Moral Relativism and Objectivism

True/false only relative to a given human belief or practice.
EX: "Vanilla tastes better than chocolate."

True/false independently of human beliefs or practices
EX: “The Earth orbits the sun.”

Objectively, Relatively

Claims about what’s right and wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious. “It’s morally wrong to eat humans,” or “It’s morally right to eat meat.”

Moral propositions are only relatively true/false

Moral propositions are true/false only relative to a given culture’s beliefs or practices

Moral propositions are objectively true/false

Creeks v Callations on burial practices (cannibalism vs burning on pires)
Americans vs. Inuit’s on infanticide (abortion or sacrifice for the sake of the group)

(CD1) There are cultural differences regarding moral propositions
(CD2) Any proposition about which there are cultural differences is true or false relative
to culture
(CD3) Therefore, moral propositions are only true/false relative to a culture’s beliefs or practices

There are cultural differences regarding moral propositions

Any proposition about which there are cultural differences is true or false relative
to culture

Therefore, moral propositions are only true/false relative to a culture’s beliefs or practices

In some societies people believe the Earth is flat, however that statement has no relative value as it is simply incorrect.

Which specific behaviors and practices (ex. infanticide, meat eating, polygamy, etc.) are permitted, prohibited, or required.

General principles about what is intrinsically good or valuable.

Determined by its moral values plus a unique set of environmental circumstances, scientific assumptions, and religious beliefs.

Inuit's infanticide versus American's abortion show that killing is still solely the last resort in both moral codes across cultures. The underlying moral code is not unique.

Option 1: Run over five people, killing five people and letting one live. Not morally permissible.
Option 2: Run over one person, killing them and letting five live. This is the morally permissible option.

Run over five people, killing five people and letting one live. Not morally permissible.

Run over one person, being directly responsible for their death and saving the five. This is the morally permissible option.

Option 1: Do nothing, letting five people die and not interfering with the hermits life. Morally permissible option.
Option 2: Transplant the hermits organs into the five paitents, killing the hermit but saving five people. Not morally permissible.

Do nothing, letting five people die and not interfering with the hermits life. Morally permissible option.

Transplant the hermits organs into the five paitents, killing the hermit but saving five people. Not morally permissible.

It is always morally worse to kill a person than it is to let someone die.

Principle A: Killing 1 is morally worse than letting 5 die.
Principle B: Killing five is morally worse than killing one.

What does Principle A imply about The Driver case?
Because it matters what the other option is. The only options are between acts of killing, so the next distinction is to go with the numbers.

What does Principle B imply about the Surgeon case?
Option one in this case is not killing, it is letting 5 die, while option two is to kill someone. Killing is significantly worse.

Option 1: Do nothing, letting five people die and letting one live.
Option 2: Flip the switch, killing one and letting five live.

Do nothing, letting five people die and letting one live.

Flip the switch, killing one and letting five live. Morally permissible.

Option 1: Do nothing and let five people die. Morally permissible.
Option 2: Push the fat man, killing one person to save five.

Do nothing and let five people die. Morally permissible.

Push the fat man, killing one person to save five.

In both cases, you’re choosing between killing 1 and letting 5 die. Yet it’s morally permissible to kill 1 in The Switch case but not in The Footbridge case.

An action is morally right if and only if it produces the best consequences compared to anything else you could do in the circumstances

Happiness is the only intrinsic good and unhappiness is the only intrinsic bad.

An action is morally right if and only if it produces maximal net happiness

Consequentialism + Hedonistic Theory of Value = Utilitarianism

Says one ought to do something if one wants to “achieve something else."
EX: “you should turn left if you want to get to the stadium,” or “you should eat healthy if you want to lose weight.”

Says one ought to do something regardless of what one wants to achieve. A moral ought.
- Human beings, unlike mere things, have reason. They are thus “ends-in-themselves.”

Act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always … as an end, never merely as a means

An action is morally right if and only if it treats people as ends in themselves rather than as mere means to an end. Treating as a means =/= treating as a mere means.

If the one hadn’t been there, would you still have been able to complete your goal? Yes, because with the one person on the track (had they not been there), you’d still be able to complete the goal of saving the most lives.

If the one hadn’t been there, would you still have been able to complete your goal? NO! You need to use the fat man in order to save the people!

What produces the best net consequences?

Yes, because it is a better consequence to have one dead rather than 5 dead.

Yes, because it is a better consequence to have 1 dead rather than 5 dead.

When does a fetus become a person?

(RL1) Every fetus is a person with a right to life
(RL2) It is morally wrong to kill a person with a right to life
(RL3) Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

Every fetus is a person with a right to life

It is morally wrong to kill a person with a right to life

Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

The first premise, that a fetus is a person.

The second claim; it is not a moral failing to kill a person with a right to life.

You wake up in bed next to a famous violinist. He has a fatal kidney issue. His orchestra has kidnapped you because you alone are the only person who can save him. Last night, while you slept, they plugged his circulatory system into yours so he can use your kidets to extract poisons from his blood.

Version 1: He needs your kidneys for 9 months.
Version 2: You will die if you stay plugged in.

No, you do not do what is impermissible if you reach around your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.

1. as an apparent counterexample to RL2
2. as the basis of an argument for abortion’s permissibility.
3. a device for clarifying the concept of a right to life.

(V1) It is not morally wrong to unplug yourself from the violinist.
(V2) If it is not morally wrong to unplug yourself from the violinist, then it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.
(V3) Therefore, it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.

It is not morally wrong to unplug yourself from the violinist.

If it is not morally wrong to unplug yourself from the violinist, then it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.

Therefore, it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.

(2.1) Unplugging from the violinist is analogous to aborting a fetus in all morally relevant respects
(2.2) Any two actions that are analogous in all morally relevant respects have the same moral status
(2.3) Therefore, if it is not morally wrong to unplug from the violinist then it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.

Unplugging from the violinist is analogous to aborting a fetus in all morally relevant respects

Any two actions that are analogous in all morally relevant respects have the same moral status

Therefore, if it is not morally wrong to unplug from the violinist then it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus.

That there is a disanalogy between abortion and unplugging someone.

It’s permissible to remove the man because you did not consent. If you consented to sex, therefore it is impermissible to abort a fetus because you consented to pregnancy.
Objections: pregnancies are not always the result of consensual sex.

Consenting to sex is not usually consenting to pregnancy, people often use contraceptives and can still get pregnant without consenting to it.

People-seeds float around in the air like pollen. If you open a window, one could float in and get stuck in your carpets or furniture. You don’t want any kids, so you board your windows to the best of your ability. As can happen, and on rare occasions does happen, one of the boards isn’t airtight and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who develops have a right to the use of your house?

That having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body. Even if one needs it for life itself.