Socrates' Question

A philosopher named Bernard Williams (1929-2003) once made the following remark about the study of ethics "[i]t is not a trivial question, Socrates said: what we are talking about is how one should live" (Williams, 1985, p. 1). This question of how one should live has sometimes been referred to as "Socrates' Question".

Every culture, every religion, and every community has addressed this question. Every individual human has had to face choices in which they asked themselves, "what's the right thing to do?" The choices we make impact other people, the world, and our own selves. The choices we make express what we think is important; they express some stance on what human life is all about. And the choices we make are a way of living out that astounding human capacity to make good choices in the first place!

The study of ethics dives deeply into what it means to make right choices rather than wrong ones, to live well rather than badly, and which answers to Socrates' question have the strongest support.

Sometimes we will be considering these questions at a rather abstract level, thinking in very general terms about very general features of human life and action. Other times we will be considering these questions on a concrete level, thinking about specific questions having to do with specific issues. And sometimes we will be looking at examples from history, current events, film and television, and other sources that illustrate some of the themes we will be considering.

All of these are important to this study. If we simply consider the abstract questions without looking at how they apply to concrete cases, we will likely get lost in a sea of ideas that end up leaving us cold. On the other hand, if we simply consider concrete cases, we won't be able to adequately consider questions like:

• what are the reasons for people's disagreements, and can they be resolved?
• what assumptions are people making when they express moral beliefs, and are they legitimate?
• what is really valuable and worthwhile in human life, and are there any objective answers to those questions?

And considering how Socrates' question is illustrated by various forms of media can help our minds, as well as our emotions, engage that question in a fresh way.

Whether we realize it or not, our lives are driven by various ideas, values, and assumptions about what matters in human life. We cannot escape Socrates' question. This course is a chance for us to pay close attention to it, in some cases for the first time.

Our Procedure

Each week will consider an important theory of morality as well as a concrete moral issue.

The theory will propose answers to questions like:

• What is morality?
• How does morality figure into a good human life?
• What are our moral obligations?
• Why should we be moral?

This is all part of what we call "normative ethics". That is the field of ethics that considers questions having to do with "norms" (i.e., standards for how one should live and act).

We all live by norms; it would be impossible not to. So "normative ethics" examines these standards to consider how strong they are.

Historically there have been three main approaches to normative ethics. You can try to distinguish them along the following lines:

When moral philosophers examine these theories, they ask certain questions. Among those question are:

• Do these theories give us the right answers to ethical question?
• Do these theories reflect and do justice to our best understanding of what it means to be human?
• Do these theories justify the sense of morality as authoritative or binding (i.e., proscribing how I ought to act regardless of my own interests and desires)?

If you aren't sure how to make sense of these questions yet, that's okay. We will be looking more deeply in them. Part of the way we will do so is by looking at "concrete moral issues".

The "concrete moral issues" will consider attempts to apply the theories to real-life situations.

This is all part of what we call "applied ethics". That is the field of ethics that considers questions having to do with "applications" (i.e., how the theories apply to our lives).

Week 1: Why Ethics Matters

This week we are examining a challenge to and some defenses of the idea that morals express objective standards for how we ought to live. We will also take a look some issues in medical ethics (specifically end-of-life issues). This is intended to give you a sense of why this course, and the theories we will be studying, matter.

Week 2: Making The World a Better Place

In this week we will examine the first of the three major ethical theories, utilitarianism. This is the theory that moral actions are those that lead to the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering for all those affected. We will look at how this theory applies to the questions concerning our moral responsibilities toward animals.

Week 3: Doing One's Duty

This week looks at the second major ethical theory, deontology. This theory argues that we have certain moral duties that we have a responsibility to respect, independently of who we are, our situation, or the consequences of doing so. We will consider whether there are any such moral duties that apply within the context of military action.

Week 4: Being a Good Person

The third major ethical ethical theory, which we will examine in week 4, is virtue ethics. This view holds that the primary ethical concern has to do with the sorts of persons we ought to be, and the character traits (or virtues) needed to be good people. We will consider, by way of example, what virtues are needed to be good stewards of the environment, and the virtues needed to be a good soldier.

