“This is a rich, wide-ranging, and nicely accessible collection of many of moral philosophy’s greatest hits, updated to include an excellent new section in feminist ethics. A must-have for anyone interested in ethics.”

Hilde Lindemann, Michigan State University Praise for the First Edition:“This collection is a very welcome addition. It is remarkable for the breadth of issues discussed and the diversity of positions represented. Throughout, the selections have been chosen with a keen eye for excellence and accessibility. Taken together, they provide a vivid panorama of ethical theory today.”

Peter Railton, University of Michigan

“It is a wonderfully comprehensive collection that manages to bring together well-chosen papers on a number of significant areas in moral theory.”

Geoff Sayre-McCord, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This second edition of Ethical Theory: An Anthology presents a comprehensive and authoritative collection of key essays addressing questions at the heart of moral philosophy. More than eighty essays from classic and contemporary philosophers cover all aspects of the major branches of ethics – meta-ethics, normative ethics, and practical ethics. The essays included here raise important questions about the status and rational authority of morality while offering guidance through key areas in the field, including consequentialism, deontology, contractarianism, and virtue ethics. Underrepresented topics such as moral knowledge, moral standing, moral responsibility, and ethical particularism are also addressed. Essays trace the evolution of ethical theory from its classical roots through to current moral philosophy, including influential work from Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant to important contemporary material by Derek Parfit, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and many others. Together with a number of new essays and revisions, this revised edition features the addition of an entire new section focused on feminist ethics.

Russ Shafer-Landau is Department Chair and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His previous publications include The Foundations of Ethics: An Anthology (2006, with Terence Cuneo) and Moral Realism: A Defense (2003). He also the editor of Oxford Studies in Metaethics.

Cover image: Balancing rock in Grapevine mountains, Texas (c) David Muench / CorbisCover design by Nicki Averill

Ed

itE

d b

y

Sh

af

Er

-L

an

da

u

Et

hic

aL

th

Eo

ry

SE

co

nd

E

dit

ion

EditEd by ruSS ShafEr-Landau

EthicaL thEory

an anthoLogy SEcond Edition

pb_9780470671603.indd 1 25/4/12 15:01:37

pg3628File Attachment9780470671603.jpg

p01.indd 2p01.indd 2 5/11/2012 10:34:50 PM5/11/2012 10:34:50 PM

Ethical Theory

0001517413.INDD i0001517413.INDD i 4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM

BLACKWELL PHILOSOPHY ANTHOLOGIES

Each volume in this outstanding series provides an authoritative and comprehensive collection of the essential primary readings from philosophy’s main fields of study. Designed to complement the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series, each volume represents an unparalleled resource in its own right, and will provide the ideal platform for course use.

1 Cottingham: Western Philosophy: An Anthology (second edition) 2 Cahoone: From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology (expanded second edition) 3 LaFollette: Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (third edition) 4 Goodin and Pettit: Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (second edition) 5 Eze: African Philosophy: An Anthology 6 McNeill and Feldman: Continental Philosophy: An Anthology 7 Kim and Sosa: Metaphysics: An Anthology 8 Lycan and Prinz: Mind and Cognition: An Anthology (third edition) 9 Kuhse and Singer: Bioethics: An Anthology (second edition) 10 Cummins and Cummins: Minds, Brains, and Computers – The Foundations of Cognitive Science: An Anthology 11 Sosa, Kim, Fantl, and McGrath Epistemology: An Anthology (second edition) 12 Kearney and Rasmussen: Continental Aesthetics – Romanticism to Postmodernism: An Anthology 13 Martinich and Sosa: Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology 14 Jacquette: Philosophy of Logic: An Anthology 15 Jacquette: Philosophy of Mathematics: An Anthology 16 Harris, Pratt, and Waters: American Philosophies: An Anthology 17 Emmanuel and Goold: Modern Philosophy – From Descartes to Nietzsche: An Anthology 18 Scharff and Dusek: Philosophy of Technology – The Technological Condition: An Anthology 19 Light and Rolston: Environmental Ethics: An Anthology 20 Taliaferro and Griffiths: Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology 21 Lamarque and Olsen: Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art – The Analytic Tradition: An Anthology 22 John and Lopes: Philosophy of Literature – Contemporary and Classic Readings: An Anthology 23 Cudd and Andreasen: Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology 24 Carroll and Choi: Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology 25 Lange: Philosophy of Science: An Anthology 26 Shafer-Landau and Cuneo: Foundations of Ethics: An Anthology 27 Curren: Philosophy of Education: An Anthology 28 Cahn and Meskin: Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology 29 McGrew, Alspector-Kelly, and Allhoff: The Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology 30 May: Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings 31 Rosenberg and Ar p: Philosophy of Biology: An Anthology 32 Kim, Korman, and Sosa: Metaphysics: An Anthology (second edition) 33 Martinich and Sosa: Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology (second edition) 34 Shafer-Landau: Ethical Theory: An Anthology (second edition)

0001517413.INDD ii0001517413.INDD ii 4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM

ETHICAL THEORY AN ANTHOLOGY

Second Edition

Edited by

Russ Shafer-Landau

A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication

0001517413.INDD iii0001517413.INDD iii 4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM

This edition first published 2013 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Edition history: Blackwell Publishers Ltd (1e, 2007)

Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.

Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell .

The right of Russ Shafer-Landau to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ethical theory : an anthology / edited by Russell Shafer-Landau. – 2nd ed. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-470-67160-3 (pbk.)1. Ethics. I. Shafer-Landau, Russ. BJ1012.E88346 2012 170–dc23

2012013174

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Set in 9.5/11.5pt Bembo by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India

1 2013

0001517413.INDD iv0001517413.INDD iv 4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM4/28/2012 6:24:08 PM

Preface xi Source Acknowledgments xiii

Part I The Status of Morality 1

Introduction to Part I 3 1. “Of the Influencing Motives of the Will” and “Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason” 7 David Hume

2. A Critique of Ethics 16 A. J. Ayer

3. The Subjectivity of Values 22 J. L. Mackie

4. Ethics and Observation 31 Gilbert Harman

5. Moral Relativism Defended 35 Gilbert Harman

6. Cultural Relativism 44 Harry Gensler

7. The Subject-Matter of Ethics 48 G. E. Moore

8. Ethics as Philosophy: A Defense of Ethical Nonnaturalism 54 Russ Shafer-Landau

9. Realism 63 Michael Smith

Part II Moral Knowledge 69

Introduction to Part II 71 10. Thinking About Cases 74 Shelly Kagan

Contents

0001517414.INDD v0001517414.INDD v 4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM

vi contents

11. But I Could be Wrong 85 George Sher

12. Proof 94 Renford Bambrough

13. Moral Knowledge and Ethical Pluralism 101 Robert Audi

14. Coherentism and the Justification of Moral Beliefs 112 Geoffrey Sayre-McCord

Part III Why Be Moral? 127

Introduction to Part III 129 15. The Immoralist’s Challenge 132 Plato

16. Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives 138 Philippa Foot

17. A Puzzle About the Rational Authority of Morality 144 David O. Brink

18. Moral Rationalism 159 Russ Shafer-Landau

19. Psychological Egoism 167 Joel Feinberg

20. Flourishing Egoism 178 Lester Hunt

21. Ethical Egoism 193 James Rachels

22. Moral Saints 200 Susan Wolf

Part IV Ethics and Religion 213

Introduction to Part IV 215 23. Euthyphro 218 Plato

24. A New Divine Command Theory 220 Robert Merrihew Adams

25. God and Objective Morality: A Debate 225 William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

26. God and Immortality as Postulates of Pure Practical Reason 230 Immanuel Kant

27. God and the Moral Order 234 C. Stephen Layman

0001517414.INDD vi0001517414.INDD vi 4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM

contents vii

28. God and Morality 242 Erik Wielenberg

Part V Value 253

Introduction to Part V 255 29. Hedonism 258 John Stuart Mill

30. The Experience Machine 264 Robert Nozick

31. The Good Life: A Defense of Attitudinal Hedonism 266 Fred Feldman

32. Rationality and Full Information 277 Thomas Carson

33. Desire and the Human Good 286 Richard Kraut

34. What Makes Someone’s Life Go Best 294 Derek Parfit

35. What Things are Good? 299 W. D. Ross

Part VI Moral Responsibility 303

Introduction to Part VI 305 36. Determinism and the Theory of Agency 308 Richard Taylor

