Thinking about morality is one of the more practical pursuits in philosophy – it can be, and is, applied in “real life” all the time, in law and politics, on ethics boards and in codes of conduct everywhere. Which works ok up to a point - but despite thousands of years of systematic thought by some of the best brains in history (and believe me they are THOROUGH) there is still no final consensus on how we can define what is right and what is wrong. Most systems of morality focus on trying to turn it into something rational, objective and universal – to get rid of emotion and the personal out of moral choices. And yet isn’t “evil” just “stuff we REALLY don’t like?” Thomas Morton will talk about why the holy grail of a purely rational morality may be a dead end – that morality is necessarily centred on human wants and feelings; and any attempt to divorce ethics from empathy is never going to be adequate.

1. GOOD FOR WHAT?
A sceptical look at the rationalising of
morality

2. Moral Philosophy
• Thinking about morality is one of the more
practical pursuits in philosophy – it can be,
and is, applied in “real life” all the time, in law
and politics, on ethics boards and in codes of
conduct everywhere.
• We can draw on a massive amount of thought
and work on the subject to ensure all angles
are covered.

3. THE ISSUE: The role of personal
feelings/emotion in morality
1

4. • Most systems of morality focus on trying to turn
it into something rational, objective and universal
– to get rid of emotion and the personal out of
moral choices.
• Morality can’t just be left to whim and opinion
• Morality can’t just rely on individual emotional
responses (which are massively biased and vary
considerably)
• It must be higher, nobler, something outside of
ourselves that we can agree on.

5. The tension between moral duty in
general and moral duty to loved ones

6. Is morality fact or opinion?
2

7. Moral Realism
• There is moral truth – good and evil is a matter of FACT.
• Morality is OBJECTIVE, “out there” in the world and can be
reasoned out and measured.
• Morality transcends us and our opinions, it would exist even if
there were no humans in the world.
• Plato: Goodness is a single, perfect
standard to live up to. Evil or
badness = anything that fails to live
up to that standard.
• Think of an athlete – there is a
standard of perfect physical fitness
that they are trying to live up to, and
the more they achieve that physical
fitness, the better athlete they are.
The further away from that peak of
physical fitness they are, the more
rubbish (bad) they are. Morality is
like this.

8. Objections
• JS Mill: Perfection is not one, rigid, clinical order, it comes in many
forms. Morality is about people finding their own way, making their
own decisions – not being forced into one person’s vision of
perfection.
• We cannot know what perfection is or what the ultimate moral
truth is – that knowledge is beyond mere humans – so anyone who
claims they know it and tries to force other people to follow it is
mistaken, and should be treated with suspicion.

9. “There are no moral facts”
The Prime Minister wears suits
VERIFIABLE
The Prime Minister is the head of the
Government
LOGICALLY NECESSARY
The Prime Minister has a good soul
NEITHER – no way of proving this
Hume says:

10. The Is/Ought Gap

11. Moral Relativism
The idea that morality is relative – what is right or wrong depends on
your situation, your circumstances, your culture, your background.
Problems:
It’s easy to say “Oh, we shouldn’t judge other cultures, what’s right for
them is right for them” – but then we would have to say that stoning
to death rape victims in Somalia was ok, because it is “right for them”.
Or executing protesters for demanding freedom of speech in
totalitarian states is fine, because “it’s right for them”. Or even, if a
serial killer is convinced that his killing is morally justified by God, that
it is ok, because it is “right for him”.
Moral progress (eg from medieval times) is logically impossible – all
there is is a change.
If you think you’re morally right, you are – there is no way of being
morally mistaken.

12. A smorgasbord of moral thinking
3

13. Religious! 1: Divine Command
Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
~ Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisted
God is a tyrant – the only reason we
obey Him is because He is most
powerful.
What is good is whatever God decrees
- no rhyme or reason to His whims.
No barometer of good outside God.
How does God decide?
Cannot say “God is good” – if Satan
was more powerful, we’d bow down
to His Satanic Majesty instead.

14. Religious! 2: Natural Moral Law
St Thomas Aquinas - what is
good is what is in line with
its purpose in nature (what
God created it for).
• Nature is massively varied
(and God moves in
mysterious ways) – almost
anything that
happens/exists can be said
to have a purpose or be
“natural”
• The infinite “why?” regress
– ultimately “nature” could
be purposeless!

15. Rules and Duty!! Kant
• You should only do things if you can say that everybody should do
the same. Ask yourself “Would it make logical sense to turn what I
decide to do into a rule that everyone would have to follow?” If you
can say yes, then that is what you should do. If you can’t say yes,
then you should not do that thing.
• “If I can help somebody who is drowning, then I should help them”
• “I should not kill another rational being”
• “It is wrong to lie”
• “It is ok to keep an item of lost property if no one claims it after 6
months”.
An attempt to show moral
decisions are ultimately just
a matter of logic.
• The categorical imperative:
“Live your life as though
your every act were to
become a universal law”.

