Russ Shafer-Landau emphasizes to
readers that the role of moral theory in philosophy is to extract deeper, more
generalized theories. Finding these theories would allow us, as humans, to
apply them as the moral standard in more cases. Shafer-Landau argues that this is not
just a want for philosophers, but is actually a built in yearning for all
humans. When faced with a moral dilemma, every person digs deeper into his or
her thought process to extract a universal reasoning as to why they came up with
their solution. We do not want to think completely through every decision we
have to make; instead, we prefer to have a universal code that makes the
decision black and white.
Shafer-Landau reminds us that all professions want a
universal code or theory. He uses the examples of psychologists explaining
every decision we make based on our egos, our upbringing, or our sexual
impulses, as well as the example of physicists dreaming of one day discovering
a theory that universalizes how everything works in the tangible world (Shafer-Landau 2010, 14). Shafer-Landau
suggests at the end of the section that a person’s core moral beliefs are what
end up being tested when specific ethical theories come into question (Shafer-Landau 2010, 15).
I support Shafer-Landau’s claims in this
section. Universal principles make it easier to form and defend beliefs when
wrestling with moral scenarios. Being scientifically minded, I can attest to
universal laws and principles making justification easier. If an idea can be
formulated around an already established and well-accepted principle, it is easier
to endorse the idea. For example, if the law of gravity was not a well-accepted
principle in the scientific community, it would be much harder for scientists
to explain or defend why they believe the moon revolves around the Earth, yet
the Earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. Universal principles
ultimately make a great starting point, and an easy fall back when endorsing an
opinion on one’s ideas.
A point that I question from Shafer-Landau’s writing is his opinion of finding one general rule to support all
ethics. I agree with the four principles he states in the section as being core
principles, but I am skeptical of forming one core principle. I do not believe
that all of the questions needing answered by philosophy has one core, general
rule. There are simply too many subsets of scenarios and topics to create one,
unified theory to fall back on. Too many contradictions can be found between
general principles to have the one rule. Multiple scenarios can be present
where his four core principles contradict each other. For instance, think about
if a husband cheats on his wife and is deciding if it is morally right to tell
her. Telling her would cover the principles of telling the truth and acting
justly; however, some would argue that this is imposing unnecessary harm on his
wife and that the husband should live with his sin, knowing he was moral
unethical in doing so. These exceptions to the rules poke holes in the four
core principles, let alone one universal rule.
Works Cited
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2010. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. pg. 14-15.
Works Cited
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2010. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. pg. 14-15.
I think Shafer-Landau's section referencing the search for a “universal” moral principle is perhaps misunderstood here. I think what he is saying is that philosophers search for a unifying moral principle, but I don't believe that he is explicitly saying that it is possible to ever find that principle in philosophy. Shafer-Landau seems to only state that this is what philosophers have tried to do. Also, he only supposed that those four principles were found after evaluation of one's own moral beliefs only to say that, even after we think we have found our own personal moral code to live by, our work is not done. Our work is not done because the end goal (regardless of feasibility, which he does not specifically endorse) is to unify these principles in order to “do all the explaining we need in the moral realm” (Shafer-Landau, 15).
ReplyDeleteAside from this, I agree that unification may not be possible in a field like moral philosophy for the same reason as you. In a way, Shafer-Landau seems to imply the same doubts with his example about the immorality of releasing a patient's confidential medical information. One person may suggest it is immoral since it is a betrayal of trust, but another could easily question whether or not it's even wrong to betray a person's trust (Shafer-Landau, 15). Your own original example of this difficulty showed this as well-- though someone could argue that he is imposing unnecessary harm on his wife by not telling her, and that he is in fact morally obligated to confess. Even still, my disagreement in itself possibly further shows the problem with discovering that one unified principle!
The issue of unification in ethical theory is one we will approach near the end of the semester. After discussing several "monistic" theories of ethics - those that try to unify specific moral judgments under a single overarching theory or principle - we will look at a "pluralistic" theory and (what some philosophers call) an "anti-theory", two approaches that deny such unification is possible. (See Chapter 16 if you want a preview.)
ReplyDeleteShafer-Landau doesn't yet take a position on whether a single unifying moral principle is possible or isn't possible. In the passage on page 15, all he's saying is that ethical theory works from the same "desire" for unification as theory in any other domain.