37. The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility 312 Galen Strawson

38. Freedom and Necessity 317 A. J. Ayer

39. Moral Luck 322 Thomas Nagel

40. Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility 330 Susan Wolf

41. Freedom and Resentment 340 Peter Strawson

Part VII Moral Standing 353

Introduction to Part VII 355 42. We Have No Duties to Animals 359 Immanuel Kant

0001517414.INDD vii0001517414.INDD vii 4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM

viii contents

43. All Animals are Equal 361 Peter Singer

44. The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations 372 Joel Feinberg

45. On Being Morally Considerable 381 Kenneth Goodpaster

46. Abortion and Infanticide 390 Michael Tooley

47. An Argument that Abortion is Wrong 400 Don Marquis

Part VIII Consequentialism 411

Introduction to Part VIII 413 48. Utilitarianism 417 John Stuart Mill

49. Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism 423 J. J. C. Smart

50. Rule-Consequentialism 428 Brad Hooker

51. Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality 441 Peter Railton

52. What is Wrong with Slavery 458 R. M. Hare

53. Famine, Affluence and Morality 466 Peter Singer

54. The Survival Lottery 474 John Harris

Part IX Deontology 479

Introduction to Part IX 481 55. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 485 Immanuel Kant

56. Kant’s Formula of Universal Law 499 Christine Korsgaard

57. Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems 510 Onora O’Neill

58. The Rationality of Side Constraints 521 Robert Nozick

59. The Golden Rule Rationalized 524 Alan Gewirth

0001517414.INDD viii0001517414.INDD viii 4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM4/28/2012 6:25:28 PM

contents ix

60. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect 536 Philippa Foot

61. Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem 543 Judith Jarvis Thomson

Part X Contractarianism 553

Introduction to Part X 555 62. Leviathan 558 Thomas Hobbes

63. Why Contractarianism? 571 David Gauthier

64. A Theory of Justice 581 John Rawls

65. Contractualism and Utilitarianism 593 T. M. Scanlon

Part XI Virtue Ethics 609

Introduction to Part XI 611 66. The Nature of Virtue 615 Aristotle

67. Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach 630 Martha Nussbaum

68. Normative Virtue Ethics 645 Rosalind Hursthouse

69. Agent-Based Virtue Ethics 653 Michael Slote

70. A Virtue Ethical Account of Right Action 664 Christine Swanton

71. Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing 676 Julia Annas

Part XII Feminist Ethics 687

Introduction to Part XII 689 72. In a Different Voice 692 Carol Gilligan

73. An Ethic of Caring 699 Nell Noddings

74. Justice, Care, and Gender Bias 713 Cheshire Calhoun

75. The Need for More than Justice 721 Annette Baier

0001517414.INDD ix0001517414.INDD ix 4/28/2012 6:25:29 PM4/28/2012 6:25:29 PM

x contents

76. Sexism 729 Marilyn Frye

77. Feminist Skepticism, Authority, and Transparency 735 Margaret Urban Walker

Part XIII Prima Facie Duties and Particularism 751

Introduction to Part XIII 753 78. What Makes Right Acts Right? 756 W. D. Ross

79. An Unconnected Heap of Duties? 763 David McNaughton

80. An Unprincipled Morality 772 Jonathan Dancy

81. On Knowing the “Why”: Particularism and Moral Theory 776 Margaret Olivia Little

82. Unprincipled Ethics 785 Gerald Dworkin

0001517414.INDD x0001517414.INDD x 4/28/2012 6:25:29 PM4/28/2012 6:25:29 PM

As a cursory scan through the table of contents will show, the realm of ethical theory is an expansive one. If I had my way, this book would have been half again as long, to reflect this breadth, but then my editor rightly drew my attention to certain practicalities of the publishing world. I am hopeful, nonetheless, that most of the centrally important questions in ethical theory receive attention within these covers.

At the heart of ethics are two questions: (1) What should I do?, and (2) What sort of person should I be? Though philosophers sometimes proceed as if these questions were really quite distinct from one another, it is artificial to suppose that we can plausibly answer the one without making important commitments that go some way s towards answering the other. We can also, of course, ask about the status of our answers to these questions, by asking, for instance, whether such answers are in some way reflective only of personal opinion, or whether they might be best measured against some more objective standard. And again, we might be puz-zled at how we can gain ethical knowledge in the first place (if we can), and wonder at the rational authority of morality (if there is any). All of these questions, and many others, are addressed, if not conclusively answered, in the readings that follow.

Any contemporary ethics anthology worth its salt will be sure to include coverage of consequentialism, deontology, contractarianism, and virtue ethics. This book does that, but I have been intent on ensuring that other areas, less often surveyed in such books, receive attention as well. This explains the separate sections on moral standing, moral responsibility, moral knowledge, and a concluding sampling of work that asks about the

very possibility of systematic ethical theory. These are matters in which students tend to be quite interested, though for various reasons these issues are usually omitted, or given only scant representation, in antholo-gies such as this one.

I have also made the difficult decision, in the last several sections devoted to normative ethics, to forgo the usual point-counterpoint sampling of contrasting views, in favor of devoting each such section entirely to proponents of the theory being represented. Thus, in the section on consequentialism, for instance, I omit the usual critics of the doctrine, and restrict myself to allowing only its defenders a voice therein. This makes the reader’s work a bit more difficult, but also, I think, much more interesting. What this approach allows is a richer and subtler representation of the normative theory under scrutiny. Readers will not have criticisms of the theories presented and ready to hand. As a compensation, however, they will have a more nuanced target to aim at when seeking to identify for themselves the vulnerabilities (and the strengths) of the views they are exploring.

The task of comprehending, within the pages of even this large work, the entire compass of ethical the-ory is not one that any sane philosopher would think possible. (Not that it hasn’t been fun trying.) I’m sure that those with experience of this area will doubtless be disappointed to find that a favorite paper has gone missing here or there. But I hope to have provided enough in the way of pleasant surprises and compen-sating rewards to make up for that sort of thing. My own goal is to have included here articles that are exemplary in their accessibility, their being centrally

Preface

0001517415.INDD xi0001517415.INDD xi 4/27/2012 12:49:18 AM4/27/2012 12:49:18 AM

xii pre face

representative of an important view within ethical theory, and their being first-rate works of philosophy. In a very small number of cases I have included pieces that I know to have failed in one of these aspects, because they have been so successful in the others.

Here is a listing of what is new in this second edition:

● Harry Gensler, “Cultural Relativism” (Part I) ● George Sher, “But I Could Be Wrong” ● David O. Brink, “A Puzzle About the Rational

Authority of Morality” (Part III) ● Thomas Carson, “Rationality and Full Information”

(Part V) ● J. J. C. Smart, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism” ● Peter Railton, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and

the Demands of Morality” (Part VIII)

In addition to these fine selections, I have added an entirely new part, Part XII, devoted to feminist ethics. The readings in that part are:

● Carol Gilligan, “In a Different Voice” ● Nel Noddings, “An Ethic of Caring” ● Cheshire Calhoun, “Justice, Care, and Gender Bias” ● Annette Baier, “The Need for More than Justice” ● Marilyn Frye, “Sexism” ● Margaret Walker, “Feminist Skepticism, Authority,

and Transparency”

I’ve greatly enjoyed acquainting and reacquainting myself with these terrific works. A further source of genuine pleasure comes from acknowledging the very kind, expert advice I have received from so many talented and generous philosophers. My sincere thanks to Jim Anderson, Steven Arkonovich, Paul Bloomfield, Ben Bradley, Claudia Card, Tom Carson, Terence Cuneo, Jonathan Dancy, Ben Eggleston, Dan Hausman, Dan Haybron, Chris Heathwood, Thomas Hill, Jr., Dan Jacobson, Robert Johnson, Hilde Lindemann, Thaddeus Metz, Carolina Sartorio, Sam Scheffler, Rob Streiffer, and Pekka Väyrynen. Don Hubin, Simon Keller, and James S. Taylor reviewed my introductory essays and offered excellent suggestions for improvement. Bekka Williams and David Killoren significantly aided in the research, and Brad Majors was a superb assistant in every way.

