Quite a few things stuck out to me during this reading on Moral Arguments. I did not agree with all the ideas presented, especially the ideas behind acetic moral arguments– A good person is a good person who does good actions with a good motive, and good motives are motives that produce good actions– I don’t quite agree with because I think a person can be good even if their actions are bad, and people’s actions should not be included in defining them as good people. Intentions matter much more than actions, I remember learning about moral luck in Leadership 101, and had never considered the idea before, that if the result of someone’s bad intentions are good, they should still be assigned blame for their intentions.

One major question I took away from this reading is if someone is evaluating individual actions, do they evaluate the series of events that led up to that action? In reading I started wondering how actions relate to one another– for example, purchasing clothes from a fast-fashion company is theoretically “bad,” but if you give the clothes to someone and it makes them happy, are those two actions morally separate from one another? Does the immorality of purchasing the clothes in the first place place a certain negative association on the clothes themselves, as in do objects carry immorality? If though the morality of the action of giving is being judged, probably not, but if the morality of the clothes themselves are being judged then maybe? This to me is a question as to if the ends justify the means. I think that the actions leading up to an action should be considered when assigning “morality.”

It is undeniable that every individual has a criteria of what they would consider right or wrong. In Dr. Bezio’s podcast, normative and relative ethics seem to provide frameworks of philosophy that would best help guide someone in determining what is right and what is wrong. From a normative perspective, there is a right and wrong that must be upheld and respected. A relativist believes that you should do as much as you are capable of getting away with.  Dr. Bezio mentioned our society runs with a hybrid version of both schools, and I found that this idea in itself creates a very unique moral problem. How is it possible that we function in a society in which we both allow people to do as they please in some areas of life, and have complete control over actions in others? It seems as though we, as a society, have collectively participated in the normalization of some forms of morality and not others. I believe it can be argued further that even the morality our society has agreed on today will one day be seen as corrupt.

Take, for example, the morality of slavery. Today, the enslavement of people is viewed as morally corrupt (unless you are a sociopathic monster) right? We, as a society, believe that forcing someone to do labor against their will without any form of compensation is a form of enslavement. We even go so far as to tear down the statues of people that once owned enslaved people ( I completely agree with this notion, don’t get me wrong). Have you gone to Wendy’s recently? What about Walmart or McDonalds? Does your phone run on Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T? If you answered yes to any of these, you (including myself) are unknowingly supporting companies that use uncompensated and forced labor of inmates; AKA modern-day slavery. How does our normative ethicality compensate for that?

I feel as this “grey area” of ethics (seems like an oxymoron in itself) is something I find a great deal of trouble with, especially when it comes to the time period we exist in. As issues of racial and social justice are being discussed, the need for a normative ethicality increases. We, at some point, are going to have to agree on concrete and justifiable definitions of what we consider just and unjust. There are currently people suffering from racial and/or discriminatory violence because we just can’t seem to agree where the “line” of ethicality is. People, specifically marginalized groups, are falling victim to the unresolved debate of what is right and what is wrong. Dr. Bezio touched on this idea on the micro scale of our current political system. Because both parties continuously chose to play into an ethical gridlock, there are millions of Americans at risk of destitution. This has kind of turned into a bit of a ramble but I would almost say that arguing which ethicality is the most important seems, in itself, unethical in a normative sense, when there are people currently suffering.

During the Summer of 2020, I decided to take “Introduction to Philosophical Problems & Arguments” with Professor Brannon McDaniel, and we ended up going over very similar topics regarding ethics and cultural relativism. However, I honestly understood it a lot better by the way it was organized in this podcast. Separating and defining normativism and relativism helped me better to understand the intersection of those two ideologies and the three defining measures of morality.

I have to wonder though: how do normativists believe we are getting closer and closer to the truth every day if each of their truths is different? Furthermore, if one truth is met that was believed by a certain culture or religion, does that truth automatically morally govern our world? For example, let’s say one day there was suddenly undeniable proof that the Catholic God existed and his word was the ultimate word, nothing else to it. Does that mean we drop our current frameworks and situate ourselves exclusively around his word? So many wars are fought over religion, who is right or which deity is supreme, so I have to wonder that if a supreme deity ever emerged, how would normativists and people in general respond?

If a supreme deity emerges and says that “all murder is wrong and punishable by death” does that mean we scrap our current American judicial system? Because right now, as explained in the podcast, we have several different layers of punishment based on the intention, severity, and planning of the crime. If the existence of a supreme deity was real and their only command on the subject was “eye for an eye” or, in this instance, “death for your death,” does that apply to everyone? Because that would ultimately mean that a serial killer that tracked down and hunted twenty people intentionally would receive the same punishment as a person cutting down a tree that accidentally falls and kills a person walking by. Very different motives behind each one, clearly, so would the supreme deity itself have a system of measuring moral responsibility?

I found the first podcast to be very concise and understandable. The main point that I thought was the most thought-provoking was the different impact that cultural relativism has on every single person in the world. Going off of the circumcision debate, I have never looked at that argument from the other side of the lens, meaning that those women who do choose to get circumcised in fact do not see the practice as genital mutilation. My main question about cultural relativism is whether or not people use this tactic to their advantage to justify actions? Specifically, do people use cultural relativism as a crutch to get away with doing or saying whatever they want?