16. More Kant Please
• What matters is that the rule
does not contradict itself or
stop the willing of other rules.
• Respect for rationality is key
(The ability to make rational
choices should be respected in
yourself and in others).
• The consequences of your actions, or people’s
feelings, don’t matter so much – what’s
important is duty to logic and rationality.
• No room for emotion and empathy – too strict
and cold?

17. Consequences!!! Utilitarianism
The greatest good for the greatest number!
• Bentham’s “Felicific Calculus” (From the Latin for “happy”:
Felix )
The first 4 should be considered for every individual who might be
affected:
• Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
• Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
• Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the
pleasure will occur?
• Propinquity or remoteness: How soon or how far off in the
future will the pleasure occur?
The next 2 consider possible side-effects of the pleasure or pain
caused:
• Fecundity: The chance that the pleasure will cause more
pleasure (or the pain, more pain)
• Purity: The chance that the pleasure will cause pain (or the
pain cause pleasure)
Finally the overall total is considered:
• Extent: The number of people sharing in this pleasure or
pain.

18. A smorgasbord of Utilitarianism
Act and Rule utilitarianism
• Making such a calculation every time we act is often practically impossible, so others have suggested
we use utilitarianism to develop rules, and then stick to those rules. Problem is, you can end up
following rules for the sake of it – utilitarianism falls back into duty and rules.
Hedonistic and Ideal utilitarianism
• Isn’t there mare to happiness than just maximizing pleasure (hedonism)? Some pleasures are more
valuable than others, so they should carry more weight. Eg. Pleasures to do with love, creativity,
freedom, truth etc. are ultimately more rewarding (ideal) than fleeting physical pleasures.
Negative utilitarianism
• Simply that it is more important to minimize pain than it is to maximize pleasure – “the least pain for
the greatest amount of people”.
Preference utilitarianism
• Not about happiness and pleasure, but about people’s preferences – which is not the same thing. I
may have preferences and wishes that do not necessarily bring me joy, but that I feel are important -
“The greatest fulfillment of preferences for the greatest amount of people”.

19. Also for mention
Social Contract Theory – morality as a pact by those living
together in society:
• Hobbes (the nasty version – nature is brutal, morality stops
civilization from collapsing into dog-eat-dog horror)
• Locke (the nice version – we are born free and with natural
rights, morality stops us from treading on these)
• Rawls (the modern version – focussed on equality,
impartiality and fairness).
Virtue Theory – morality as developing a virtuous character:
• Plato (there is an ideal of good that we should live up to)
• Aristotle (focus on practising “living well”, all things in
moderation, a fully functional, balanced, rational
existence).

20. What is missing?
4

21. Empathy
• Putting yourself in others shoes and feeling
what they might feel
• Not just emotional – requires high level of
awareness and understanding of the way you
and others work and interact – SELF
AWARENESS and ABILITY TO ABSTRACT
• More awareness = more empathy = more
moral?

22. “Treat others as you
would like to be treated
yourself.”

23. Empathy Missing Paradox
• You cannot rely on people having a high level of empathy, so
rules and systems set up as a “fail safe”.
• Problem – REPLACES need for empathy.
• PARADOX 1: Aims to take any need for
compassion and caring out of what is
fundamentally about compassion and caring.
• (Would we recognise a cold, dead machine inhumanly
calculating “moral” choices as moral at all?)

24. Empathy Missing Paradox
• If you never had a personal relationship with your moral
choices (feeling guilty/warm/ empathetic pain/joy) there
would be no reason to act morally – actions become purely
functional (what “works best” for a chosen end).
• If looking at things rationally, there is no reason why we have
to be “moral” or “good” - The IS/OUGHT gap!
• PARADOX 2: Reducing morality to a set of
objective systems or rules gets rid of any
purpose to morality.

25. Good for what?
• If morality is just functional, about what “works best”, we
have to ask ourselves “Best for what? Best for who?”
• Why shouldn’t pain and suffering and selfishness and
oppression and deception be a valid part of the way the world
works “best?” Why should we value order over chaos, or
anything over anything?
• So what IS being “moral” for? In whose interests is it
“best”.......

26. Morality is necessarily
ANTHROPOCENTRIC

27. • We have duties to all these spheres, as well as
ourselves – it’s this constant struggle of
competing needs and values that makes life
what it is.
• Moral systems are tools to use to examine the
issues from different angles and increase our
awareness – not the final word in moral
debate.
• Nature is dynamic, not static: WHY SHOULD
THERE BE ONE SINGLE, FINAL RIGHT ANSWER?

28. Anything goes...?
• Just because morality is a human creation, doesn’t mean
“anything goes”
• The economy is a human creation – money only has the value it
does because we all agree on it – but that doesn’t mean we can
act as if £1 is £100, or that it doesn’t matter if we have any money
or not .
The economy is living, uncontrollable system
that arises out of the massively complex
interactions of billions of human beings (and
the societies and cultures they are part of),
and has a massive effect on our lives.
There is no objective value to money, but
whatever we think of it, we need to pay it
attention – morality is the same.