Jeff Dean prompted me to put this book together, and I’d like to express my appreciation to him not only for encouraging me along these lines, but also for being such a thoughtful and reasonable editor. His assistants, Danielle Descoteaux (for the first edition) and Tiffany Mok (for the second), served as my regular correspondents at Blackwell, and were the very model of cheery, intelligent efficiency. I couldn’t have asked for a better editorial team.

RSL Madison, Spring 2012

0001517415.INDD xii0001517415.INDD xii 4/27/2012 12:49:18 AM4/27/2012 12:49:18 AM

The editor and publisher gratefully acknowledge the permission granted to reproduce the copyright material in this book:

1 David Hume, “Of the Influencing Motives of the Will” and “Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason,” from Treatise of Human Nature , Book III, 1737.

2 A. J. Ayer, “A Critique of Ethics,” from Language, Truth and Logic (Dover, 1952), 102–13. First published by Gollancz in 1936. Reprinted with permission of The Orion Publishing Group.

3 J. L. Mackie, “The Subjectivity of Values,” from Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Penguin, 1977), 15–18, 29–43. Reprinted with permission of Penguin Books.

4 Gilbert Harman, “Ethics and Observation,” from The Nature of Morality (Oxford University Press, 1977), 3–10. © OUP Inc. 1977. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

5 Gilbert Harman, “Moral Relativism Defended,” Philosophical Review , 85 (1975), 3–22. Reprinted by kind permission of the author.

6 Harry Gensler, “Cultural Relativism,” from Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge, 1998), 11–17. Reprinted with permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK.

7 G. E. Moore, “The Subject-Matter of Ethics,” from Principia Ethica , 1903.

8 Russ Shafer-Landau, “Ethics as Philosophy: A Defense of Ethical Nonnaturalism,” from Mark Timmons and Terence Horgan, eds., Metaethics after Moore (Oxford University Press, 2005).

© various authors 2005. Reprinted with permis-sion of Oxford University Press.

9 Michael Smith, “Realism,” from Peter Singer, ed., A Companion to Ethics (Blackwell, 1991), 399–410. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

10 Shelly Kagan, “Thinking about Cases,” from Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Miller, Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, eds., Moral Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 44–63. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press.

11 George Sher, “But I Could Be Wrong,” Social Philosophy & Policy , 18/2 (2001), 64–78. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge Journals.

12 Renford Bambrough, “Proof,” from Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge (Routledge, 1979), 11–13, 15–27. Reprinted with permission of Mrs. Bambrough via Taylor & Francis.

13 Robert Audi, “Moral Knowledge and Ethical Pluralism,” from John Greco and Ernest Sosa, eds., Blackwell Guide to Epistemology (Blackwell, 1999), 275–6, 278–85, 288–95. Reprinted with permis-sion of Wiley-Blackwell.

14 Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, “Coherentism and the Justification of Moral Beliefs,” from Mark Timmons and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, eds., Moral Knowledge: New Readings in Moral Epistemology (Oxford University Press, 1996). Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

15 Plato, “The Immoralist’s Challenge,” from The Republic, Book II , trans. G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve (Hackett, 1992), 357A–367E. ©  1992 by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Source Acknowledgments

0001517416.INDD xiii0001517416.INDD xiii 5/15/2012 5:31:51 AM5/15/2012 5:31:51 AM

xiv source acknowledgments

Reprinted with permission of Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

16 Philippa Foot, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives,” Philosophical Review , 81 (Duke University Press, 1972), 305–15.

17 David O. Brink, “A Puzzle about the Rational Authority of Morality,” Philosophical Perspectives , 6 (1992), 1–26. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

18 Russ Shafer-Landau, “Moral Rationalism,” from Moral Realism: A Defence (Oxford University Press, 2003), excerpted from chapters 7 and 8. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

19 Joel Feinberg, “Psychological Egoism,” from Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds., Reason and Responsibility , 12th edn. (Wadsworth, 2004), 476–88. Reprinted with permission of Cengage Learning.

20 Lester Hunt, “Flourishing Egoism,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 16 (1999), 72–95. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge Journals.

21 James Rachels, “Ethical Egoism,” from The Elements of Moral Philosophy , 4th edn. (McGraw-Hill, 2003), 76–90. Reprinted with permission of McGraw-Hill Education.

22 Susan Wolf, “Moral Saints,” The Journal of Philosophy , 79/8 (1982), 419–39. The Journal of Philosophy.

23 Plato, “Euthyphro,” trans. Benjamin Jowett, Oxford, 1892.

24 Robert Merrihew Adams, “Divine Command Metaethics Modified Again,” Journal of Religious Ethics , 7 (Blackwell Publishing, 1979), 66–79. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

25 William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “God and Objective Morality: A Debate,” from God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Oxford University Press, 2004), 17–21, 33–6. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

26 Immanuel Kant, “God and Immortality as Postulates of Pure Practical Reason,” from Critique of Practical Reason , trans. T. K. Abbott (Longmans, Green and Company, 1873).

27 C. Stephen Layman, “God and the Moral Order,” Faith and Philosophy , 19 (2002), 304–16. Reprinted with permission of Faith and Philosophy.

28 Erik Wielenberg, “God and Morality,” from Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 39–42, 48–65.

© Cambridge University Press 2005. Reproduced with permission.

29 John Stuart Mill, “Hedonism,” from Utiliarianism (1859).

30 Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine,” from Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974), 42–5. Reprinted with permission of Perseus Books Group and Wiley-Blackwell.

31 Fred Feldman, “The Good Life: A Defence of Attitudinal Hedonism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 65 (2002), 605–27. Reprinted with permis-sion of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

32 Thomas Carson, “The Concept of Rationality as a Basis for Normative Theories,” from Value and the Good Life (University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 222–39, 304–5.

33 Richard Kraut, “Desire and the Human Good,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 68/2 (1995), 39–49. American Philosophical Association.

34 Derek Parfit, “What Makes Someone’s Life Go Best,” from Reasons and Persons (Oxford University Press, 1984), 493–502. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

35 W. D. Ross, “What Things are Good?”, from The Right and The Good (Oxford University Press, 1930), 134–40. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

36 Richard Taylor, “Determinism and the Theory of Agency,” from Sydney Hook, ed., Determinism and Freedom (New York University Press, 1959), 211–18. © 1959 New York University Press. Reprinted with permission.

37 Galen Strawson, “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,”originally from Philosophical Studies , 75 (1994), 5, 7–10, 13–15, 25. Updated and reprinted in Real Materialism and Other Essays (Oxford University Press, 2008). Reprinted with kind permission of the author.

38 A. J. Ayer, “Freedom and Necessity,” from Philosophical Essays (Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 1969), 271–84. Reprinted with permission of Palgrave Macmillan.

39 Thomas Nagel, “Moral Luck,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 50 (1976), 137–55. Reprinted by courtesy of the Editor of the Aristotelian Society © 1976.

40 Susan Wolf, “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility,” from Ferdinand Schoeman, ed.,

0001517416.INDD xiv0001517416.INDD xiv 5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM

source acknowledgments xv

Responsibility, Character and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1988), 46–62. © Cambridge University Press 1987. Reproduced with permission.

41 Peter Strawson, “Freedom and Resentment,” Proceedings of the British Academy , 48 (1962), 1–25. Reprinted with permission of British Academy.

42 Immanuel Kant, “We Have No Duties to Animals,” from Lectures on Ethics , trans. Louis Infield (Methuen, now Routledge, 1930), 239–41. Reprinted with permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK.

43 Peter Singer, “All Animals are Equal,” from Animal Liberation , 2nd edn. (Ecco Press, 1990), 1–21. Reprinted with permission of The Random House Group Limited and Peter Singer.