The reading was also very eye-opening to me as I learned more about the correlation between morality and the truth. I made connections to 2020 in several ways, but the two main connections were the BLM movement and COVID-19. The BLM movement was heavily criticized and politicized when in reality, people failed to acknowledge the lack of morality in regards to police brutality. People fail to admit that whether or not a person did something illegal or not, it is morally incorrect to use the power of being a police officer to kill the people you are sworn to protect and serve. Mask wearing is another thing. Many people still feel that wearing masks is pointless and that COVID-19 is not as bad as it seems to be. The fact of the matter is it is morally correct to wear a mask because it protects both yourself and others. Regardless of a person’s view on the pandemic, wearing a mask is morally correct in this detrimental time. Finally, I drew connections to various arguments that we have studied over the course of this semester but this time was more critical of the way in which we evaluated premises and beliefs. It is extremely difficult to put personal beliefs to the side in order to successfully diagram and understand an argument. 

In the first podcast of the semester, Dr. Bezio discusses ethics. She opens by reinforcing that content is important, especially when it comes to premises. Warren had us on the lookout for normative premises but did not put a lot of attention on them. There are two ways people think the world works, and these are frameworks are described as normative and relative. A normative framework is one where there is a universal truth that is the same for everyone. We just cannot agree on what that truth is. Normativists believe that we are getting closer every day to that truth, but, they are still constantly at odds with each other over what the truth is.

A good example of normative frameworks is religions. These are all different ideas of what the universal truth is, but there are many religions that all disagree with each other. Ethics, unlike religion, does not require a diety or rituals to determine right or wrong. Normative ethics is simply the belief in a universal truth and a universal idea of what is right or wrong.

Relative ethics is the opposite. There is no universal truth, but instead, each individual has their own idea of good and bad, right or wrong. True relativism does not judge others for their beliefs- Dr. Bezio says that relativism is pure anarchy, without rules and regulations.

Right now, we are “between a relative rock and a normative hard place”- we live in a blend of the two. Some things we leave to individuals and some things society decides need to be regulated. This is cultural relativism and I think that in each election, people use their votes in an attempt to push the needle one way or the other. Traditionally, conservatives would be considered more relative and liberals more normative. There are battles all over the world to push that needle one way or the other, and many debates about which way it is appropriate for that needle to move. Especially right now with Covid, Texas is leaving it up to individuals to decide what they want to do. This is more relative but is it more correct/

I thought the discussion on page 354 about flu shots in reference to instrumental and inherent value was a helpful way to think about consequential moral arguments, especially during a time of intense debate regarding COVID-19 vaccine distribution. Instrumental value is defined as something one values in order to receive something else they value more. Inherent values are defined as things that are valued on their own. In reading this section, I kept thinking about opportunity costs, and how in most things that we have a choice, we will pick the thing that will give us the lowest opportunity cost.

It is easy to think that something that you do not want to do on its own, like getting a flu shot or the COVID-19 vaccination because of the potential pain and displeasure or chance of ineffectiveness, is not valuable. However, as we know, the value of not getting the flu or not getting COVID-19 outweighs the consequence of enduring the pain of the initial vaccination. Furthermore, things that we want to do do not always come with pleasure, or that pleasure varies among each person. I think addressing flu shots and COVID-19 vaccine distribution in these ways to the public, as consequences that are inherently morally important rather than in terms of instrumental value, would help increase the number of people willing to receive the vaccines.

The Moral Argument reading and Dr. B’s podcast were both very interesting and provoked some questions that I have always found difficult to answer. I will say after reading the article, I found myself continuing to think about it as I allowed myself some time to process the information before writing the blog post.

In the Moral Argument reading, it was captivating how when I read the examples of moral claims, it was second nature for me to assume they were true or false. Learning about noncognitivists opened my mind set as I never thought about moral arguments not existing. After the article introduced cognitivists, it made me question if it is possible to be a noncognitivists and cognitivists depending on  the statement presented. Could someone be in between both yet have clear thoughts that are respected by other individuals that have a clear distinction of where they fall when it comes from noncognitivists and cognitivists. Also, it is crazy to believe that in a hypothetical world, it could be seen as morally acceptable to murder someone. The fact that the podcast dove into the ideas of pointing out what is commonly believed yet they are not true moral arguments if you have the perspective of a noncognitivists.

Do you view yourself as a noncognitivists or cognitivists? Was this new terminology or has one of these perspectives been known to you before reading the article and listening to the podcast?

In the first podcast episode, Dr. Bezio discussed the different ways that people think about how the world works. The dominant ways of viewing the world are through either a normative or relative framework. A normative framework is when the individuals believe that there is a universal truth out there, while a relative framework is one in which there is no universal truth, and instead, individuals hold different ethics and evaluate what is morally good or bad based on these individuals ethical reasonings. In listening to this podcast, I think that one of the most interesting points raised was the overlap of these different frameworks with the different ways to evaluate ethics, which includes consequentialism, deontism, and virtue ethics. To evaluate whether an action is moral, these different means can be used, with consequentialism involving the evaluation of the consequences or outcomes of an action, deontism involving the evaluation of the action itself, and virtue ethics involving the evaluation of the virtue of the individual. It is the overlapping use of these different means of evaluation that offers the most interesting take on and way to further look at the different frameworks through which we view the world.

