MODULE 2 -MORAL REASONING AND SKEPTICISM IN MORALITY

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

 support moral judgements with sufficient reason.

 determine the minimum conception of morality.
 articulate on the morality based on cultural relativism.
 compare and contrast Psychological and Ethical Egoism. 
 articulate Psychological and Ethical Egoism based on Ayn Rand's view.

KEY CONCEPTS
At the final point of clarification, it might be helpful to distinguish a situation that
calls for moral valuation. It can be called moral issue. Supposing, a person cannot
afford to buy a certain item and he resort to stealing. This is a matter of ethics and
not just law insofar as it involves a question of respect to one's property. We
should add that issue is also often used to refer to those particular situations that
are often the source considerable and inconclusive debate, thus we often hear
topics like capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issues.

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, he is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I chose not to take
something I did not pay for, when a person is an observer, who makes an
assessment of the action or behavior of someone, she is making a moral
judgment. If a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store and I made an
assessment that it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad,
and considering instead the more complicated situation, wherein one is torn
between the lesser of two evil, this is referred to as moral dilemma. We
experience moral dilemma when an individual can choose one from a number of
possible action and there are compelling ethical reasons for various choices.

Reason and Impartiality. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and
second, morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.
Moral Reasoning. When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume
that we just know what the truth is, without even having to consider arguments
on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the by-products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much
as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do
is always the thing best supported by the arguments. Of course, not every reason
that may be advanced is a good reason. There are bad arguments as well as good
ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning the difference.

2. THE MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY

The minimum conception of morality states that:

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is,
to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by one’s action.

This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The

conscientious moral agent is someone:

 who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by

what he or she does;
 who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications;
 who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure
they are justified;
 who will “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions;
and
 who, finally, is willing to act on these deliberation.

As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this “minimum.” This
picture of the conscientious moral agent has been disputed in various ways.
However, theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most
moral theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or another.
Rachels states that if we want to discover the truth about some moral problem,
we must let our feelings be guided by reason. This means that the morally right
thing to do is always the thing best supported by the argument. The other option
is to let our moral judgments be guided by feelings. However, our feelings may be
irrational - "the products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning".

By examining the argument we can think about our initial emotional reactions and
whether they need to be modified. Rachels states that moral theory must include
the idea of impartiality - the idea that "each individual's interests are equally
important; no one should get special treatment" This requirement prevents us
from treating people arbitrarily, if we are going to treat people differently we
must have a good reason for doing so.

3. CULTURAL RELATIVISM

It is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood
based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of
another. To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to
yours, we can use the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to
not judging a culture to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or
normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural practices of other groups in
its own cultural context.

For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting!” one should
instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried
crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca
regional cuisine and have been eaten as a healthy food source.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes

The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The
Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded
the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.

The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their
customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than
one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the
night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a dominant male
might demand—and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives.

The women were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their
husbands and taking up with new partners—free, that is, so long as their former
husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of
marriage was a volatile practice that bore little resemblance to our custom

Cultural Relativism
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there are no
universal moral truths, the customs of different societies are all that exist.

Basic principle
Different societies have different moral codes.
 The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;
that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then
that action is right, at least within that society.
 There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code
as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people
at all times.
 The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
 It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant
of them.

The Cultural Differences Argument

Different cultures have different moral codes, therefore, there is no objective
truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary
from culture to culture.
 The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians
believed it was right to eat the dead.
 Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to
culture.
 The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans
believe infanticide is immoral.
Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

What Follows from Cultural Relativism

 We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own.
 We could no longer criticize the code of our own society.
 The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems

Cultural Relativism starts by observing that cultures differ dramatically in their
views of right and wrong. But how much do they really differ? We cannot
conclude that two societies differ in value just because they differ in custom.

Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures

 Any culture that continues to exist must care for its young.
 Every society must value truthfulness.
 The prohibition against murder, then, is a necessary feature of society.
 There are some moral rules that all societies must embrace, because those
rules are necessary for society to exist.

Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable

In 1996, a 17-year-old named Fauziya Kassindja arrived at Newark International
Airport in New Jersey and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of
Togo, in West Africa, to escape what people there call “excision.” Excision simply
refers to permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes called “female
circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision. In the Western
media, it is often referred to as “female genital mutilation.”

KEY POINTS TO CULTURAL RELATIVISM

“Different cultures have different moral codes” so, there are no universal moral
truths; the customs of societies are all that exist. The following claims have all
been made by cultural relativists:

 Different societies have different moral codes; that is, if a certain action is
right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
  There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code
as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people
at all times.
 The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always
be tolerant of them.
 The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;
that is, if the moral code of a society says it is.

Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right
in one society but be morally wrong in another.