Week 5: Looking Deeper into the Ethical Life

In the final week we will focus on gender issues as a way of looking further into the applications, as well as the limitations, of the three traditional ethical theories. Specifically, we will consider whether the female perspective has unique contributions to offer to our understanding of the ethical life regardless of our gender. And we will also consider ethical concerns regarding gender equality.

Why Be Moral?

We all know the feeling: you really want to do something, but know that it goes against the "moral rules". And sometimes, you're pretty sure you could do it and not get caught. What holds you back?

We’ve been taught to regard certain kinds of behavior as “good” and other kinds of behavior as “bad”. These claims might come from our parents or teachers, religious authorities, talking heads on cable news, etc., all making claims on how we ought to live. Some people think that all of these claims are just social conventions - sets of rules that society imposes on us, whose purpose is to keep us from doing what we want to do.

Why do we have such conventions? Well, there might be lots of reasons: to keep order, to protect the weaker members from the stronger ones, and so on. Perhaps they are ways that certain groups of people exercise power over others. But regardless, if morality is nothing more than a social convention designed to keep us from seeking our own advantage at the expense of others, why should we respect those conventions?

One obvious answer is: we don't want to be punished.

But what if you could do your own thing, and not get caught?

This is not a new question; in fact, humans have been wrestling with the question of "why be moral" for ages. 2500 years ago, the great philosopher Plato raised this issue in his most famous text, The Republic.

Plato conveyed his philosophical ideas through fictional dialogues. Many of these dialogues featured Plato's real-life teacher Socrates as a main character. In the passage we are looking at here, Socrates has proposed that the person who lives a just life is better off than the person who lives unjustly. His friend (and Plato's own brother) Glaukon is challenging him on this.

Go ahead and read the text, then come back to this point in the guidance.

What are Glaukon's claims?

How does Glaukon argue for these claims?

Claim 1: No one is just willingly.

Imagine a situation in which you have it within your power to do whatever it is you choose, and not incur any kind of punishment or social condemnation. What would you do? Would you have any reason to be moral? This is the situation he imagines when he tells the story of the Ring of Gyges.

Glaukon thinks that if we’re honest we’ll see that if a person we would normally regard as "just" or "moral" were to acquire such a ring, his actions would be in no way different from those of an unjust person, and both would follow the same path. If this is true, it shows that one is never moral willingly, but only when compelled to be.

Is Glaukon right about this? If he is, then what would that tell us about the real reasons we act morally?

Do we have any reason to act morally apart from wanting to avoid punishment or the condemnation of others?

Claim 2: Justice is a social convention that benefits the weak.

If no one really wants to act morally, why do we have these standards? What good are a set of rules no-one really wants to follow anyway?

Well, they seem to be good for society, right? It's good for us if people aren't going around killing others and stealing other people's stuff. But who is most benefited by this? To see what Glaukon's answer is, consider the following:

Imagine two people, Big Jim and Tiny Tim. Big Jim is strong, well-connected, wealthy, and charismatic. Tiny Tim is weak, a bit of a loner, poor, and socially awkward. Both of them are pretty self-centered, and want as many advantages for themselves as possible, regardless of how that might harm others. For obvious reasons, Big Jim is much better at getting what he wants than Tiny Tim. In fact, when Big Jim goes after something, it often ends up harming Tiny Tim in some way.

Is there anything people like Tiny Tim can do to prevent people like Big Jim from doing whatever they feel like, gaining all the advantages for themselves, and stepping all over the Tiny Tims?

What if we established this system of rules that constrained people's capacity to pursue whatever they want for themselves?

People like Tiny Tim were already quite constrained by their own weakness, especially when competing against people like Big Jim. Such a system would "level the playing field" a bit more, which benefits the Tiny Tims when it comes to their capacity to pursue what they want, but hinders the Big Jims, since they wouldn't be able to use all of their superior means as freely as before. Moreover, if effective it would prevent the Big Jims from harming the Tiny Tims.

Benefit: Tiny Tim.

Claim 3: The best sort of life that of the unjust person who seems just.

