truth to morality--that morals is somehow grounded in elements of the world independent of our subjective feelings. There are various candidates for this kind of grounding--the divine, nature, language, even the idea that 'goodness' is an objective property of conduct. Others think that the essential element, or at least a necessary condition, of morality is subjective.

A couple of things you might consider of the debate you're having with your friend: First, the idea that morality is grounded in something subjective, entirely or just in part, doesn't mean that morality is entirely personal or individual. Many of our feelings and emotional responses are shared naturally and are cultivated in shared ways by our societies. You're unlikely, for example, to find people who find butchering their child humerous, no matter what culture you're dealing with.

Secondly, consider the ways that the following ideas are matters of social choice, but not exactly arbitrary: (a) one ought to keep a promise; (b) chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream; (c) wars of conquest are wrong; (d) Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky; (e) the Kentucky Derby occurs on the first Saturday of May; (f) it is good to exercise and eat a healthy diet; (g) it is good to give to charity; (h) you aren't allowed to move the rook diagonally; or (i) making innocent people suffer is wrong. Note how, for example, the institution of 'promising' is an invention, just as chess is an invention; but once one has engaged the game and made a promise, an objective obligation exists. What makes one healthy, increases or sustains one's being, is more or less objectively grounded in the facts of biology, too. But notice that whether or not honoring obligations or staying alive or causing suffering matters depends upon our capacity to feel things and sympathize with others. But that requirement of subjective feeling doesn't make moral judgments quite like judgments about ice cream. (For my own part, I'm inclined to think that morality includes both objective and subjective elements; and while the facts of nature, language, and history constrain the possibilities of morality, I don't see any reason to think there's only one. In a similar way, while the facts of clay and concept of 'flower pot' constrain what clay flower pots can and can't be made, not anything can count as a clay flower pot.)

Third, if you're going to maintain that there is just one morality and that moral truths are objective truths, you're going to have to justify your claims. Why do you think there's just one morality, and why do you think that morality is different from our opinions about it?

Read another response by Peter S. Fosl

Read another response about Ethics