Summary

¤ Many twentieth century philosophers gave up the earlier prevalent practice of prescribing or espousing particular moral systems. Instead, they tended to subject prevailing moral theories to close epistemological scrutiny.

¤ Moore propounded three doctrines: ideal utilitarianism; ‘naturalistic fallacy’; and moral

intuition.

¤ The naturalisticfallacy consists in identifying goodness withsome natural property.

¤ One of the tenets of modern logic is that propositions of fact have to be separated from propositions of value.

¤ But if good is considered a natural property, one can draw moral judgments from factual statements. Arguments containing factual notions of pleasure in the premises could logically entail conclusionscontaining ethical judgments. This is an illicit procedure.

¤ Moore held that we see or recognise good through a process of moral intuition.

¤ Moore’s version of utilitarianism is idealistic because he rejects hedonism.

¤ Moore says that “right means productive of the highest good.” For Ross, what makes a right act right is not the principle of utility but an overriding moral duty that might sometimes conflict with Moore’s “ideal utilitarianism”.

¤ This may imply that at times moral principles can be broken.

¤ Moral agents have certain duties that are not based upon the consequences of their adoption, but on the rightness of their adoption. Ross calls such general principles prima facie duties.

¤ But moral situations can be complex with a conflict of prima facie duties. On this account, Ross holds that in such situations, the actual duty of moral agents will be that which is right for the particular situation.

¤ A.J. Ayer belongs to a philosophical school called logical positivism.

¤ Ayer says that as the propositions of ethics fail to reduce to statements capable of empirical verification, they fall under the category of pseudo-propositions and are not literally significant. They are merely expressions of emotions.

¤ Ayer’s work contains no substantial discussion on ethics. The question which Ayer raises is epistemological or concerns theory of knowledge.

¤ According to Stevenson, moral judgments do not state any sort of fact, but rather express the moral emotions of the speaker and attempt to influence others.

¤ Moral judgments are not about facts. Uttering moral sentences has a different function: to express emotions, and to influence or invite others to share them.

¤ The purpose of such statements is to persuade the audience to adopt the attitude of the speaker.

¤ Stevenson also argues that moral judgments are simply a cover for the attempts whichpeople make to persuade one an other into adopting a particular normative attitude.

¤ Stevensonintroducedthe concept “persuasive definition”.

¤ Ayer and Stevenson belong to the twentieth century Anglo-American positivistic position.

Positivism refuses to engage in moral discussions.

¤ Hare rejected the prevailing emotivism, which maintained that moral statements were merely expressions of individual preference. For Hare, moral statements are prescriptions or guides to conduct. They are universalizable i.e. they apply to everyone.

¤ Some philosophers reject the very possibility of moral arguments. According to Hare, if the premisescontainmoral termsalong withfactualstatements,a validargument will result.

¤ Moral judgments use the term ‘ought’ and say what is ‘right’. Such moral judgments are binding on all people and have overriding force.

¤ Hare introduced the conception of two-level utilitarianism. Intuitive level of thinking implies that moral decisions are based on rule utilitarianism. Critical level thinking implies act utilitarianism.

¤ Hare believes that common morality, professional ethics and personal morality have their roots in intuitivebeliefs.

¤ Analytical philosophers refrain from propounding any world views, social philosophies or moral systems. They focus on the meanings of terms or clarification of concepts used in philosophy and sciences.

¤ John Rawlsargues that the adoption of two fundamental principles of justice wouldguarantee a just and morally acceptable society.

PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. “The unexamined life is not worth living”. How would you interpret this statement of Socrates?

2. “Knowledge is virtue”. Elucidate

3. To what extent are Socratic virtues applicable in modern administrative contexts?

4. How relevant are Plato’s political ideas to modern democratic societies?

5. “Plato’sideathatphilosophersshouldbe rulersreallymeansthatpowershouldrestwithcommitted experts than with bumbling, corrupt politicians.” Comment

6. “Plato’s Republic makes a case for totalitarian dictatorship in glowing literary phrases.” Examine.

7. “Be brave, be brave, but do not be too brave”. How will youtheoretically justify this advice?

8. “Virtue renders virtue easy.” Elucidate.

9. “Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best?” Examine in the context of doctrines of Plato and Aristotle.

10. “Epicureanism advocates pursuit of vulgar pleasures”. Do you agree?

11. Can Epicureanism and Stoicism be suitable models of virtue for modern civil servants?

12. Examine the view that Epicureanism is a form of escapism.

13. What is the difference between teleological and deontological ethical theories?

14. Outline the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. How is rule utilitarianism superior to act utilitarianism?

15. Which doctrine of Kant lends support to ideas of human dignity and human rights? How?

16. What is the justification of Kant’s principle of categorical imperative?

17. Kant argued that one should not tell lies even to protect innocent people. How does Kant reach this position? Is it justified?

REFERENCES

 Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (chapters on Ancient Greek philosophers discussed in this chapter)

 A History of Western Philosophy 1 Classical thought (OPUS paperback) Terence Irwin