44 Joel Feinberg, “The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations,” from William Blackstone, ed., Philosophy and Environmental Crisis (University of Georgia Press, 1974), 43–6, 49–50, 55, 57–63. Reprinted with kind permission of Jean T. Blackstone.

45 Kenneth Goodpaster, “On Being Morally Considerable,” The Journal of Philosophy , 75 (1978), 308, 310–25. The Journal of Philosophy.

46 Michael Tooley, “Abortion and Infanticide,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1 (1972), 44–55, 58–64. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

47 Don Marquis, “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong,” from Hugh LaFollette, ed., Ethics in Practice (Blackwell, 1997), 91–102. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

48 John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism,” from Utilitarianism (1859).

49 J. J. C. Smart, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism,” Philosophical Quarterly , 6 (Blackwell Publishing, 1956), 344–54. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

50 Brad Hooker, “Rule-Consequentialism,” from Hugh LaFollette, ed., Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), 183–204. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

51 Peter Railton, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 13 (1984), 134–71. Reprinted with permis-sion of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

52 R. M. Hare, “What is Wrong with Slavery,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 8 (Blackwell Publishing, 1979), 103–21. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

53 Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” from Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1/3 (Blackwell Publishing, 1972), 229–43. Reprinted with per-mission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

54 John Harris, “The Survival Lottery,” Philosophy , 50 (1975), 81–7. The Royal Institute of Philosophy, published by Cambridge University Press, repro-duced with permission of Cambridge University Press and Professor John Harris.

55 Immanuel Kant, from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , trans. Mary Gregor (Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7–16, 25–39. Reprinted with permis-sion of Cambridge University Press and The Estate of Professor M. J. Gregor.

56 Christine Korsgaard, “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 66 (Blackwell Publishing, 1985), 24–47. Reprinted with permis-sion of Wiley-Blackwell.

57 Onora O’Neill, “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems,” from Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death , 3 rd edn. (McGraw-Hill, 1993), 258–70. Reprinted with permission of McGraw-Hill Education.

58 Robert Nozick, “The Rationality of Side Constraints,” from Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974), 27–33. Basic Books, a member of Perseus Books LLC.

59 Alan Gewirth, “The Golden Rule Rationalized,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 3 (Blackwell Publishing, 1978), 133–47. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

60 Philippa Foot, “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect,” Oxford Review , 5 (1967). 5–15.

61 Judith Jarvis Thomson, “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” The Monist , 59 (1976), 204–17. Copyright © The Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Reprinted with permission.

62 Thomas Hobbes, from Leviathan (1651). 63 David Gauthier, “Why Contractarianism?,” from

Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 15–30. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press.

64 John Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” from A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971), 11–21, 60–3, 136–40, 153–6. Cambridge, Mass.: The

0001517416.INDD xv0001517416.INDD xv 5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM

xvi source acknowledgments

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Copyright © 1971, 1999 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Reprinted with permission of Harvard University Press.

65 T. M. Scanlon, “Contractualism and Utilitarianism,” from Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds., Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 103–29. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press and Professor T. Scanlon.

66 Aristotle, “The Nature of Virtue,” from Nichomachean Ethics , trans. Terence Irwin (Hackett, 1999), 1–5, 7–12, 15–29, 163–9. © 1999 by Terence Irwin. Reprinted with permission of Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

67 Martha Nussbaum, “Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach,” from Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, Jr., and Howard K Wettstein, eds., Ethical Theory: Character and Virtue , Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 13 (1988), 32–50. University of Notre Dame Press.

68 Rosalind Hursthouse, “Normative Virtue Ethics,” from Roger Crisp, ed., How Should One Live? (Oxford University Press, 1996), 19–33. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

69 Michael Slote, “Agent-Based Virtue Ethics,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 20 (Blackwell Publishing, 1995), 83–101. Reprinted with per-mission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

70 Christine Swanton, “A Virtue Ethical Account of Right Action,” Ethics , 112 (The University of  Chicago Press, 2001), 32–52. Reprinted with permission of The University of Chicago Press.

71 Julia Annas, “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 78 (2004), 61–74. American Philosophical Association.

72 Carol Gilligan, “In a Different Voice,” from In A Different Voice (Harvard University Press, 1982), 24–9, 70–1, 73–4, 98–101, 105, 173–4.

73 Nell Noddings, “An Ethic of Caring,” from Caring: A Femine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (University of California Press, 1984), 79–103.

74 Cheshire Calhoun, “Justice, Care, and Gender Bias,” The Journal of Philosophy , 85 (1988), 451–63. Reprinted with permission of The Journal of Philosophy.

75 Annette Baier, “The Need for More than Justice,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , supplementary volume 13 (1987), 18–32. Reprinted with permission.

76 Marilyn Frye, “Sexism,” from The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (The Crossing Press, 1983), 17–20, 23–4, 29, 31–8.

77 Margaret Urban Walker, “Feminist Skepticism, Authority, and Transparency,” from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Mark Timmons, eds., Moral Knowledge? New Readings in Moral Epistemology (Oxford University Press, 1995), 267–92. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

78 W. D. Ross, “What Makes Right Acts Right?”, from The Right and the Good (Oxford University Press, 1930), 18–22, 29–32, 39–41. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

79 David McNaughton, “An Unconnected Heap of Duties?”, Philosophical Quarterly , 46 (Blackwell Publishing, 1996), 433–47. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell.

80 Jonathan Dancy, “An Unprincipled Morality.” ©  Jonathan Dancy. Reprinted with the kind per-mission of the author.

81 Margaret Olivia Little, “On Knowing the ‘Why’: Particularism and Moral Theory,” Hastings Center Report , 31/4 (The Hastings Center, 2001), 32–40.

82 Gerald Dworkin, “Unprincipled Ethics,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 20 (Blackwell Publishing, 1995), 224–38. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyright material. The publisher apologizes for any errors or omissions in the above list and would be grateful if notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in future reprints or editions of this book.

0001517416.INDD xvi0001517416.INDD xvi 5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM5/15/2012 5:31:52 AM

Part I

The Status of Morality

0001513939.INDD 10001513939.INDD 1 4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM

0001513939.INDD 20001513939.INDD 2 4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM

Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suppose that we are puzzled about whether we ought to lend our support to a war that our government has initiated. We mull things over, we talk to our friends, we listen to what politicians and opinion writers have to say about the matter, and then, finally, we do manage to make up our minds. Can our moral view of the matter be true? If so, what could make it true?

Suppose that we have thought things out quite a bit, and have arrived, not at a particular assessment of this war or that war, but of all wars – we have developed a theory of just war. This theory tells us the conditions under which the activities of war are just and right. Can this theory be true? If so, what makes it true?

Suppose, finally, that our thinking has become so sophisticated that we are able, after a great deal of effort, to develop an entire ethic. We have, to our satisfaction, identified the conditions that determine whether actions are moral or immoral. Can this sort of theory be true? If so, what makes it true?

The questions I have posed are not questions about the content of morality. I am not asking about what should go on the laundry list of moral dos and don’ts. The questions I posed above are about the status of our moral opinions, and our moral theories. What are we doing when we arrive at moral verdicts and theories? So long as we are speaking sincerely, we are surely voicing our personal opinion about such matters. But is that all there is to it? Do our opinions answer to any independent authority? Are actions right just because

someone approves of them? Because a society approves of them? Because God approves of them? Or might it be that actions are right independently of all such sources of approval? Or, more pessimistically, might it be the case that morality is a fraud, a system of merely conventional rules that have no real authority at all? On this line, all of our moral talk is fraught with error: we think that genocide is immoral, and think it our duty to tend to the weak, but these views, like all moral views, are (on this line) simply mistaken.

The possibilities just canvassed represent the wide variety of views in metaethics . Metaethics is that branch of ethical theory that asks, not about the content of morality, but about its status. Is morality a human invention? A divine creation? Something else? Can we have moral knowledge, and, if so, how? Are moral requirements rationally compelling – do we always have excellent reason to do as morality says? For present purposes, the central metaethical question is whether moral views can be true, and, if so, whether they can be objectively true. A claim is objectively true just in case it is true independently of what any human being actually thinks of it. There are lots of objective truths: that two and two are four; that oxygen is denser than helium, that the planet Mars is smaller than the planet Jupiter. The big question here is whether there are any moral claims that share this status.