So we have a system of rules that tell us we have to refrain from seeking our own advantages when that harms others, and that we need to look out for the needs of those weaker and less fortunate than us. Glaukon claims that such a system benefits the weaker members of society, but so much the stronger ones. But while the weak benefit more than the strong from rules like "do good to others", we can probably all agree that it's good for society as a whole if we have these rules in place. After all, no matter how powerful I am, I don't want others trying to kill me or steal my stuff, right? So wouldn't it be a great thing if everyone lived by these moral codes?

Everyone else, that is.

Think about it: If everyone else feels compelled to help others (like you, when you need it), to avoid seeking their own advantages (more for you!), and avoid harming others (like you, when you're vulnerable), then that's great for you! And if we all recognize this, we can all recognize that it's good for everyone when people abide by these moral rules.

But that's for everyone. It doesn't change the fact that sometimes, for you as an individual, lying, stealing, and so on would be good ways to gain even more of what you want.

You'd have to still seem moral, of course: you don't want others to think that it's okay to lie and steal and whatever (that would take away one of the advantages you have), and more importantly you don't want to be punished by society, since that would negate the advantages you were hoping to gain.

By adding all of this up, we are led to admit (so Glaukon thinks) that the best life is the one that has all the advantages of living in, and seeming to abide by the standards of, a "just" society, but is able to somehow get around those standards without punishment or condemnation in seeking more what they want.

Responding to Glaukon

If you're like most people, you might find something both compelling and disturbing in these ideas. You might find yourself thinking, "if I had the Ring, I would do all sorts of things I can't do now - rob a bank to get tons of money, spy on people, or maybe even just watch a movie for free." But you may also feel a bit of the old tug of conscience: that you should use this newfound ability not just for yourself, but to help others as well - your family, your friends and community, or even the whole world. Still others might feel rather repulsed by the very thought of using this Ring for oneself, particularly at the expense of others.

These kinds of thoughts point to what we often call moral intuitions - the deep-down sense we have of some things being good or right, and other things being bad or wrong.

Glaukon would maintain that these kinds of intuitions have been conditioned in us by society, since it's obviously in the advantage of society and other people for me to have such intuitions. But if we regard them only in this way, these intuitions have no force or authority over what choices I make; they're really just feelings or emotions that I should get over if I really want to have the best life I can have.

Still, though, some of us have the persistent sense that there's something more to these intuitions. We sense that there's something about human life itself that supports them - something about what it means to be human that involves recognizing and respecting certain standards of life, and that if we disregard them or go against them we are living a lesser kind of life, even if on the surface it seems pretty good.

For the next 5 weeks, we will be examining some of the most prominent and influential attempts to make sense of these intuitions. These are philosophers that had the sense that living and acting ethically is good in itself (not simply because it can help you out), and tried to defend that through rational argument.

Our task in this course is to examine those arguments. Have they succeeded in responding to Glaukon's challenge? What might someone like Glaukon say in response their arguments? Whose arguments best make sense of what we humans recognize as valuable?

Relativism

If, as Glaukon argues, morality is nothing more than a set of social conventions, it follows that what is "right" in one society may not be "right" in another, and there would be no independent way to resolve the differences. But even if we disagree with Glaukon, we might find that it's hard to say why the values, beliefs, and ideals of one society are more "true" than those of another. This is the challenge of cultural relativism.

What would you say to someone who said that 2+2 = 7? You would probably say that they are wrong, and that 2+2 = 4.

What if they replied by saying, "well, 2+2=4 for you, but I think it's actually 7. We are each entitled to our own mathematical views. What's mathematically true for one person, may not be true for someone else, and who are we to judge others?" I imagine that we'd find this to be preposterous. Mathematical claims are true or false, regardless of whether some people disagree.

Consider the same scenario regarding a scientific question, like whether the earth is flat or whether someone has cancer or not. Again, someone might have a belief about a scientific matter, but that's not enough to make it "true for them". Most of us would agree that scientific facts are what they are regardless of whether someone believes differently, or even whether a whole culture believes differently.

In other words, we think of scientific or mathematical truths as objective: if something is true, it is true for everyone, even if they believe differently.

The other end of this is relativism, which is the view that the truth of something is relative to the person holding the belief. For example, "strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream" is a relative truth: If I believe it's the best flavor, then it is the best flavor...for me. Most of us agree that at least some beliefs having to do with taste are relative to a person, a culture, etc. What about morality?

