12. Moral, Lawful and Aesthetic reasoning

What are value judgments?

A value judgment is a term for a statement in which a judgment emerges. A value judgment assesses the value or desirability of something or someone. An example is a teacher who says about a student who has committed fraud: "He deserves a 3 for that essay." The teacher does not describe the student but expresses an opinion about the student.

What is the purpose of moral reasoning?

With moral reasoning an attempt is made to establish moral value judgments. Not every value judgment expresses a moral value judgment. When it is said: "our queen dresses nicely," it is a value judgment, but not moral. A moral value judgment often contains words such as "good", "wrong" and "bad". An example of a moral value judgment is: "It was the teacher's fault to withhold information."

Two principles of moral reasoning

1. The Consistency principle. If two separate cases do not differ in all relevant ways, they must be treated in the same way. If two separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not differ in all relevant ways. An example is if a teacher gives two students the same grade, despite the fact that student A did better than student B. The teacher violates the principle. If someone is suspected of violating the principle of consistency, it is up to the person who violates the principle to prove that he or she is not violating the principle.
2. Moral principles. A moral principle is a general value judgment. It refers to what should generally be done. An example is: "Stealing is wrong." Moral value judgments are formed from moral principles. An example is: "It is wrong of James to steal".

Consequentialism: utilitarianism, egoism and altruism

Consequentialism is based on the principle that the consequences of a decision or action determine the moral value. If an action produces more happiness than the alternatives, then it is the right action to perform. This is then utilitarianism. In the case of utilitarianism, a trade-off is made between the different consequences of alternatives and then the choice that produces the most happiness. This perspective causes problems. When we consider whether or not to do something, we take into account various issues, such as the rights of others and our own duties. Another consequentialist theory is ethical selfishness. Here the starting point is that if an action produces more happiness for yourself than the alternatives, then it is correct to implement it, and if it produces less happiness for yourself than the alternatives, then it is wrong to implement it . And last but not least there is ethical altruism, where own happiness and the happiness of others are seen as equal, and therefore equally important.

The Duty theory: moral duties

With the duty theory ("deontologism"), value is attached to the moral duties. We should do things or not do something not to achieve something, but simply because it is right or wrong. Only then can we speak of "moral imperative". If we try to keep a promise, then we have to do it because it's supposed to be that way ("it's the right thing to do.") achieve a certain result, but because the act is our moral duty. But how can we determine what our moral duty is? Two things need to be considered here: 1) the principle of action relates to what you want to do and 2) determine whether you would like the principle to be universal and that everyone could follow it if they were in the same situation as you were in.

Moral relativism

Moral relativism (as mentioned back in chapter 1) takes as its starting point that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by someone's group or culture. This is not about what is believed to be right and wrong. After all, this can vary from group to group. This is really about what is right and wrong. There are three complications with moral relativism:

1. When is something a group, society or culture and what are the criteria for membership? How many groups, societies or cultures do you belong to? These questions make it difficult to determine which set of principles apply to someone.
2. Contradictory perspectives on moral principles can also be found within one group
3. Moral relativism can put you in a contradictory position. What a group finds can conflict with what you find yourself.

Moral subjectivism

With moral subjectivism the starting point is that the idea of ​​what is right and wrong is a subjective opinion. Only thinking that something is right or wrong also makes it for that specific person.

Religion

Religious relativism

With religious relativism, the starting point is that what is right and wrong is determined by the religion of a culture or society. The same three complications that have been discussed with moral relativism can occur here again. When do you belong to a certain religion, even within a certain culture or religion often conflicting principles apply and people who adhere to one religion / culture may find that people who adhere to another religion / culture do something wrong.

Religious absolutism

In this case, the starting point is that the correct moral principles have been accepted by the right religion. A problem with this is that opinions vary as to what the right religion is.

What are virtue ethics?

Virtue ethics ("virtue ethics") does not focus on what should be done, but on how someone should be. Someone does not try to figure out what needs to be done to achieve a certain result, but rather focuses on what kind of person he wants to be, for example reliable and friendly.

Legal reasoning

Lawyers reason deductively and inductively. If it is deductive, the reasoning can be sound, valid or invalid. Deductive reasoning also includes categorical and hypothetical reasoning. If it is inductive, it can vary from strong to weak. Inductive reasoning contains generalisations, analogic reasoning and reasoning about cause and effect.

"Appeal to precedent"

With "appeal to precedent" or "stare decisis" a case is used that is used as a guideline for a similar new case. "Appeal to precedent" is an analogical argument. If a previously resolved case (A) is equal to a similar new case (B), then in the same way that decisions are made at A, decisions can also be made at B again. The consistency principle is also used here: matters that do not differ must be treated in the same way.

Law perspectives

The same perspectives discussed in moral reasoning apply here too.

Legal moralism

The claim that the laws must make everything that is immoral as illegal serves as a basis for legal moralism. This is used, for example, to prohibit murder or sexual abuse.

Damage principle

The "harm principle" is that banning X has the reason that X can harm others.

Legal paternalism

With legal paternalism, the starting point is that laws can be justified if they can prevent someone from harming themselves. Laws that prohibit X being done can therefore be justified if X causes major problems with other people.

Offense principle

With the "offense principle", the starting point is that a law that prohibits X can be justified if X can insult others. An example is the burning of a national flag.

How is an aesthetic reasoning structured?

The book discusses eight aesthetic principles that serve as a basis and that support and influence the most artistic creations and critical judgments about art. It is also important to understand that not all principles apply to everyone.

• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they are meaningful or teach us the truth about something.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they have the capacity to convey values ​​or beliefs that are central to a culture or tradition. Objects are also aesthetically valuable when they are important to the artist who created them.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create political or social change.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create pleasure for those who can "feel" and values ​​it.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create certain emotions that we value.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they have the capacity to create a special non-emotional experience, such as autonomy.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they express a special aesthetic property or form.
• There is no reasoned argument that can conclude that objects are aesthetically valuable or not.

Practice questions

1. What is the difference between a value judgment and moral reasoning?
2. Name two principles of moral reasoning.
3. a. What does consequentialism mean?

b. Name three examples of consequentialism.

4. What does duty theory mean?
5. Which form of ethics does not focus on what needs to be done, but on how someone should behave?

Answers

1. A value judgment is a statement that expresses values, while moral reasoning is about assessments based on moral values ​​(for example, in terms of good or bad).
2. Two principles of moral reasoning are the consistency principle and moral principles.
3. a. Consequentialism is based on the principle that the consequences of a decision or action determine the moral value.

b. Three examples are utilitarianism, egoism and altruism.

4. In duty theory, moral duties are valued. We should do things or not do something not to achieve something, but simply because it is right or wrong.
5. Virtue ethics.