"Right Nagel, and Wrong"
To say its wrong does not mean against the rules - There are rules that stop what is not wrong (i.e. criticizing gov) - There are also rules that enforce something bad (i.e. racial segregation) - idea of wrong/right are different from what is and is not against the rules Where does the desire not to do it come from? what is its motive, the reason behind it? - Effects on others, not necessarily effects on their feelings, but some kind of damage nevertheless - The thought that someting is wrong depends on its impact not just on the person who does it but on other people. What if the person does not care about other people, what reason does he have to refrain from doing anything wrong? - If someone does not care, most of us would not conclude that he's exempt from morality. (i.e. someone who kills someone without caring is not automatically excused) - the fact that he doesn't care doesn't make it all right. but why should he care? - one type of answer tries to identify something else that the person already cares and then connect it to morality. (i.e. punishment/reward from god) Objections to the religious motivation - 1. many people who don't believe in god still make judgment of right and wrong; and think no one should kill. - 2. Murder is wrong in itself, and thats why god forbids it - 3. fear of punishment and hope of reward and even love of god seem not to be the right motives for morality. you should avoid doing bad things because they are bad things to do. - force of morality: which appeal to the interest of the person who must act. One general argument against hurting people - "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" - when asked this question you are supposed to think about all the feelings you would have if someone stole your umbrella. you would have feeling sabout the
umbrella thief. - when our own interests are threatened by inconsiderate behaviors, most of us find it easy to appreciate those others have a a reason to be more considerate. Admit that you would resent if someone did... - you are admitting that you think the person would have a reason not to do it to you. - there's no special reason for him NOT to steal Your umbrella as opposed to anything else. - BUT if its a reason anyone would have not to hurt anyone else in this way, then its a reaosn you have not to hurt someone else in this way/ - ONCE YOU ADMIT THAT ANOTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE A REASON NOT OT HARM YOU IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND ONCE YOU ADMIT THAT THE REASON HE WUL DHAVE IS VERY GENERAL AND DOESNT APPLY ONLY TO YOU THEN TO BE CONSISTENT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THA THE SAME REASON APPLIES TO YOU. good/harm for everyone - the basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people is good or bad not just from their point of view, but from a more general point of view. - of course he/she will care about certain people more but he has a reason to consisde the effect of what he does on the good or of harm everyone. How much impartiality should we try for? - i.e. should you care about every other person as much as you care about yourself? - if someone were that impartial b/w himself and others. it would rule out caring more about his love ones than strangers. - thsi degree of impartiality seems too much to ask of most people. How much should the point of view influence you? - you're just one person, and from the outside you don't matter any more than anybody else. -Is there a single correct way for everyone to strike the balnce between what he cares about personally and what matters impartially? or will the anwer vary on the srength of their different motives.. Are right/wrong same for everyone? - morality is often thought to be universal - But, if something being wrong is supposed to be a reason against doing it and if your reasons for doing things depends on your motives and if peoles motives vary greatly then it looks as though there won't be a single answer.. / basic standard of behavior
Three ways of dealing with this problem - 1. the same thing are right and wrong for everybody, BUT that not everyone has a reason to do what's right and avoid what's wrong. - this makes morality universal, but drains out its force. (i.e. its not clear for someone to commit murder, but he had no reasons not to do it) - 2. Everyone has a reason to d what's right and avoid what's wrong, BUT that these reasons don't depend on people's actual motive - rather they are reasons to change our motives. - connects morality with reasons for action but leaves unclear of the universal reasons are which not depending on motives that everyone has. (i.e. what does it mean that a murderer had a reason not to do it, even though none of his actual motives gave him a reason??/) - 3. morality is not universal and that that what a person is morally required goes to a certain kind of reason / how much he cares about other ppl in general. - but goes against the idea that the same moral rules apply to all Moral standards in different societies/time - Many thiings you think wrong have been accepted as correct: slaverym serfdom, human sac - only one way in which right/wrong are obviously relative to circumstances. - if borrow knife you return when asked. unless the person is going to kill someone with the knife - same basic moral principles will require diff actions in diff circumstances. The most basic standard of right/wrong would depend on the society in which you liv ein. - but hard to believe because seems possible to criticize the accepted standard of society. Objection to the whole idea of morality. - the only reason anybody doees anything is to make him feel good, or that not doing it will make him feel bad. - if we are only motivated by our own comfort it is helpless for morality to appeal to a concern for others. - moral conduct is which one person seems to sacrifice his own interest for others is really motivated by his concern for himself. to avoid guilt