Are moral judgments more like scientific or mathematical ones? Are they more like judgments about the best flavor of ice cream? Or are they something different than either of those?

In our second reading for this week, Mary Midgley (1983) addresses this question and argues that there is something deeply flawed with this idea that our moral values are simply relative to our own particular culture.

She begins with an old Japanese law that said that it was lawful for samurai to try out their new swords on common people that they came across in society.

Read “Trying Out One’s New Sword” (pp. 69-75) from her book, Heart and mind: The varieties of moral experience (London, GBR: Methuen & Co Ltd).

For two more perspectives on the weaknesses of relativism, see James Rachels' (1999) article, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” and Lenn E. Goodman's (2010) "Some Moral Minima".

"Who am I to say?"

Thus far we have considered cultural relativism, but sometimes we are tempted to extend this idea to differences among individuals within a society or culture. Whether we are talking about different cultures or different individuals, when someone has different values, or is raised differently, or feels differently about certain things, sometimes people might say "who am I to say that what they do is wrong?"

The next three videos confront us with cases in which people seem to lack even a basic moral conscience at all, or have radically views about what's right or wrong - people we would call "psychopaths". Moreover, as the next videos show, their minds and behaviors are often the result of experiences such as abuse, or just simply brain defects, that make them almost incapable of "normal" thought, feeling, and behavior. Should we take the same "who am I to say?" attitude towards them? Watch as much as you need to get the picture of things:

These are people who have brutalized, raped, molested, and murdered others many times over. Are we willing to look at their different perspectives and values, their different experiences, backgrounds, and even brain chemistry, and conclude that we have no right to say that what they did was "wrong"?

Most people would say that we do have that right.

These are extreme cases, of course, but they bring out an important point:

The fact that an individual or a culture has a different perspective on human life and behavior, comes out of a different background, and so on, does not necessarily undermine the idea that ethics can be "objective".

Our task in this course is to example some of the ways that philosophers have tried to articulate and defend, at this more objective level, certain moral values, principles, and behaviors. Our challenge is to examine whether and to what extent they have done so successfully.

Overview

Having considered some "big picture" questions about morality, we will look at a specific moral issues to try to get a sense of the importance of all of that.

Medical ethics deals with the questions of right and wrong that arise within the context of medical practices. Some of our most prominent and public debates fall under this category, such as those concerning abortion or affordable health care. The passions aroused by such debates should clue us into the importance of taking moral questions seriously.

Many people believe things because it's "what they've been taught," or say that their belief is merely their "opinion." We're going to try to go beyond that, and consider carefully some of the arguments behind different views, and evaluate the merits of those arguments. Thinking back to what we said in an earlier section, that moral philosophy enables us to ask:

• what are the reasons for people's disagreements, and can they be resolved?
• what assumptions are people making when they express moral beliefs, and are they legitimate?
• what is really valuable and worthwhile in human life, and are there any objective answers to those questions?

Accordingly, when considering the arguments and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, some questions to ask of the readings might be:

• What are the reasons for the conclusion the author is trying to defend?
  • Are they appealing to other beliefs that we already have, and trying to show a logical connection?
  • Are they using illustrations and examples to try to help us see the intuitive plausibility of what they are arguing?
  • Are they using certain terms (such as "respect" or "dignity") in ways that have other meanings?
  • Do these reasons have further implications beyond the conclusion the author is trying to defend? For instance, could their reasons in defense of one conclusion also be reasons in defense of another conclusion that might be much harder to accept?
• What assumptions might they be making about how we should reason about morality?
  • Are they appealing to good or bad consequences that might result from different actions or policies?
  • Are they appealing to rights, duties or obligations, prohibitions and so on?
  • Are they appealing to facts about human nature, ideas about good character, or purposes and functions tied to certain social roles?
  • Are they making a distinction between who we are, what we do, and what results from our actions? Which ones of those do they consider most important, and why?
• What do these arguments presume to be really valuable and worthwhile in human life?
  • Are they making a distinction between our experiences (such as pleasure or pain), our essential humanity, or our freedom? If so, how do they prioritize these?

To think critically about these questions, we have to look carefully not just at what the arguments are saying, but at what they might not be saying.

