這門課程中將向你介紹一些當代哲學的主要研究領域，在每一個領域中將針對一位哲學家，討論他的專業領域中最重要的一些問題及議題。課程將以試圖了解甚麼是哲學開始─其特殊目的和方法，以及哲學和其他學科的差異。接著，我們將會花剩下的課程時間來獲得對哲學不同領域的初步概觀。 你將學習的主題包括： 知識論─
The Status of Morality
Loading...
來自 The University of Edinburgh 的課程
Introduction to Philosophy
3420 個評分
從本節課中
Morality: Objective, Relative or Emotive?
(Dr. Matthew Chrisman) We all live with some sense of what is good or bad, some feelings about which ways of conducting ourselves are better or worse. But what is the status of these moral beliefs, senses, or feelings? Should we think of them as reflecting hard, objective facts about our world, of the sort that scientists could uncover and study? Or should we think of moral judgements as mere expressions of personal or cultural preferences? In this module we’ll survey some of the different options that are available when we’re thinking about these issues, and the problems and prospects for each.
與講師見面
Dr. Dave WardLecturer in Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Professor Duncan PritchardProfessor of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Professor Michela MassimiFull Professor
Philosophy
Dr. Suilin LavelleLecturer in Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Dr. Matthew ChrismanReader in Philosophy
Philosophy
Dr. Allan Hazlett
Dr. Alasdair RichmondDr.
Philosophy
Guy FletcherLecturer
Philosophy
Elinor MasonSenior Lecturer
Philosophy
Hello, and welcome back to the Introduction
to Philosophy course at the University of Edinburgh.
My name's Matthew Chrisman.
I'm a reader in philosophy here in
the School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences.
Today I want to talk to you about a topic
in moral philosophy that I call the status of morality.
What is morality? Well that's a really big question.
today what we'll focus on is
particular moral judgments and ask about their status.
What do I mean about particular moral judgments?
Well, I have in, in mind the everyday, day sort of judgments that we make
when we think something like what Pol
Pot did and the genocide was morally abhorrent.
Or giving to charity is a good thing to do.
but also the kind of moral judgments that ethical philosophers make.
They make judgments that are a little bit more abstract.
They say things
like, an action is right insofar as it
maximizes overall happiness, or one ought to always
act in a way that one could will one's reason to be reasons for everyone else.
these are very abstract moral judgments made in ethical theory.
we have the particular moral judgments made in every day life.
Today, we won't be asking whether these are correct.
whether specific moral judgments or abstract moral
judgments are correct or incorrect.
Rather, we will be asking the status of these judgments.
What are we doing when we make such judgments?
Are we representing objective facts of matter?
Or are we describing our personal or cultural practices?
Are we depicting some element of the universe out there?
The moral facts.
Are we expressing our emotions toward things?
these are the types of questions
that we ask, when we ask about the status of morality.
So what I want to do today is, delve into that question a little bit more.
Try to understand the nature of the question.
What exactly are we asking, when we ask about the status of morality?
and then move on to three very general types
of approaches that philosophers have taken to this question.
So, one of these approaches, I'll call objectivism.
The idea that we are representing objective facts when we make
moral judgments.
Another approach is relativism, the idea that we're describing some kind
of cultural or personal relative practices when we make these judgments.
And the third idea is emotivism, that we're expressing
our emotions towards the world when we make these judgments.
So those will be the three general types of theories we'll talk about today after I
introduce the topic and we'll, and then we'll
think a little bit about objections and replies to
those theories.
One more comment before we get into the issues.
I'll be using examples of particular moral judgements as
we go along and I've chosen controversial examples on purpose.
I want you to see through the controversy why
it's important to think about the status of morality.
so some of the examples will be controversial
and some of them you might disagree with.
That's
fine.
today's question is not whether these particular judgments are right
or wrong but what we're doing when we make these judgments.
What is their status?
So at a later point in the lecture, I'll ask you to
come up with some examples of your own and controversial examples are good.
They help us to think about the status of morality.
So
today we're talking about the status of morality.
The status of moral judgements.
What are we doing when we judge that something's good or bad?
Right or wrong?
Virtuous or vicious?
One way to get your heads around that question is
to generate two lists and compare and contrast these lists.
So what I want to do now is generate a
list of empirical judgments, judgments about the empirically discoverable world.
And a list of moral judgments, judgments about
what's right and wrong, good and bad, etc.
so one way to think about an empirical
judgment is to think about something that was discovered.
A scientific discovery.
Here's a really famous scientific discovery.
The earth rotates around the sun.
Of course, for many, much of human history, people didn't believe that.
They thought that the sun rotated around the
earth, or they had some other cosmological theory.
But Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo discovered
that the earth rotates around sun and
developed our contemporary cosmological theory, how
we understand the orbits of the planets.
The judgement, the earth rotates around the sun, that's an empirical judgement.
or the judgement that electricity has positive and negative charges.
Discovered by Benjamin Franklin explains
the flow of electricity.