In understanding how these different methods of evaluation work, a hypothetical explanation can be used. One explanation that was mentioned quickly was a robbery. In evaluating robbery, from a consequentialist view, this action could be seen as immoral because the action results in the original owner having less than he did before; however, the act of robbery could also be seen as immoral through a deontistic evaluation, for if the action of robbery is seen as immoral itself, then this robbery would be immoral as well. And yet, robbery can again be seen as immoral but for a different reason using the virtue ethics evaluation, for if the individual and they intended to hurt another by stripping them of their goods, then the person and their intentions are immoral and the robbery would, in turn, be immoral. This example of robbery depicts the idea that the reason we see something as immoral can be deducted in several different ways. Immorality, as such, is not a fixed state. Different individuals, thinking in different normative or relative frameworks, will see different things as immoral based on their views, culture, and beliefs. And even if these individuals come to the same conclusion that something is immoral, they can come to these same conclusions using several different methods of evaluation, and maybe even a combination of the consequentialism, deontism, and virtue ethics means of evaluation. The concept of mortality, as such, incorporates the ideas, beliefs, and culture of the individuals, and will continue to be questioned and re-evaluated as people search for a clear way to

Cheating or breaking the rules is typically seen as morally wrong. Does this mean that supporting a beloved sports team that broke the rules is also morally wrong? Typically, saying “Go Saints!!!” would be morally neutral. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about rooting for a specific team. However, the Saints were accused and “convicted” of targeting opposing players with the intent to injure in what is now commonly called “Bountygate.” Paying someone to intentionally injure someone else is pretty clear-cut in being immoral. Therefore, it is logical to say that the Saints are immoral or, at the very least, were immoral at that time. Controversy does not arise from calling the Saints immoral, but it certainly does when calling their fans’ decision to root for them immoral. Supporting a racist organization such as the KKK is immoral, even if an individual is not a member. Logic would follow that supporting an immoral organization is in itself an immoral action. Ignorance, however, could be fans saving grace. There was no way for fans of the Saints to have known what was transpiring behind closed doors. They cannot be blamed for rooting for their team when they did not know about the immoral actions. However, once the allegations came to light, if they supported the team’s actions or downplayed them, then that would make them immoral.

What about an individual cheating by, for example, utilizing performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)? Working under the assumption that cheating is wrong, then using PEDs is clearly immoral. Is it immoral to root for a player after they have been convicted of using PEDs? One can never be certain that a player is playing without them once they are convicted the first time. And does having an immoral player on a team make the entire team immoral? I say no unless the team was aware of the doping and attempted to hide it. The effects of doping can carry on for decades after the initial rule-breaking. Hall of Fame voting is thrown for a loop. The statistics of every player who ever faced the doper must be looked at with a new lens. And, arguably most importantly, earnings could have been negatively affected in so many ways. Whether or not a fan is immoral for rooting for their team of choice is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. However, it is interesting to jump down the rabbit hole and truly think about the morals of certain aspects of sports fandom, at least before we are all drawn back into the action.

From the CTAA reading, I was mostly intrigued by the differences between Cognitivists and Non-Cognitivists. To me, I am more inclined to agree with Non-Congittivists more than Cognitivists in terms of a philosophical way of thinking. Simply put, the culture that we are immersed with inflicts certain values on us. Depending on where we are from, we have different attitudes towards different topics that affect our way of thinking about morality. Meaning that morality is completely subjective. Therefore, there is no way we can dignify whether something is good or bad if it is subjective. Because of the subjectivity of morality, I am more inclined to believe Non-Cognitivists more than Congnitivists. Now, the argument against my claim is that there are principles that all people value therefore there must be morality. Basic principles that can be argued would stem from a list similar to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, I would argue that even subjects that would seem universally agreed upon, like the killing of innocence during times of war, can have opposition. It would only take one opposing opinion to make the idea subjective.

Additionally, the above idea is also important when considering universalism. I think it would be easy to assume that by the Non-Cognitivist way of thinking you cant have universalism because morality is neither good nor bad. Meaning that if nothing is considered right or wrong, how can there be a consensus on what is morality? I would say that Universalism is more intended to protect the ability that you can consider something good or bad; in other words, universalism protects the ability to consider morality. By giving all things equal importance, you are giving equal weight to what is considered good morality or bad morality. We are not considering one is correct over the other, we are instead allowing all possible options as viable. Therefore morality can be neither good nor bad but still be universal.

Overall, the theories of thinking that are mentioned in the reading were all interesting. In one way or another, they all overlap each other and can explain how people make decisions. Critical thinking, to me, is simply the method of reasoning behind actions. And by understanding the way people think, you can make reasonable predictions on how people will behave.