Consider ethics: theory, readings and contemporary issues

372 Pages·1.952 MB·English

by  Waller, Bruce N

Pearson New International Edition

Consider Ethics
Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues
Bruce N. Waller
Third Edition
International_PCL_TP.indd 1 7/29/13 11:23 AM
ISBN 10: 1-292-02742-8
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02742-5
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: 1-292-02742-8
ISBN 10: 1-269-37450-8
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02742-5
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
111112222478035680131843960100027
P E A R S O N C U S T O M L I B R AR Y
Table of Contents
1. Thinking About Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 1
2. Egoism and Relativism
Bruce N. Waller 20
3. Ethics, Emotions, and Intuitions
Bruce N. Waller 40
4. Ethics and Reason
Bruce N. Waller 72
5. Utilitarian Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 87
6. Pluralism and Pragmatism
Bruce N. Waller 108
7. Social Contract Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 134
8. Virtue Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 153
9. Care Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 169
10. Ethical Nonobjectivism
Bruce N. Waller 186
11. Moral Realism
Bruce N. Waller 200
12. The Scope of Morality
Bruce N. Waller 211
13. Free Will
Bruce N. Waller 230
I
222333335790234665130463
14. Freedom, Moral Responsibility, and Ethics
Bruce N. Waller 256
15. The Death Penalty
Bruce N. Waller 275
16. Abortion
Bruce N. Waller 291
17. Should the Police Use Deceit in Interrogations?
Bruce N. Waller 303
18. Homosexual Sex
Bruce N. Waller 320
19. Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?
Bruce N. Waller 334
20. Should Performance-Enhancing Drugs Be Banned from Athletics?
Bruce N. Waller 346
Index 363
II
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? Canwe
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 howto think carefully, critically, and effectively, and how to avoid some
common errors. Some people maintain that ethics is notbased 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 argumentsfor 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
preciselywhat the argument is supposed to be proving; get clear on the conclusionof 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 conclusionshe 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 theguilty 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 theclaim is true or false, but by whether it mattersif 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 falseclaim may be relevant: if an unreliable eyewitness falselyclaims to have seen the defendant
commit the murder, that claim will certainly be relevantto the question of whether the defendant is guilty. It’s
relevantbecause ifit 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 relevantto the question of whether the person who did the crime should
receive the death penalty. Of course theargument may be relevantwithout being completely convincing; the
jury might decide that thecrime was indeed brutal, but other mitigating factors (such as the age of the defen-
dant) count more heavily againstcapital 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 weget 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
isguilty.
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
Thinking About Ethics
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 anice 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 argumentsas vigorously as you wish, but attacking arguersis fallacious. To see why, consider
this example. Spring break is approaching, and at the end of class I give you an argumentfor 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
agood 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 argumentinstead 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 testimonythat 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 argumentfor 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 irrelevantto 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
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 avic-
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 area 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
Ihave 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 notinconsistent: 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
Thinking About Ethics
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.
STUDYING ETHICS
If you take a course in geography, you expect that the course will make you a better geographer. If you take
a course in creative writing, you anticipate that the course will improve your creative writing. And it is rea-
sonable to hope that a course in chemistry will make you a better chemist. So when you take a course in
ethics, what should you expect? That you will learn more about ethics? That seems a minimum expectation.
But should you also expect that you will become more ethical, more virtuous, and a better person?
Before we go too far in exploring whether a course in ethics is likely to make you amorally better per-
son, perhaps we should agree on what would count as moral improvement. And there’s the rub. It’s not so
easy to decide what makes a morally superior person. That is the sort of thing we’ll explore: how do we
decide—and can we decide—what counts as moral virtue and as morally good behavior? There are many
different views on that question, and the purpose is notto tell you which view is correct. Rather, will help
you explore a wide range of distinctive and often conflicting accounts of ethics, and the focus will be on
helping you decide where your own views fit. Perhaps in the course of examining these views and where
your own ideas fit along this wide spectrum, you may decide that some of your ethical opinions should
change. But that’s not the purpose. There are plenty of moral self-help books, and there are plenty of books
that will tell you in no uncertain terms what you oughtto believe about ethics.
The Nature of Ethical Principles
Should you expect studying ethics to make you ethically better, the way you expect studying math to
make you a better mathematician? Some people say yes, and others say no. That’s one of the questions
we’ll examine. But there are lots of questions in ethics. After all, ethics is avast subject, with a long and
remarkable history. There are many good places to start an examination of ethics, but among the most
basic (and disputed) questions in ethics is this one: do ethical truths have to be eternal verities, not
really part of this world of decay, known through some special power; or are they more mundane, ordi-
nary facts, part of the standard furniture of our world, and known through ordinary means? (Of course
there is another option: ethical truths don’t exist at all, anywhere; we’ll set that possibility aside for the
moment, but we’ll return to it.) When you seek ethical guidelines, what characteristics must they have?
It’s hard to know if you’ve found them unless you know what to look for. What would count as an
ethical guide, an ethical principle? “If you want to be trusted and prosperous, practice honesty.”
Benjamin Franklin thought that was really all the justification needed—and perhaps all the justifica-
tion possible—for honesty: it pays,long term. Contrast that with the starkly unconditional form of the
Hebrew commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Of course you could read this as: If you
don’t want to get into trouble with God then don’t bear false witness. But most people interpret it not
as some arbitrary rule that you must follow to retain God’s favor, but rather as a basic moral principle
that God (in His moral wisdom) recognizes and puts in the form of a commandment.
“What counts as ethics?” is a question worth pondering. Think for a minute about what ethical
principles would have to look like, in your own view—not whether you think abortion is right or wrong,
whether it is wrong to cheat on your taxes or your lover, whether you have an obligation to help the
5