End-of-life Questions

The area of medical ethics we will focus on concerns what our moral responsibilities are when people reach the end of their lives, such as whether euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is morally permitted.

• We usually believe that it's wrong to intentionally take someone's life, but what if the person is experiencing great suffering?
• Is it morally wrong to take our own life, if we decide that our life is no longer worth living?
• What reasons do we have for or against various positions on these questions?

The readings and multimedia for this week addresses such questions.

Before reading the articles, I suggest you first watch the videos to get a better sense of the realities behind euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and their alternatives. What do we do when people's lives have deteriorated past the point of recovery, and they only have a short time of possibly great suffering left? The first video explores the option of palliative care, while the second considers thee circumstances that lead people to seek assisted suicide. (Note that all multimedia for the course can be accessed via the Ashford Philosophy Department's YouTube channel.)

Keeping these images and experiences in mind, and assuming that both authors have wrestled with the kinds of situations presented in the videos, let's look at the arguments for both sides.

James Rachels' "Active and Passive Euthanasia" and Leon Kass's "Why Doctors Must Not Kill" offer not just different conclusions on the end-of-life debate, but differing approaches.

Rachels asks whether there a moral difference between actively killing a person and letting them die. If there is not, as Rachels argues, and it's okay to allow people to die in certain circumstances, then it should also be okay to actively kill them in those circumstances.

Kass maintains, however, that there is an important moral distinction between killing and letting die, and that even in cases in which a person is in great suffering, there are reasons not to allow a doctor to intentionally kill them.

Your challenge will be to think about and evaluate their arguments by asking some of the questions above. Since they are arguing for contradictory positions, they can't both be right. Whose argument do you find more convincing, and why?

I suggest starting with Rachels' article, which you can find here or in your textbook, and then read Kass' piece, which is found here.

Going Deeper

These recommended readings and videos can help you go deeper with some of the issues and arguments raised above. This can be especially helpful for those who might like to write your paper on this topic.

Articles on Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

Philippa Foot, “Killing and Letting Die”.  This article is found in the readings portion of chapter 6, or by clicking here.  Foot's article is a direct response to Rachels' article “Active and Passive Euthanasia", which, as you recall, maintains that there is no inherent distinction between killing and letting die. Foot, on the contrary, argues that most people recognize an important difference between killing and letting die, and presents some provocative examples to illustrate her argument. 

Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, & Judith Jarvis Thomson, who were some of the most prominent moral and political philosophers of the 20th century, collaborated on an article that argues that assisted suicide should be legal as it promotes the basic right to determine for oneself the answer to ultimate questions about life and death. See "Assisted Suicide: The Philosophers’ Brief".

David Velleman offers a rebuttal to the “Philosophers’ Brief,” (see above) in which he argues from a Kantian perspective that those who choose to end their lives in the face of suffering fail to respect their own dignity, at least in most cases. It's an important example of an argument against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide that is not based in religious belief. See "A Right Of Self‐Termination?" 

On the other hand, some people might be interested in the religious point of view. Most of us know that the Catholic Church opposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, but many don't exactly know why. John Paul II's encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae is a very important document that spells out such an argument in a way that can be relevant to all religious traditions, not just Catholics. Read it here. If you are interested in Islamic perspectives on these and related questions, you can find these two articles in the Ashford library: Brockopp, J. E. (2008). Islam and Bioethics: Beyond Abortion and Euthanasia. Journal of Religious Ethics, 36(1), 3-12;
Ghaly, M. (2012). The Beginning of Human Life: Islamic Bioethical Perspectives. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 47(1), 175-213.

Finally, Peter Singer, whom we will encounter in Week 2's unit on animal ethics, presents a characteristically clear and straightforward defense of euthanasia from a utilitarian perspective. See Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective.

End-of-Life Care

One of the considerations that is raised by many of the arguments concerns the fact that we often have limited resources available to care for people as they reach the end of their lives. Should this be a factor in our deliberation about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide?

What might be a reason to think that it should? What might be a reason to think that it should not? These recommended videos present perspective that might help you think about such questions.

Web Resources

This entry on Voluntary Euthanasia from the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has lots of useful information, and is an excellent resource for further research on this topic.