Primate Ethics

In Frans De Waal’ s Chimpanzee Justice, an example is offered, which is meant to show how the principle of reciprocity prevalent among chimpanzees is governed by the same sense of moral rightness and justice as it is among humans. Later Singer presents the principle of reciprocity by way of Confucius’ , A Single Word, in order to show how humans also value this principle just like primates. However, it is not the case that ALL human communities value the principle of reciprocity. There are different cultures in the world who hold many different values from one another. It seems as though Singer makes too bold of a statement when saying that significant ethical principle carry weight in EVERY human community because it is too general of a statement. A less bold assertion would be more acceptable. If Singer could show that every single human community holds a certain ethical principle, then we can buy into this claim, but he fails to do so in the two aforementioned examples. If Singer were able to convince us that his assertion were true, then this might show us that morality transcends into beings other than humans, and that would be a huge thing to show because we could assume that the moral community might transcend to all living things. Human ethical theories might apply to other species as well. However this is a very bold claim to make and it seems hard to prove because now we could have to consider new questions. Questions such as, whether certain ethical principles are universal in all communities? Also, whether all living communities ought to follow similar principles, why or why not, amongst many other questions.  Overall, with the reading Singer offers, it does not seem that we can accept his initial assertion seeing as he does not seem justified in making such claims. 
Similarly, in the NY time article Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior by Nicholas Wade (linked below), Wade seems to suggest that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes. In addition he goes on to say that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped. This is certainly an interesting and different view about the origins of ethics as compared to the views I explore in the blog's earlier posts (under the origins of ethics header). Which view do you find more convincing? 

Article referenced above: http://primates.com/morality/index.html

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism is the view that advances that some moral rules really are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which are false. For the ethical relatvist these standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society. Thus, a moral standard is correct just because a person, or society is deeply committed to it. This means that the standards that are appropriate for some people may not be appropriate for others. Thus, morality is a human construct. In other words, we make it up.
The other day, I was reading the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/opinion/l-different-cultures-have-different-values-227889.htmlThe author discusses the notion of different cultures having different values. The author discusses the Chinese culture and values and how they differ from American culture and values. More specifically he delves into the topic of meats. He ponders why it is such an issue for American's that the Chinese eat dog meat. He wonders why one culture would consider themselves more civilized based on the kind of meat they eat. He goes further to say "I am not ashamed of eating dog. I have a different color of skin, I speak a different language and I come from a different cultural background, so I sometimes eat different food (meat in this case) too." He ends his article with what to me, were truly powerful words: "In today's world, linked by common interest, it is perhaps wise and beneficial not to impose our own values on others." He displayed the views of an ethical relativist. And to be frank, his view seemed to make a lot of sense. It seems that people, and even societies ought to not be judged or chastised for  having a different value than the next person. By the ethical relativists view, however, it is okay for people to disagree and find the views of the next person or society inappropriate. This article is interesting because it seems to highlight a problem the ethical relativists deal with. That is, of embracing the notion that standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society and yet being accepting to notion of the next person or society disagreeing with one's held standards/values.

The role of observation in ethics

An short analysis of our in class readings: 
The belief that scientific theories are theory-laden is not uncommon. In our readings for this week we can notice that Sturgeon agrees with Harman about the aforementioned. It seems like Sturgeon is saying that theory can be good for observation, and that the observation can justify the theory simultaneously. Essentially, unlike Harman, Sturgeon seems to think that moral theories can be tested in the way that scientific theories can be tested. He offers the hitler example, in which Hitler can be viewed as an amorally admirable person or a morally vicious person, similar to science, where we have theory choice. He believes that both science and morality are no different when it comes to the explanatory chain between them, and observation. In response to Harman, Sturgeon claims that moral beliefs can be rejected when they are not consistent with other moral beliefs and observations. For, Sturgeon this is exactly like science. We believe facts because we believe them to be true. Overall, Sturgeon accepts that ethics is scientific in that it can be a reliable source of knowledge and that moral facts can cause the world to be a certain way. He thinks that Harman does not succeed in convincing us that moral facts don't cause the world to be a certain way.
Essentially, Harman considers whether moral principles can be tested and confirmed in the way scientific principles can. He conducts a thought experiment to confirm and test a moral principle but concludes that ethics has an apparent immunity from observational testing. The more precise challenge that comes from this claim is that we can never objectively know that any moral belief or value is wrong or right because of this gap in the explanatory chain from the principle of observation to morality. Harman explains that this often is the explanation as to why moral nihilists hold their positions. If nothing can be decisively wrong or right, then morality cannot be objective. More specifically, this is a challenge because what we perceive may be dependent on preconceived notions. And so, if we attempt to justify something we observe as being morally wrong, our experiences and cultural beliefs play into our conclusions, and so though we may believe something is wrong simply because the act itself is wrong- our preconceived notions are more than likely factoring into our observations. He offers the kids burning a cat example. So many different beliefs factor into whether what we see can be deemed morally wrong or morally acceptable. For example, we hold beliefs about animals, and separate from that, beliefs about kids, and so on. Unlike in science, we cannot test our observations by objective standards, and so we can never truly justify our moral observations.  This certainly seems like a plausible view. However, people still so use justifications to explain their moral actions. This happens every day. Is it really problematic that we cannot test our observations in the same way that science does? Additionally, many claim that theory choice in science as well as the entire  process of science itself, contains subjectivity and so we cannot categorize it as privileged or as an authority to tell us how the world really works. In other words, that science cannot tell us objective truths about the world. If this is the case, it seems that Harman would need to re-think his claims, and it seems that what he conceives to be problematic, isn't really as problematic when science isn't an authority either in regards to testing our observations in search for objective truths. 

Nihilism & objective morality

Is living immorally good?

In The Origins of Herd Morality, Nietzsche presents several ideas that are similar to those advanced by Thrasymachus. He characterizes certain drives as strong and dangerous. Most of these drives, being drives that are generally found to be immoral by society as a whole. Nietzsche’s ideas seem to correlate with Thrasymachus’ idea of morality being the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves when he calls fear the mother of morality. However, Thrasymachus suggests that he who is immoral especially on the large scale is the person who is in the grand scheme of things, considered to be stronger and with great power, freer and more masterful as compared to those who are moral.

            Additionally, Nietzsche mentions, “a superior independent intellect, a will to stand alone, even superior rationality, are felt to be dangers;” and even labeled as evil. This sounds similar to the idea advanced by Thrasymachus, which says that those who act immoral on a large scale, for example by taking the possessions of the citizens and then kidnapping and enslaving the possessors as well being thought of positively even though this is considered an immoral act by most. Essentially, this is a danger to the ones eligible to be enslaved and kidnapped and the person, by superior rationality is able to become a danger to the aforementioned weaker people. All in all, although he is viewed as evil, at the end of the day he is more powerful, freer and more masterful than someone who acts morally. In this sense, the ideas of Thrasymachus and Nietzsche are similar. By these views, it seems that living immorally is not so bad after all. However, these are views that most do not agree with.