Morality
Find answers in this page of AuladeValores to the following initial questions:
* What is morality? What is it made of? What is its purpose?
* Is morality necessary? Why? Is there a society without morality?
* How many morals are there? Give an example of two societies that differ in some moral norm.
* How do we learn our moral rules? Are there better and worse ways of getting our morality?
* Briefly explain the moral dilemmas presented in the two videos of the “Rules Conflicts” section. Which two rules are opposed in each of these dilemmas?
* Briefly explain the social changes that appear in the two videos of the "Social changes" section. What moral doubts are raised in these videos as a result of those social changes?
* Changes in our moral ideas. What different opinions are presented in the video in the last section about moral disagreements? What reasons are usually given in favour of each opinion?
* What does the Golden Rule say? Also explain it with an example in which this rule resolves satisfactorily a moral situation.
* Is the Golden Rule the answer to all our problems about when trying to do the right thing? Try to apply it to the first two dilemmas above. Does the Golden Rule help you to take a decision?
* What is the fundamental fault of the Golden Rule? And how this fault is precisely the reason why many people find it appealing? Exemplify the faulty reasoning with the debate about same-sex marriage.
* What is a moral agent? Which habilities are required to qualify as one?
* Are humans moral agents all the time? Which factors reduce our agency? Which other factors increase it?
* Are there non-human moral agents?
* Explain what it means to say that only moral agents posses dignity.
* What is ethics? What is the key difference between morals and ethics?
* Explain the sentence: We use morality daily, but we may live our whole life without doing ethics. Draw a paralellism with the difference between learning how to cook and learning how to eat healthily.
* Which factors facilitate ethics? And which ones hinder this activity?
* What is moral reasoning? Why do we do it? How is it done?
Ethical theories
We can think of an ethical theory in the same way as we think of any other theory. Theories in general are the results of our intellectual efforts for achieving goals such as:
Explain the way things are. In the case of ethics, an ethical theory attempts to explain the way morality is.
Clarify our pre-theorical notions, so removing confussions, contradictions or dead ends. In the case of an ethical theory, it should helps us with our pre-therical moral notions.
Predict the future, anticipate observations or experimental results. Ethical theories should predict the moral behaviour of moral agents and the results of moral experiments.
There are several, competing ethical theories. Two of the most successful ones are:
After studying both theories:
* Can you summarise the key, most fundamental, principle of each theory?
* Can you illustrate how each theory is applied to derive some moral rules?
* Which is the most important difficulty or criticism faced by deontologism?
* Which is the most important difficulty or criticism faced by utilitarianism?
* Which theory do you find more satisfactory? Is deontologism more applicable to certain moral situations than utilitarianism and viceversa?
Freedom
Previously we have said that human beings are (sometimes) moral agents. And a moral agent is capable to choose freely among different actions. In this section we reflect on what means to be free and to what extent we humans enjoy freedom.
Two kinds of freedom
When talking about human freedom, it is important to distinguish between:
Freedom of action. This is the freedom to do things, to act in pursuit of our goals. Maybe we do not achieve them fully, but we can take steps forward.
Freedom of choice. This is the freedom to choose which are our goals. In most situations, there are several alternatives, and we can reflect and choose the one we prefer before taking any action.
Both kinds of freedom are equally important. A perfect moral agent enjoys both of them. But real people in concrete situations may not because different factors:
* Which factors hinder our freedom to act? Which other ones facilitate or extend our capability of acting freely?
* Which factors hinder our freedom to choose? Which other ones facilitate or extend our capability of choosing freely?
Another two kinds of freedom
The philosopher Isaac Berlin drew another distinction that may help us to reflect about our freedom:
Positive freedom. This is the freedom we enjoy when we take control of our lives, when we realize (or attempt to realize) our goals. This freedom emerges from ourselves, so it is related with our freedom to choose our own purposes, but is also related with our freedom to act as we like.
Negative freedom. This is the freedom we enjoy when there are no obstacles, barriers or constraints. This freedom is given to us by others, by our parents and peers, by the government and other societal agents. Again, this type of freedom relates easily with our freedom to act: we are free to act when none stops us. But others can also interfere with our freedom of choice or on the other hand, facilitate it.
Positive freedom is related with the concept of personal autonomy: the capability of guiding our life according to our own preferences. On the other hand, negative freedom is related with the concept of heteronomy: when our life is organised by others, when we obey rules imposed upon us.
* Describe a situation (real or fictional) in which someone does not have negative freedom. Which are the barriers or obstacles? Who is responsible for them? Explain also how the situation impacts negatively upon their freedom to act and also their freedom to choose.
Freedom lays on a spectrum
Against the simplistic notion that we are either free or unfree, either we enjoy complete freedom or we are puppets of external forces, the previous distinctions give us a more nuanced understanding of what freedom is.
Instead of thinking in binary terms (free / unfree) we can think in terms of an spectrum. In that spectrum, there are two extremes that correspond to the previous binary opposition:
Complete unfreedom, total enslavement of mind and body.
Absolute freedom of the kind only gods can enjoy.
These extremes are unrealistic; most real situations lay in between: we are more or less free, we can gain or loose our freedom to act / choose depending on a miriad of factors. We can fight for our freedom, so we can gain negative freedom as we remove some barriers. Understanding freedom as something with many degrees allows us to view ourselves as imperfect moral agents that strive to gain as much freedom (of all kinds) as possible.
* Can you illustrate graphically the notion of freedom as an spectrum? Maybe you can place some examples along the line and in the extremes.
Responsibility
Responsibility is the other side of freedom: they can not be separated.