Many of our writers do not think so. David Hume, our lead-off author, wrote his magnificent Treatise of

Introduction to Part I

0001513939.INDD 30001513939.INDD 3 4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM4/25/2012 2:11:06 AM

4 introduction

Human Nature when he was still in his twenties. Contained therein is a series of very powerful arguments against the objectivity of ethics. Many of these argu-ments are, either on their own or with an updating, taken today as cogent reasons for rejecting ethical objectivity. One of the more famous arguments is this:

1. All claims that can be known by reason are either empirical matters of fact, or conceptual truths (such as “all bachelors are unmarried,” or “all cubes have six sides”).

2. Moral claims do not represent empirical matters of fact.

3. Moral claims do not represent conceptual truths. 4. Therefore reason cannot give us moral knowledge.

Hume was also notable for emphasizing the impossibility of deducing an ought from an is , i.e., deducing a moral claim, or a prescription about what should be done, from a factual claim that describes what is the case. One is making no logical error in accepting this description: “that action is a premeditated killing of a defenseless child,” but failing to infer that “therefore that action is immoral.” If the person who knows of the killing fails to deem it immoral, she is not making a logical error. But what other sort of error could she be making? It is no error of reason, says Hume, for it is an implication of his argument, above, that errors of reason are limited to two kinds: mistaking empirical matters of fact, or misunder-standing the concepts one is employing. But such a callous individual may know all of the nonmoral facts surrounding the killing, and may be as conceptually sophisticated as the rest of us. If there is any error made by such a person, it cannot be that she has failed to get at the truth. For reason is the faculty that gets at truth, and if, according to Hume, there is no error of reason, then there is no failure to light on the truth. Perhaps, as many commentators read him, that is because Hume didn’t believe that there was such a thing as ethical truth.

Here is another argument taken from Hume’s classic work:

1. Moral judgments are intrinsically motivating. 2. Beliefs are not intrinsically motivating – they need

desires to generate motivation. 3. Therefore moral judgments are not beliefs.

If moral judgments are not beliefs, then what are they? A. J. Ayer, whose views on ethics clearly bear a Humean

influence, claims that our moral judgments are just expressions of our emotions. If I judge that eating meat is immoral, for instance, I am not reporting a putative fact about meat eating. Rather, I am expressing my aversion to it. It’s as if I were saying: “meat-eating – yechhh!” Such an expression, pretty clearly, cannot be true. But neither can it be false. It is not the sort of thing discernible by reason, since it doesn’t seek to represent the way things really are. Moral judgments are not reports or descriptions of the world. They are our emo-tional responses to a world that contains no values at all.

J. L. Mackie holds a view that is pretty close to Ayer’s. Mackie agrees with Ayer that the world contains no values. Nothing is morally right or wrong. Of course, almost all of us resort to moral vocabulary to register our approvals or disapprovals of things. But our moral judgments are never true.

There is a subtle but important disagreement between these two thinkers. Ayer denies that moral judgments are  truth-apt, i.e., capable of being true or false. He thinks this because of his attachment to the verifiability criterion of meaning, according to which a sentence is meaningful only if it is either a conceptual truth or empirically verifiable. Ayer basically takes Hume’s criterion for what could be discovered by reason, and applies it to the theory of meaning. Ayer denies that moral claims are conceptual truths, and he also thinks it impossible to verify them through the evidence of the senses. So Ayer judges them meaningless. And a meaningless sentence is not truth-apt – it is neither true nor false.

Mackie, by contrast, thinks that moral claims are meaningful, but always fail to state the truth. That’s because, for Mackie, there is no moral truth. Morality is entirely made-up, though we all suppose that it answers to some objective criteria of right and wrong. Since there are no such criteria, all of our moral claims rest on a massive failure of presupposition. We assume the existence of objective values in our moral judgments. We try to accurately report on the details of an objective morality. But we invariably fail, and lapse into error, because the very thing required to make our moral judgments true (i.e., an objective moral reality) does not exist.

Mackie’s arguments for this view are numerous. One of the most important ones is this:

1. The degree of disagreement in ethics is much greater than that found in science.

2. The best explanation of this is that science explores a realm of objective facts, while ethics comprises

0001513939.INDD 40001513939.INDD 4 4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM

introduction 5

a  set of judgments that reflect non-objective, parochial opinion.

3. The view likeliest to be true is the one that best explains the available evidence.

4. Therefore the view likeliest to be true is that ethics comprises a set of judgments that reflect non-objective, parochial opinion.

The comparative breadth and depth of ethical disa-greement has long been a source of suspicion about the objectivity of ethics. So, too, has this concern, again well expressed by Mackie in another of his arguments:

1. If there are any genuine moral requirements, then they must be intrinsically motivating and intrinsi-cally reason-giving.

2. Nothing is either intrinsically motivating or intrinsically reason-giving.

3. Therefore there are no genuine moral requirements.

Mackie argues that anything that is either intrinsically motivating or reason-giving would be “queer” – quite unlike anything else we know of in the universe. Following Hume, he thinks that motivation is entirely contingent on what one happens to believe and desire. No fact or putative requirement can motivate all by itself. Mackie also thinks that the very concept of a moral requirement entails that it supply an excellent or overriding reason for all to whom it applies. But again, he thinks that reasons depend on contingent facts about people’s desires or interests. No consideration can supply a reason for action all by itself; whether it does so or not depends on whether it is conducive to one’s ends. Since, by Mackie’s lights, something counts as a moral requirement only if it supplies, by itself, a reason for compliance, and since, as he sees it, there can be no such intrinsically reason-giving entities, it fol-lows that there are no genuine moral requirements.

Gilbert Harman is the last representative in our readings of those who are deeply suspicious of the objectivity of ethics. Updating an argument that can be found in our selection from Hume’s Treatise , Harman argues that we have good reason to deny the existence of objective moral facts. The argument is this: all objec-tive facts are indispensable in explaining what we observe; no putative moral facts are thus indispensable; therefore there are no objective moral facts. We can explain all that needs explaining without introducing any moral features. If we want to discover why people

are born or die, why banks operate as they do, why crops flourish or fail, we needn’t invoke moral facts in the explanations. Indeed, everything we observe about the world can be explained, at least in principle, with-out the use of any moral notions or categories at all. This seems straightforward when we are seeking to explain scientific phenomena, such as the workings of enzymes, or the motions of planets. But it is also true when we are trying to explain why we think, for instance, that (in Harman’s example) setting light to a cat is immoral. We have the moral thoughts we do because of our upbringing. We are not attuned to some odd realm of objective moral fact; rather, we express our socially inculcated views of right and wrong when we issue our moral judgments. This last view, very like one of Mackie’s, says that the simpler hypothesis by far is that our moral judgments are nothing more than expressions of parochial attitudes formed during our maturation. Why complicate things by introducing a realm of objective moral facts, when all that needs explaining – including our propensity to have confi-dent moral views – can be explained without them?

Though sharing a good deal of Mackie’s suspicion about moral objectivity, Harman does not think that our moral views are all erroneous. Rather, Harman endorses a thesis known as ethical relativism . When we judge actions right or wrong, we are doing so only relative to a conventional moral standard – the one that we have agreed (with others) to accept. Though Harman offers a number of considerations on behalf of his favored view, perhaps the most powerful is given by the following line of argument: Moral requirements provide reasons for action. Further, people have reasons to act in certain ways only if such actions serve their ends. Since people’s ends (i.e., their desires and commitments) differ from person to person, people’s reasons for action differ in this way as well. It follows that people’s moral requirements differ in this way as well. What counts as the correct moral requirements is thus contingent on what we happen to care about. Harman thus parts company with Ayer and Mackie in thinking that there are, in fact, real moral requirements. But he accepts their claim that moral demands have no objective authority.