For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that
can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards
against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism
is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for
reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the
moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles
underlying these practices do not.

For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain
age was a common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off
in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While
such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these
societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents.
Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but
agree on the principles.

Criticisms of Ethical Relativism. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism

because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert
that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then
it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to deviate from
those norms is to act immorally.

This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist
practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally
right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral
reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society
may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety
of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to
abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?

Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who
assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and
beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural
differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these
practices and beliefs are morally wrong.

4. ETHICAL EGOISM

What is Egoism? In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should
be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. People are motivated by
their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The
term “egoism” is derived from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English.

People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what do or should they act—for
themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only
according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests? Conversely,
can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own
interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will.

Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own
interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest
instead: to what extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared
to self-regarding acts?
ALTRUISM OR EGOISM?
Altruism is when we act to promote someone else’s welfare, even at a risk or cost
to ourselves. Being moved by the plight of others—even the suffering of animals
(or sentient beings to use Buddhist terminology) as in the aforementioned legend
of Lincoln and the piglets—is considered a selfish deed of the theory of
psychological egoism.

Egoism has its roots in the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–
270 BCE,) who argued that the human mind is driven by the need to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain. Egoism contends that deep down all our actions are
motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest.

For example, if Tom saves Mark from drowning in a river, egoism contends that
Tom’s seemingly altruistic behavior is actually motivated by his own self-interest
to avoid potential social censure for not helping Mark or to be regarded a hero
within his social circle.

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

One day, to your astonishment, you are arrested and charged with treason. The
police says that you have been plotting ever since against the government
with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and is being held in a
separate cell.

The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you
don’t even know Smith. But this does you no good. It soon becomes clear that
your captors are not interested in the truth; they merely want to convict
someone. They offer you the following deal:

THE DEAL:
If Smith does not confess, but you confess and testify against him, then they will
release you. You will go free, while Smith will be put away for 10 years.

If Smith confesses and you do not, the situation will be reversed—he will go free
while you get 10 years.

If you both confess, you will each be sentenced to 5 years.

A prisoner’s dilemma is a decision-making thing illustrating that two rational
individuals making decisions in their own self-interest. It may be expressed as an
approach where individual parties seek their welfare at the expense of the other
party.

Morality is said to be the solution to prisoner’s-dilemma-type problems. How

does morality solve these kinds of problem?

You could pursue your own interests exclusively—in every situation, you
could do whatever will benefit yourself, taking no notice of anyone else. Let us
call this “acting selfishly.”

Alternatively, you could care about others, balancing their interests against
your own, and sometimes forgoing your own interests for their sake. Let us call
this strategy “acting benevolently.” This is where altruism comes in.

If neither of you confesses, then there won’t be enough evidence to convict either
of you. They can hold you for a year, but then they will have to let both of you go.

Finally, you are told that Smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot
communicate with him, and you have no way of knowing what he will do. What
will you do?

The Fable of Abraham Lincoln and the Pigs

Once, Lincoln was traveling in a mud-wagon coach along a swampy, rural area. His
fellow passenger was his good friend and US Senator Edward Dickenson Baker,
who later lost his life in the Battle of Ball’s Bluff at the onset of the American
War.

While they were conversing in the mud-wagon coach, Lincoln remarked to Baker
that in doing good and evil, all people are motivated by selfishness. Just as Baker
challenged Lincoln’s assertion, their coach crossed a rickety bridge over a slough
(a large swampy marsh.) Abruptly, Lincoln and Baker glimpsed a mother pig
making a terrible squeal because her piglets were stuck in the swamp, couldn’t
get out, and were in danger of drowning.
As their coach started to head away, Lincoln yelled, “Driver, can’t you stop just a
moment?” The driver replied, “If the other fellow don’t object.” With Baker’s
approval, Lincoln jumped out of the wagon, ran to the slough, lifted the piglets
one by one out of the swamp, and carried them to the dry bank of the swamp.

When Lincoln returned to the coach, Baker remarked, “Now, Abe, where does
selfishness come in this little episode?” Lincoln replied, “Why, bless your soul, Ed,
that was the very essence of selfishness. I would have had no peace of mind all
day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it
to get peace of mind, don’t you see?”

THE PHLOSOPHY OF SELFISHNESS

“Selfishness — a virtue”? Ayn Rand chose this book’s provocative title because
she was on a mission to overcome centuries of demonization. In popular usage,
Rand writes, “the word ‘selfishness’ is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is
of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own
ends . . . and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any
immediate moment.

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is:
concern with one’s own interests. “This concept does not include a moral
evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or
evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of
ethics to answer such questions.”

