Meta-Ethics: Voluntarism, Naturalism

� Review:

− Reflective Equilibrium

− The Euthyphro Question

� Motivational Role

� Epistemological Role

� Meta-Physical Role

� For Next Time: Read Gilbert Harman's “Ethics and

Observation”

Review: Reflective Equilibrium

� We defined Philosophy as the process of

engaging in reflective equilibrium

� We said that reflective equilibrium described the

process by which we resolve conflicts between

our standing moral beliefs or theories and our

moral intuitions

� Our first reading, Euthyprho, provides us with an

excellent example of reflective equilibrium

Euthyphro

� In Euthyphro, Socrates

inquires about the nature of

piety

� Euthyphro, a priest, was

going to try his father for

the murder of one of his

family's slaves

� Euthyphro is convinced his

behavior is Pious, Socrates

wants to know why...

The Euthyphro Question

• The Euthyphro question is special because it demonstrates two different ways in which the gods’ attitudes could be related to the nature of piety:

• Does the gods’ love make something pious or do the gods love something because it is pious?

• David Brink thinks that the Euthyphro question can also be used to ask a fundamental question about ethics (i.e. a meta-ethical question)

On the Brink

• Brink argues that the Euthyphro question can help us to understand three different roles that (the gods’ or) a god’s will could play in relation to moral truth

• Motivational Role

• Epistemological Role

• Meta-physical Role

The Big Picture

• Brink ultimately argues that theists (i.e. those who believe in god or gods), agnostics, and atheists should agree that we should reject all three roles. Why?

• Brink asks us to engage in reflective equilibrium:

• Do we believe that ethics is objective/autonomous?

• Is the objectivity of ethics threatened by any of the three roles?

• If so then we must reject either the objectivity of ethics or reject the three roles

What Grounds Moral Claims?

• Ethics is objective, Brink argues, if (and only if) moral truths are mind-independent (moral truths are not dependent on our thoughts about ethics)

• Ethics is autonomous if moral truths are not dependent on any other kinds of non-natural truths (i.e. the existence of god(s) or other supernatural energies or forces)

• We’re now in a position to see the relevance of The Euthyphro Question

Euthyphro: Moralized

• The Euthyphro question asks us about the relationship between piety and the attitudes (love) the gods take toward things

• The moralized Euthyphro question Brink appeals to asks about the dependence of moral truths on the will of god:

• If god exists, is something good because god approves of it or does god approve of things because they are good?

Voluntarism, Naturalism

• If god exists, is something good because god approves of it or does god approve of things because they are good?

• If we accept the first option (that moral properties are dependent on god’s will) then we accept what Brink calls Voluntarism about ethics

• Voluntarism implies that moral truths are reducible to Divine Commands: if god says x is immoral then x is immoral because god says so (and for no other reason)

• This means that god plays a ‘meta-physical role’ in the determination of moral properties

Voluntarism, Naturalism

• If god exists, is something good because god approves of it or does god approve of things because they are good?

• If we accept the second option (moral properties are independent of god’s will) then we accept what Brink calls Naturalism about ethics

• Naturalism implies that moral truths are reducible to natural properties of an object or state of affairs

• Ex – that something causes pain, that something violates a promise, that something is the result of a social agreement

The Meta-physical Role

• Accepting Voluntarism implies the acceptance of the Meta-physical role for god in ethics

• Brink argues that the meta-physical role is problematic and that everyone (theists, atheists, and agnostics) will reject it upon reflective equilibrium:

• The Meta-physical role implies that moral truths are arbitrary BUT, Brink argues, we are committed to the claim that some things must always be morally wrong. We must choose whether to maintain this intuition or give up Voluntarism and the Meta-physical role

• Brink argues that we should all accept Naturalism

Other Roles

• Rejecting the Meta-physical role means that god could still play one (or both) of the following roles in ethics:

• Motivational Role: god could provide humans with an incentive to behave morally or a disincentive from behaving immorally

• Epistemological Role: god, being omnipotent, could help us to have moral knowledge

• Brink argues that we should reject both of these roles as well.Why?

The Motivational Role

• God plays the motivational role if (and only if) god provides us with rewards for behaving morally and punishments for behaving immorally

• Brink thinks that the motivational role should be rejected. Why?

• Brink argues that this is the wrong kind of reason for moral behavior. Behavior that conforms to moral requirements need not be moral behavior

• This is a distinction we will see again (Kant)

The Epistemological Role

• Epistemology = theory of knowledge

• If god is playing the epistemological role then could is a source of moral knowledge (but does not constitute that knowledge)

• Brink argues that we should reject this role as well. Why?

Against the Epistemological Role

• There are many different religious traditions in the world each with its own conception of god (or gods)

• Even limiting ourselves to, for example, a Christian view of the world there are differing interpretations of god’s will

• Brink believes that, in light of these problems, it is at least as difficult to discern god’s will as it is to figure out moral truths

• If we are already committed to naturalism then we are better off deliberating about morality directly instead of god’s attitude toward morality

Conclusions

• According to Brink: we should all prefer naturalism

• If god exists and provides us with moral commands then we should want those commands to be principled instead of arbitrary (i.e. naturalism)

• If god does not exist, naturalism implies that morality is still possible (we can reject moral nihilism by accepting naturalism and atheism)

• If god exists then naturalism is not a threat to god’s omniscience or omnipotence

Conclusions

• If Brink’s argument is sound then we can also infer the following meta-ethical conclusions

• If naturalism is true then moral truths are objective (in at least one sense of that term)

• Accepting naturalism does not settle questions about the mind-dependence of morality. Some authors will argue in favor of this (Mill, Prinz) while others will argue against (Kant) despite the fact that all of them accept naturalism

For Next Time

• Read Gilbert Harman's “Ethics and Observation”

• Consider reading the optional readings

• Ready yourself for Reading Quizzes!