Ethical relativism is here critically examined by Harry Gensler. He assesses the popular idea that social approval is the ultimate basis of morality. He considers familiar reasons offered to support relativism – namely, the  diversity of moral ideas across cultures, and the importance of tolerance – and finds that

0001513939.INDD 50001513939.INDD 5 4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM

6 introduction

relativism does  not gain support from these claims, and fails to support them in turn. He charges relativism with a too-ready acceptance of existing social conventions, arguing that racism and intolerance are bad, even if they are socially popular. After all, says Gensler, social approval might be based on factual ignorance, or groundless superstition, and this undermines their moral authority. He concludes by arguing that some forms of ethical objectivism can vindicate the value of tolerance, explain the possibility of moral error, and account for moral disagreement in a satisfying way.

The readings of this part also include an excerpt from G. E. Moore’s influential work, Principia Ethica , written just over a century ago. Moore thinks that there are three major options for ethics: (a) ethical naturalism, according to which moral features of the world are nothing more than scientific features, and so as real as scientific features; (b) ethical nonnaturalism, according to which moral features, while real, are non- scientific; or (c) a view, that he leaves nameless, accord-ing to which moral talk is meaningless, because there aren’t any real moral features of the world. Moore thinks that the last option is preposterous, and dismisses it nearly out of hand. This is the view that came later to be endorsed by Ayer and others. Moore famously argues against option (a), ethical naturalism, by means of his open-question argument: if it is an open question whether some natural feature of the world is identical to some moral feature, then they can’t really be identical. For any natural feature and any moral feature, there will be an open question as to whether they are really just one feature, or two. Therefore moral features are not natural, scientific features of the world.

Moore’s preferred view, ethical nonnaturalism, has been out of favor for the past several decades. This is partly explained by the great increase in philosophical naturalism, the world view that claims that all of the world’s contents are explicable scientifically. It is also attributable to a suspicion that if ethical nonnaturalism were true, we would have no access to moral facts except through intuition. Since different people have different intuitions, and intuitionism seems to have no method for adjudicating conflicts among intuitions, this moral epistemology has struck many as lacking credibility. Philosophers also worry about how unscientific moral facts could either motivate or

provide moral agents with reasons for action, some-thing that, as we saw above, many think is part of the job description of a moral requirement.

I think that some form of ethical nonnaturalism is correct, and offer a partial defense of it here. The article doesn’t answer all of the objections that have been leveled against this view. Discussion of some of these criticisms is pursued in subsequent parts: see especially Part II, where moral intuitionism is defended (by Bambrough and Audi) and criticized (by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord), and Part III, where there is much discussion about whether moral requirements are intrinsically reason-giving (see especially the papers by Philippa Foot, who denies this, and my contribution there, which affirms it). In addition to trying to reply to objections, I do offer a positive argument on behalf of  nonnaturalism, which highlights the parallels between philosophy generally, and ethics in particular. Philosophical questions admit of objectively correct answers, and philosophy is not a natural science. Since ethics is a branch of philosophy, we should expect that the same things are true of ethics, namely, that moral questions have objectively correct answers, which are no part of natural science to discover.

Michael Smith’s selection on moral realism – the technical term for the view that there is objective ethical truth – both describes and defends this meta-ethical position. He seeks to answer perennial worries about how we could know what is right and wrong, and how moral requirements could intrinsically motivate and provide reasons for action. He does this by developing an ideal advisor view of ethics. He thinks that what you are required to do is whatever you would want yourself to do, were you purged of false beliefs and possessed of a fully coherent set of desires. Because this ideal advisor is basically you, only new and improved, you already have built in a motiva-tion to adhere to his or her recommendations. You have reason to take the advice seriously, since it is given by a highly informed counterpart who shares your basic outlook on life. And you can know what the advice is, provided that you can approximate the position of someone who has gathered relevant nonmoral information, and has managed to eliminate conflicts among relevant desires. In this way, if Smith is correct, we can address the most pressing objections to the possibility of ethical objectivity.

0001513939.INDD 60001513939.INDD 6 4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM4/25/2012 2:11:07 AM

Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1

Of the Influencing Motives of the Will

Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform them-selves to its dictates. Every rational creature, it is said, is obliged to regulate his actions by reason; and if any other motive or principle challenge the direction of his  conduct, he ought to oppose it, till it be entirely subdued, or at least brought to a conformity with that superior principle. On this method of thinking the greatest part of moral philosophy, ancient and modern, seems to be founded; nor is there an ampler field, as well for metaphysical arguments, as popular declama-tions, than this supposed preëminence of reason above passion. The eternity, invariableness, and divine origin of the former, have been displayed to the best advantage: the blindness, inconstancy, and deceitfulness of the latter, have been as strongly insisted on. In order to show the fallacy of all this philosophy, I shall endeavour to prove first , that reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will; and secondly , that it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will.

The understanding exerts itself after two different ways, as it judges from demonstration or probability; as it regards the abstract relations of our ideas, or those relations of objects of which experience only gives us information. I believe it scarce will be asserted, that the first species of reasoning alone is ever the cause of any action. As its proper province is the world of ideas, and as the will always places us in that of realities, demon-stration and volition seem upon that account to be totally removed from each other. Mathematics, indeed, are useful in all mechanical operations, and arithmetic in almost every art and profession: but it is not of them-selves they have any influence. Mechanics are the art of regulating the motions of bodies to some designed end or purpose; and the reason why we employ arithmetic in fixing the proportions of numbers, is only that we may discover the proportions of their influence and opera-tion. A merchant is desirous of knowing the sum total of his accounts with any person: why? but that he may learn what sum will have the same effects in paying his debt, and going to market, as all the particular articles taken together. Abstract or demonstrative reasoning, therefore, never influences any of our actions, but only as it directs our judgment concerning causes and effects; which leads us to the second operation of the understanding.

It is obvious, that when we have the prospect of pain or pleasure from any object, we feel a consequent emotion of aversion or propensity, and are carried to avoid or embrace what will give us this uneasiness or

“ Of the Influencing Motives of the Will ” and “ Moral Distinctions

Not Derived from Reason ”

David Hume

David Hume, “Of the Influencing Motives of the Will” and “Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason,” from Treatise of Human Nature , Book III, 1737.

0001513562.INDD 70001513562.INDD 7 5/14/2012 10:14:35 PM5/14/2012 10:14:35 PM

8 david hume

satisfaction. It is also obvious, that this emotion rests not here, but, making us cast our view on every side, comprehends whatever objects are connected with its original one by the relation of cause and effect. Here then reasoning takes place to discover this relation; and according as our reasoning varies, our actions receive a subsequent variation. But it is evident, in this case, that the impulse arises not from reason, but is only directed by it. It is from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object: and these emotions extend themselves to the causes and effects of that object, as they are pointed out to us by reason and experience. It can never in the least concern us to know, that such objects are causes, and such others effects, if both the causes and effects be indifferent to us. Where the objects themselves do not affect us, their connection can never give them any influence; and it is plain that, as reason is nothing but the discovery of this connection, it cannot be by its means that the objects are able to affect us.

Since reason alone can never produce any action, or give rise to volition, I infer, that the same faculty is as incapable of preventing volition, or of disputing the preference with any passion or emotion. This conse-quence is necessary. It is impossible reason could have the latter effect of preventing volition, but by giving an impulse in a contrary direction to our passions; and that impulse, had it operated alone, would have been ample to produce volition. Nothing can oppose or retard the impulse of passion, but a contrary impulse; and if this contrary impulse ever arises from reason, that latter faculty must have an original influence on the will, and must be able to cause, as well as hinder, any act of volition. But if reason has no original influence, it is impossible it can withstand any principle which has such an efficacy, or ever keep the mind in suspense a moment. Thus, it appears, that the principle which opposes our passion cannot be the same with reason, and is only called so in an improper sense. We speak not strictly and philosophically, when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. As this opinion may appear somewhat extraordinary, it may not be improper to confirm it by some other considerations.

