Morality and the Ring Fall 2018

Welcome to your life! Now What? The Question: How should I live? “Free at Last!” • You’re adults! – Cool, huh? • You no longer have to do what others tell you to do …. – Your parents – Your teachers – Your religion • What Now? --What should you do? What to do? • How should you live? • How should you choose? • What do you want to do? • What do you get to do? • What makes you happy? • Is being happy all that matters? • What is the “good life?” • What is “justice?” Moral Philosophy • How should I live? – How should we live? • And why? • Is there such a thing a moral obligation? – Are there things that, morally speaking, you should do, even if you don’t want to? • Is there some general principle that makes things “morally right” or “morally wrong?” Moral Philosophy What is morality? Why should we act morally? Is there an objective “moral code?” What is “justice?” Is it morally OK to do whatever I want to do? How do I decide what I want to do? What makes things “moral?” • Is morality subjective? Is it simply a matter of personal preference or personal “taste?” • Is morality culturally relative? Does what’s right or wrong depend upon society? • Is morality “God’s will?” Is something right because God allows it and wrong because God forbids it? • Is morality “absolute?” Are there “objective” moral truths? Well? What do YOU think? If you have no opinion, then I guess that means it would be alright for me to assign your grades at random, … …right? A Thought Experiment What would you do If you knew You’d never get caught? If you could be INVISIBLE? Plato and Socrates Plato: 428-327 BC uBorn in Athens, to upper-class family uGave up a life in politics to study with another Athenian, named Socrates uWas present when Socrates died in 399 BC uFounded the “Academy,” the first university in the western world. Socrates: 469-399 BC uPursued basic questions about life, love, friendship, justice. uA “gadfly” who questioned prominent people, exposing how little they knew. uWas sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth.” Ø Because he taught them to ask questions! Plato’s Republic • Written as a dialogue, with Socrates as the main character. • Concerned with how society should be structured if human being are to flourish. • In Bk. I, Thrasymachus argues that justice is what is in the interest of the strong – That “might makes right.” • In Bk. II (where we start), Glaucon argues that no one acts justly for its own sake. A Distinction Ways we value/desire things • Intrinsically: – Things desired “for their own sake,” not because of what they bring about: • Example: Listening to music, viewing works of art • Instrumentally: – Things desired for what they bring about, not for their own sake. • Example: Going to the dentist • Both intrinsically and instrumentally: • Example: Eating How do we value acting justly? • Socrates thinks we value justice both for what it brings about (others treat us justly in return), and in itself (simply because it is right). – Both instrumentally and intrinsically. • Glaucon thinks we value justice only for what it brings about, not in itself. – Merely instrumentally, but not intrinsically. • Glaucon’s evidence: what we would do if we had Gyges’ Ring—if we could be invisible. Gyges’ Ring • In Greek mythology, this ring makes you invisible. • Plato uses this as a “thought experiment” to get us to think about why we act certain ways. • Are we concerned with “acting morally” only because we’re afraid that, if we don’t, we’ll get in trouble? Gyges’ Ring • This “thought experiment” helps us focus on what people would do if we weren’t worried about the beneficial effects of appearing to act justly. • Do we value justice “in itself” (because we believe it’s right), or merely because of what it brings about (how others will treat us)? Glaucon’s Point • Glaucon thinks most people would act unjustly if they knew they could get away with it—if they could become invisible. • So, he concludes, people value acting justly only for what it brings them (i.e., merely instrumentally). He thinks they do not value it in and of itself (or intrinsically). – If they valued justice intrinsically, they would act justly when no one was looking. If you could steal … • And no one would know … – You wouldn’t get caught – No one would think of you as a thief – People would still trust you • But you get to keep what you stole … – You’d have the benefits both of being a thief (the money you stole) and of seeming to be honest • Wouldn’t you be a “chump” to be honest? Why be moral? • If you “do what’s right” only because you are afraid of punishment (“hell”) or because you seek reward (“heaven”), is that really “morality?” Isn’t that just being “selfish” in a smart way? • On the other hand, if “doing the right thing” involves sacrifice of your own best interests, isn’t that simply being irrational? The Question to You: (and me!) • Do you—should you—act “morally” simply because doing so is in your interest (in order to get rewarded or to avoid being punished)? • Or do you —should you—act morally because it is the right thing to do, even if acting this way causes you pain or suffering? Moving On Justice • Is racism/segregation “unjust?” Is it “immoral?”—or is it just “distasteful?” • Was it “OK back then” (in the past), but not OK now? • How should we judge those (in the past, or in the present) who practiced discrimination? • Is racism still an issue today, or is this all just “ancient history?”.

Load more