That judgement is the judgement about the empirical world.
or consider Mendel's discovery that plants inherit some of
their traits genetically based on certain laws of inheritance.
that, that judgement, that plants inherit some of the traits
genetically, is an empirical judgement, judgement about the empirical world.
Or here's the final more contemporary example.
recently it was discovered that the so-called
God particle predicted by Edinburgh's own professor Peter Higgs exists.
That seems to be an empirical discovery about
a fundamental piece of the universe, but in order
to get empirical judgments on our list we
don't have to have these very impressive scientific discoveries.
We could also just think of more everyday judgments
like the judgment that lead is heavier than iron.
or the judgment, quite simply, that it was sunny today in Edinburgh.
or even the judgment that I, Matthew Chrisman, am less than six feet tall.
All of these are empirical judgements.
Judgements that we can verify by empirical observation.
Okay, now for our second list; Moral Judgements.
to generalize some examples of moral judgements, we can think about positive
moral things like giving to charity is good,
or taking care of your children is morally obligatory.
these are examples of positive moral judgements.
we can to that list something like, protesting something
you take to be a gross injustice is morally right.
That would be a moral judgement.
Of course more often actually I think we make negative moral judgements.
So we say things like Cain's
killing Abel out of jealousy was morally bad, was wrong
or Oedipus sleeping with his mother Jakasta was morally bad.
That would be a moral judgement. or, something like Pol Pot's genocidal
actions during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was morally abhorrent.
Genocide's morally abhorrent. Those would be moral judgments.
Or finally, a much more controversial one. Polygamy, the practice of one man having
multiple wives, or one woman having multiple husbands is morally dubious.
These are the types of judgements that we could put on our list as moral judgements.
Okay, so we've come up with two lists.
A list of empirical judgements and a list of moral judgements.
some of the items on our list are quite controversial.
so what I want you to do now is try to come up with some examples of your own.
They can be controversial examples or examples that you take to
be obvious, but come up with two examples of each type.
Two examples of empirical judgments about the
empirically discoverable world, and examples of moral
judgments about things like, what's right and
wrong, good and bad, virtuous, vicious, etc.
we'll take a second here and,
and let you come up with these examples.
It'd be helpful to write them down on a piece of paper
so that you can refer to them in the rest of this lecture.
Okay, hopefully you have, you have your own examples.
Two examples of empirical judgements and two examples of moral judgements.
Or if you want some more time, or time to
think about it, you can press pause in the video now.
For the rest of the lecture, I'm going to focus on examples
from my list.
Two examples of empirical judgements and two examples of moral judgements.
So here are the two examples of empirical judgements I'll use.
The sun rotates around the earth, and it was sunny in Edinburgh today.
And here are two examples of moral judgements that I'll use.
Genocide is morally wrong, or morally abhorrent.
and polygamy is morally dubious.
So focus on those as examples of moral judgements.
but you can also think about your own examples and ask the
same sorts of questions we're going to ask about these about your examples.
So now, what we've been doing is coming up with
these examples in order to better understand the question about
the status of morality.
I think the best way into that is to
think, to now ask some questions about these two lists.
So, many philosophers, and I think many ordinary people, have
felt that there's an important difference between the types of
judgements that go under the heading, empirical judgements, and the
types of judgements that go under the heading, moral judgements.
they feel like there's some, something
importantly different between these two things.
So one we could ask,
the first question I'll ask is are these judgements
the source of things that can be true or false?
So in the case of empirical judgements, it's quite natural to say, yes, of course.
Whereas some philosophers have thought, in the case of moral judgement, that
they're not the sort of thing that can be true or false.
They're mere opinions or mere expressions of our emotions.
now, other philosophers and other people have thought,
no, that's not right.
There's still a difference but, that's not the difference.
So we ask a second question.
If these are, if moral judgments are like empirical judgments, in that, in
that they can be true or false, what makes them true or false?
In the, in the empirical case, you might
think it's something about the objective human-independent facts.
what is it in, in the moral case?
and now we can ask a third question.
Are they objectively true or false?
So you might think the difference between those
two is, no they're not objectively true or false.
there are more judgements that are not
objectively true or false, they're only true or
false relative to a culture or a person or a sensibility or something like that.
now that's the kind of second group of true or false that I'll talk about.
The third group of false that I'll talk about deny
both of these initial ideas and say, moral judgements are
the sorts of things that can be true or false.
And there are also the sorts of things that can be made
true or false by objective facts, they are objectively true or false.
they aspire to objectivity just like comparable judgements.
So what I want to do in the rest of this lecture
is talk about these three philosophical approaches to the status of morality.
we'll talk about the objectivist idea that moral
judgments are just as objective as empirical judgments.
And then we'll talk about the relativist idea that moral judgments are importantly
different than empirical judgements in that they're relativised somehow.
And finally we'll talk about that motivist
idea that moral judgements aren't the sorts of
things that can be true or false, they
are mere opinions or expressions of our emotions.
We'll explore some of the advantages and
disadvantages of each of these theories and consider
some of the objections that proponents of one
or another theory levy against the other theories.
That's the plan for the rest of the lecture.