A passion is an original existence, or, if you will, modification of existence, and contains not any repre-sentative quality, which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am

actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick, or more than five feet high. It is impossible, therefore, that this passion can be opposed by, or be contradictory to truth and reason; since this contradiction consists in the disagreement of ideas, considered as copies, with those objects which they represent.

What may at first occur on this head is, that as nothing can be contrary to truth or reason, except what has a reference to it, and as the judgments of our understand-ing only have this reference, it must follow that passions can be contrary to reason only, so far as they are accompa-nied with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, it is only in two senses that any affection can be called unreasonable. First, when a passion, such as hope or fear, grief or joy, despair or security, is founded on the supposition of the existence of objects, which really do not exist. Secondly, When in exerting any passion in action, we choose means sufficient for the designed end, and deceive ourselves in our judgment of causes and effects. Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chooses means insufficient for the end, the understand-ing can neither justify nor condemn it. It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. It is not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian, or person wholly unknown to me. It is as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledged lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter. A trivial good may, from certain circumstances, produce a desire superior to what arises from the greatest and most valuable enjoyment; nor is there anything more extraordinary in this, than in mechanics to see one pound weight raise up a hundred by the advantage of its situation. In short, a passion must be accompanied with some false judgment, in order to its being unreasonable; and even then it is not the passion, properly speaking, which is unreasonable, but the judgment.

The consequences are evident. Since a passion can never, in any sense, be called unreasonable, but when founded on a false supposition, or when it chooses means insufficient for the designed end, it is impossible that reason and passion can ever oppose each other, or dispute for the government of the will and actions. The moment we perceive the falsehood of any supposition, or the insufficiency of any means, our passions yield to

0001513562.INDD 80001513562.INDD 8 5/14/2012 10:14:35 PM5/14/2012 10:14:35 PM

“mor al di st inct ions not der i v ed f rom r eason” 9

our reason without any opposition. I may desire any fruit as of an excellent relish; but whenever you con-vince me of my mistake, my longing ceases. I may will the performance of certain actions as means of obtain-ing any desired good; but as my willing of these actions is only secondary, and founded on the supposition that they are causes of the proposed effect; as soon as I dis-cover the falsehood of that supposition, they must become indifferent to me.

It is natural for one, that does not examine objects with a strict philosophic eye, to imagine, that those actions of the mind are entirely the same, which pro-duce not a different sensation, and are not immediately distinguishable to the feeling and perception. Reason, for instance, exerts itself without producing any sensible emotions; and except in the more sublime disquisitions of philosophy, or in the frivolous subtilties of the schools, scarce ever conveys any pleasure or uneasiness. Hence it proceeds, that every action of the mind which operates with the same calmness and tranquillity, is confounded with reason by all those who judge of things from the first view and appearance. Now it is certain there are certain calm desires and tendencies, which, though they be real passions, produce little emotion in the mind, and are more known by their effects than by the immediate feeling or sensation. These desires are of two kinds; either certain instincts originally implanted in our natures, such as benevo-lence and resentment, the love of life, and kindness to children; or the general appetite to good, and aversion to evil, considered merely as such. When any of these passions are calm, and cause no disorder in the soul, they are very readily taken for the determinations of reason, and are supposed to proceed from the same faculty with that which judges of truth and falsehood. Their nature and principles have been supposed the same, because their sensations are not evidently different.

Beside these calm passions, which often determine the will, there are certain violent emotions of the same kind, which have likewise a great influence on that faculty. When I receive any injury from another, I often feel a violent passion of resentment, which makes me desire his evil and punishment, independent of all considerations of pleasure and advantage to myself. When I am immediately threatened with any grievous ill, my fears, apprehensions, and aversions rise to a great height, and produce a sensible emotion.

The common error of metaphysicians has lain in ascribing the direction of the will entirely to one of

these principles, and supposing the other to have no influence. Men often act knowingly against their interest; for which reason, the view of the greatest possible good does not always influence them. Men often counteract a violent passion in prosecution of their interests and designs; it is not, therefore, the present uneasiness alone which determines them. In general we may observe that both these principles operate on the will; and where they are contrary, that either of them prevails, according to the general charac-ter or present disposition of the person. What we call strength of mind, implies the prevalence of the calm passions above the violent; though we may easily observe, there is no man so constantly possessed of this virtue as never on any occasion to yield to the solicitations of passion and desire. From these variations of temper proceeds the great difficulty of deciding concerning the actions and resolutions of men, where there is any contrariety of motives and passions.

Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason

There is an inconvenience which attends all abstruse reasoning, that it may silence, without convincing an antagonist, and requires the same intense study to make us sensible of its force, that was at first requisite for its invention. When we leave our closet, and engage in the common affairs of life, its conclusions seem to vanish like the phantoms of the night on the appearance of the morning; and it is difficult for us to retain even that conviction which we had attained with difficulty. This is still more conspicuous in a long chain of reasoning, where we must preserve to the end the evidence of the first propositions, and where we often lose sight of all the most received maxims, either of philosophy or common life. I am not, however, without hopes, that the present system of philosophy will acquire new force as it advances; and that our reasonings concerning morals will corroborate whatever has been said con-cerning the understanding and the passions . Morality is a  subject that interests us above all others; we fancy the peace of society to be at stake in every decision concerning it; and it is evident that this concern must make our speculations appear more real and solid, than where the subject is in a great measure indifferent to us. What affects us, we conclude, can never be a chimera; and, as our passion is engaged on the one side or the

0001513562.INDD 90001513562.INDD 9 5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM

10 david hume

other, we naturally think that the question lies within human comprehension; which, in other cases of this nature, we are apt to entertain some doubt of. Without this advantage, I never should have ventured upon a third volume of such abstruse philosophy, in an age wherein the greatest part of men seem agreed to convert reading into an amusement, and to reject everything that requires any considerable degree of attention to be comprehended.

It has been observed, that nothing is ever present to the mind but its perceptions; and that all the actions of seeing, hearing, judging, loving, hating, and thinking, fall under this denomination. The mind can never exert itself in any action which we may not compre-hend under the term of perception; and consequently that term is no less applicable to those judgments by which we distinguish moral good and evil, than to every other operation of the mind. To approve of one character, to condemn another, are only so many different perceptions.

Now, as perceptions resolve themselves into two kinds, viz. impressions and ideas , this distinction gives rise to a question, with which we shall open up our present inquiry concerning morals, whether it is by means of our ideas or impressions we distinguish betwixt vice and virtue, and pronounce an action blamable or praiseworthy? This will immediately cut off all loose discourses and declama-tions, and reduce us to something precise and exact on the present subject.

Those who affirm that virtue is nothing but a conformity to reason; that there are eternal fitnesses and unfitnesses of things, which are the same to every rational being that considers them; that the immutable measure of right and wrong impose an obligation, not only on human creatures, but also on the Deity himself: all these systems concur in the opinion, that morality, like truth, is discerned merely by ideas, and by their juxtaposition and comparison. In order, therefore, to judge of these systems, we need only consider whether it be possible from reason alone, to distinguish betwixt moral good and evil, or whether there must concur some other principles to enable us to make that distinction.

If morality had naturally no influence on human passions and actions, it were in vain to take such pains to inculcate it; and nothing would be more fruitless than that multitude of rules and precepts with which all moralists abound. Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always

comprehended under the latter division, it is supposed to influence our passions and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding. And this is confirmed by common experience, which informs us that men are often governed by their duties, and are deterred from some actions by the opinion of injustice, and impelled to others by that of obligation.

Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or pre-vent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.

No one, I believe, will deny the justness of this inference; nor is there any other means of evading it, than by denying that principle on which it is founded. As long as it is allowed, that reason has no influence on our passions and actions, it is in vain to pretend that morality is discovered only by a deduction of reason. An active principle can never be founded on an inactive; and if reason be inactive in itself, it must remain so in all its shapes and appearances, whether it exerts itself in natural or moral subjects, whether it considers the powers of external bodies, or the actions of rational beings.

It would be tedious to repeat all the arguments by which I have proved 1 that reason is perfectly inert, and can never either prevent or produce any action or affection. It will be easy to recollect what has been said upon that subject. I shall only recall on this occasion one of these arguments, which I shall endeavour to render still more conclusive, and more applicable to the present subject.

Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relations of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact. Whatever therefore is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now, it is evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagree-ment; being original facts and realities, complete in themselves, and implying no reference to other passions, volitions, and actions. It is impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.

This argument is of double advantage to our present purpose. For it proves directly , that actions do not derive

0001513562.INDD 100001513562.INDD 10 5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM

“mor al di st inct ions not der i v ed f rom r eason” 11

their merit from a conformity to reason, nor their blame from a contrariety to it; and it proves the same truth more indirectly , by showing us, that as reason can never immediately prevent or produce any action by contradicting or approving of it, it cannot be the source of moral good and evil, which are found to have that influence. Actions may be laudable or blamable; but they cannot be reasonable or unreasonable: laudable or blamable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or  unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes control our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason. Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals.

But perhaps it may be said, that though no will or action can be immediately contradictory to reason, yet we may find such a contradiction in some of the attendants of the actions, that is, in its causes or effects. The action may cause a judgment, or may be obliquely caused by one, when the judgment concurs with a passion; and by an abusive way of speaking, which philosophy will scarce allow of, the same contrariety may, upon that account, be ascribed to the action. How far this truth or falsehood may be the source of morals, it will now be proper to consider.

It has been observed that reason, in a strict and phil-osophical sense, can have an influence on our conduct only after two ways: either when it excites a passion, by informing us of the existence of something which is a proper object of it; or when it discovers the connection of causes and effects, so as to afford us means of exerting any passion. These are the only kinds of judgment which can accompany our actions, or can be said to produce them in any manner; and it must be allowed, that these judgments may often be false and erroneous. A person may be affected with passion, by supposing a pain or pleasure to lie in an object which has no tendency to produce either of these sensations, or which produces the contrary to what is imagined. A person may also take false measures for the attaining of his end, and may retard, by his foolish conduct, instead of forwarding the execution of any object. These false judgments may be thought to affect the passions and actions, which are connected with them, and may be said to render them unreasonable, in a figurative and improper way of speaking. But though this be acknowl-edged, it is easy to observe, that these errors are so far

from being the source of all immorality, that they are commonly very innocent, and draw no manner of guilt upon the person who is so unfortunate as to fall into them. They extend not beyond a mistake of fact , which moralists have not generally supposed criminal, as being perfectly involuntary. I am more to be lamented than blamed, if I am mistaken with regard to the influ-ence of objects in producing pain or pleasure, or if I know not the proper means of satisfying my desires. No one can ever regard such errors as a defect in my moral character. A fruit, for instance, that is really disa-greeable, appears to me at a distance, and, through mistake, I fancy it to be pleasant and delicious. Here is one error. I choose certain means of reaching this fruit, which are not proper for my end. Here is a second error; nor is there any third one, which can ever possibly enter into our reasonings concerning actions. I ask, therefore, if a man in this situation, and guilty of these two errors, is to be regarded as vicious and criminal, however unavoidable they might have been? Or if it be possible to imagine that such errors are the sources of all immorality?

And here it may be proper to observe, that if moral distinctions be derived from the truth or falsehood of those judgments, they must take place wherever we form the judgments; nor will there be any difference, whether the question be concerning an apple or a kingdom, or whether the error be avoidable or unavoidable.

For as the very essence of morality is supposed to consist in an agreement or disagreement to reason, the other circumstances are entirely arbitrary, and can never either bestow on any action the character of virtuous or vicious, or deprive it of that character. To which we may add, that this agreement or disagreement, not admitting of degrees, all virtues and vices would of course be equal.

Should it be pretended, that though a mistake of fact be not criminal, yet a mistake of right often is; and that this may be the source of immorality: I would answer, that it is impossible such a mistake can ever be the original source of immorality, since it supposes a real right and wrong; that is, a real distinction in morals, independent of these judgments. A mistake, therefore, of right, may become a species of immorality; but it is only a secondary one, and is founded on some other antecedent to it.

As to those judgments which are the effects of our  actions, and which, when false, give occasion to pronounce the actions contrary to truth and reason; we

0001513562.INDD 110001513562.INDD 11 5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM

12 david hume

may observe, that our actions never cause any judgment, either true or false, in ourselves, and that it is only on others they have such an influence. It is certain that an  action, on many occasions, may give rise to false conclusions in others; and that a person, who, through a window, sees any lewd behaviour of mine with my neighbour ’ s wife, may be so simple as to imagine she is certainly my own. In this respect my action resembles somewhat a lie or falsehood; only with this difference, which is material, that I perform not the action with any intention of giving rise to a false judgment in another, but merely to satisfy my lust and passion. It causes, however, a mistake and false judgment by acci-dent; and the falsehood of its effects may be ascribed, by some odd figurative way of speaking, to the action itself. But still I can see no pretext of reason for assert-ing, that the tendency to cause such an error is the first spring or original source of all immorality.

Thus, upon the whole, it is impossible that the distinction betwixt moral good and evil can be made by reason; since that distinction has an influence upon our actions, of which reason alone is incapable. Reason and judgment may, indeed, be the mediate cause of an action, by prompting or by directing a passion; but it is not pretended that a judgment of this kind, either in its truth or falsehood, is attended with virtue or vice. And  as to the judgments, which are caused by our judgments, they can still less bestow those moral qualities on the actions which are their causes.

But, to be more particular, and to show that those eternal immutable fitnesses and unfitnesses of things cannot be defended by sound philosophy, we may weigh the following considerations.

If the thought and understanding were alone capable of fixing the boundaries of right and wrong, the char-acter of virtuous and vicious either must lie in some relations of objects, or must be a matter of fact which is discovered by our reasoning. This consequence is evident. As the operations of human understanding divide themselves into two kinds, the comparing of ideas, and the inferring of matter of fact, were virtue discovered by the understanding, it must be an object of one of these operations; nor is there any third operation of the understanding which can discover it. There has been an opinion very industriously propagated by certain philosophers, that morality is susceptible of demonstra-tion; and though no one has ever been able to advance a single step in those demonstrations, yet it is taken for  granted that this science may be brought to an

equal certainty with geometry or algebra. Upon this supposition, vice and virtue must consist in some rela-tions; since it is allowed on all hands, that no matter of fact is capable of being demonstrated. Let us therefore begin with examining this hypothesis, and endeavour, if possible, to fix those moral qualities which have been so long the objects of our fruitless researches; point out distinctly the relations which constitute morality or obligation, that we may know wherein they consist, and after what manner we must judge of them.

If you assert that vice and virtue consist in relations susceptible of certainty and demonstration, you must confine yourself to those four relations which alone admit of that degree of evidence; and in that case you run into absurdities from which you will never be able to extricate yourself. For as you make the very essence of morality to lie in the relations, and as there is no one of these relations but what is applicable, not only to an irrational but also to an inanimate object, it follows that even such objects must be susceptible of merit or demerit. Resemblance, contrariety, degrees in quality , and proportions in quantity and number ; all these relations belong as properly to matter as to our actions, passions, and volitions. It is unquestionable, therefore, that morality lies not in any of these relations, nor the sense of it in their discovery. 2

Should it be asserted, that the sense of morality consists in the discovery of some relation distinct from these, and that our enumeration was not complete when we comprehended all demonstrable relations under four general heads; to this I know not what to reply, till some one be so good as to point out to me this new relation. It is impossible to refute a system which has never yet been explained. In such a manner of fighting in the dark, a man loses his blows in the air, and often places them where the enemy is not present.

I must therefore, on this occasion, rest contented with requiring the two following conditions of any one that would undertake to clear up this system. First , as moral good and evil belong only to the actions of the mind, and are derived from our situation with regard to external objects, the relations from which these moral distinctions arise must lie only betwixt internal actions and external objects, and must not be applicable either to internal actions, compared among themselves, or to external objects, when placed in opposition to other external objects. For as morality is supposed to attend certain relations, if these relations could belong to internal actions considered singly, it

0001513562.INDD 120001513562.INDD 12 5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM5/14/2012 10:14:36 PM