It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose between sacrificing

other people to ourselves (which is deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and
sacrificing our own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed unselfish and
therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects both options as forms of selflessness,
and offers a new concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that rejects
sacrifice in all its forms.

Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you please.” Moral
principles are not a matter of personal opinion — they are based in the facts of
reality, in man’s nature as a rational being, who must think and act successfully in
order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is to identify the kinds of action that in
fact benefit oneself. These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty,
justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue, rationality. Rand’s moral
ideal is a life of reason, purpose and self-esteem.
WHAT IS ETHICAL EGOISM? Selfishness is often considered a vice and selfish
actions are often judged to be wrong. But sometimes we ought to do what’s best
for ourselves: in a sense, we sometimes should be selfish.

While psychological egoism claims that the ultimate goal of one’s action is one’s
own self-interest, ethical egoism claims that one should pursue one’s own best
interest. The basic idea of ethical egoism is this: promoting one’s own best
interest is in accord with morality. In its strongest form, ethical egoism claims that
one acts morally if and only if one promotes one’s own best interest.

The ethical theory known as ethical egoism states that we are always morally
required to do what’s in our own self-interest. The view isn’t that we are selfish—
this is psychological egoism—but that we ought to be.

Ethical egoism views that people ought to pursue their own self-interest, and no
one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests. It is thus a normative
or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how people ought to behave. In this
respect, ethical egoism is quite different from psychological egoism, the theory
that all our actions are ultimately self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely
descriptive theory that purports to describe a basic fact about human nature.

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM? Psychological Egoists say that behind every

action that appears to be altruistic there is really a selfish motive. People help
others because they believe it will get them into heaven, or because it will bring
them public recognition, or because they enjoy the gratitude of those they help,
etc. Attributing selfish motives to account for apparently altruistic behavior
requires that we re-interpret the motives behind such behavior. For example,
suppose that Fred runs into his neighbors burning house to save a child trapped
there. Fred succeeds, and when asked why he did it, says “It was the right thing
to do. I couldn’t stand by while a little girl died.”

But the Psychological Egoist doesn’t take Fred’s explanation at face value.
Perhaps Fred did it because of the positive attention he would get afterwards;
perhaps he did it because he knew he would feel good about himself. Fred may
tell us (and himself) that he was motivated by a moral judgment and concern for
the life of the child, but in reality his motives are entirely selfish.
Thomas Hobbes had a way of systematically re-interpreting “altruistic” motives.
Two examples:

 Charity: Acts of charity are really a demonstration of power. The idea is

that by helping others, we show ourselves to be more resourceful than
others, because we can take care of ourselves and have plenty to spare.
 Pity: We pity others because we imagine ourselves in their place. Helping
others out of a sense of pity is really an attempt to assuage our fear of how
we might end up and help to ensure that others will help us if and when the
time comes. In no case, according to Hobbes, do we act out of genuine
concern for others.

ETHICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

What is Ethical Egoism? Ethical egoism claims that each person ought to pursue
his or her own self-interest exclusively. People ought to be self-interested and
that our neighbors ought not to give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim
about morality, or about the way things should be.

What is Psychological Egoism? By contrast, asserts that each person does in fact
pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People are self-interested and that
our neighbors will not give to charity. Psychological Egoism makes a claim about
human nature, or about the way things are.

What are the main differences between the two?

The main difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that
psychological egoism emphasizes the fact that people act primarily out of self-
interest while ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for their
self-interest.

At initial thought, egoism refers to pride, selfishness and having high self-worth.
However, with regard to psychological and ethical egoism, these definitions take
on different facets.

AYN RANDS ARGUMENTS ON ETHICAL EGOISM

Different interpretations have been offered for ethical egoism. Ayn Rand believes
that man should not sacrifice himself for others, and should not sacrifice others
for himself either. According to this interpretation, the primary and natural goal
of any living creature is to protect itself. The ethical value of each deed is based
on the same goal. Of all living creatures, ethics only applies to man, since he has
the ability to choose among valuable and invaluable goals.

When evaluating if a given action is ethical, the most prominent issue we face is
ethical egoism. Since in many cases, it is a difficult task to determine boundaries
between ethical egoism and ethical altruism, it is important to study ethical
egoism.

Since Rand provides strong arguments in favor of ethical egoism and presents
most of her philosophical viewpoints in the form of novels—a psychologically
influential and attractive medium—it is truly essential to study her theory of
egoism in the field of ethics.

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She
argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own
well-being.

Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern
with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of
the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a
virtue.

The perfection of one's abilities in a state of happiness is the highest goal for
humans. The ethics of altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests and lives
for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism is incompatible with the
goal of happiness.

Ethical egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively, and as such
it is consistent with the happiness goal.

Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory