As I read this passage, one idea that stood out to me is instrumental vs inherent value. At first glance, it seems easy to distinguish between “a means of getting to something else” and something that is “valued for its own sake” (Rainbolt & Dwyer 354). As I read on, however, I realized that it can be difficult to decide whether the means to an end also have their own inherent value.

In addition to pleasure, the book introduces two other types of consequences that can have inherent value: the satisfaction of desires, and the development of talents (Rainbolt & Dwyer 354-5). This idea that happiness and/or moral good can exist in all three forms resonates with me. On a basic level, the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain can be noble causes. For example, starving, being exposed to the elements, or being chronically sick all cause pain. Many charitable and altruistic efforts focus on eliminating these pains in people’s lives. Remember, the “QUALY” scale from Doing Good Better is all about measuring increases in people’s happiness (or quality of life). Something that brings a person pleasure or eliminates pain does have inherent value.

On the other hand, the satisfaction of desires and the development of talents almost always require that a person endure some sort of pain. You must perform actions that are instrumentally valuable in order to achieve the goal that will satisfy you in the end. In some cases, the instrumental actions can also have their own inherent value. For example, imagine I have a huge exam scheduled for next week. Studying every day isn’t fun or pleasurable, but it will allow me to score better on the test, fulfilling my ultimate goal. Additionally, if I study each day, I will feel more prepared and less stressed on that day, because I know that I am on my way to achieving my goal. The removal of the stress brings me short term pleasure, and is a byproduct of performing non-pleasurable actions which, at first, seemed to only have instrumental value.

I think that by trying to look for inherent value in parts of our lives that seem to only have instrumental value, we can become happier and more resilient people. After all, the pleasure from accomplishing a goal or satisfying a desire exists in a given moment, but it is usually outlasted and outweighed by the time and energy spent pursuing the goal. In other words, we should look at the journey as part of the reward.

From an overall perspective, moral arguments seem to overlap around 90% with the previous arguments that we have been studying. One of the biggest things that stuck out to me is the concept of Noncognivtists. Refusing to be objective and pick a stance of right or wrong, it seems like a very cop-out choice to fully follow be a Noncognivist. I have a hard time understanding the train of thought behind this concept, however, the Noncognivist comparison that moral disagreement is similar to expressing emotions does make a lot of sense to me. Nearly all moral arguments that I can think of invoke some sort of emotion, and emotion seems to be the guiding reasoning for many moral arguments, which may not necessarily be the right thing to do. While Noncognivists do seem a bit extreme, I suspect that most people have a bit of Noncognivism in them. It can be difficult to pick a right or wrong stance every time, as there are some morally grey areas in life, so while Cognivists may initially seem much more reasonable, it isn’t always as practical.

Another concept that I found interesting (and familiar) is Universalism and the Universalistic Maximizing Consequentialist (USM). Immediately this sounds nearly identical to that of a Utilitarian, especially given the sample argument of maximizing happiness.  It would seem to me that all Utilitarians use the USM principle to guide their arguments, and I was surprised that Utilitarianism was not mentioned at all in this section.

Since normative ethics are universal or cultural truths, universal rules of good and bad, and relative ethics are rules of good and bad to each individual person, there are countless of ethics and truths that one needs to consider on a daily basis. Now when talking about normative and relative ethics, what stood out to me the most in the podcast was that in America, and I’m sure in other countries as well, we can’t even decide on what our laws should be. Throughout the recent election year, I have often thought about the two political parties and why our country is so divided. How is it possible for people to be on such opposite ends of the spectrum with every law, amendment, and decision? How can two people who live in the same neighborhood think so differently, as if they lived on different planets? However, listening to this podcast helped me understand this better.

I grew up in Finland, a small country where 97% of the population is white, Lutheran, and agrees on most political decisions and laws. However, the U.S is such a large country that there are millions of cultural groups within just one state, let alone the entire country. There are so many cultural differences in different geographical areas in the U.S that there is so much room for ethical differences and division within the country. No wonder the country is so divided because if everyone is following their cultural relativism and their own individual ethics, there are so many truths and rules to consider. On top of that, one person can belong to multiple groups, which only expands their exposure to different ethical beliefs. Someone could be Muslim, live in the South, and be a healthcare worker. Between those three, there can be countless of normative ethical differences within one person’s life.

Then we have collective rules, like most people can agree that murder is wrong. But what about our own individual ethics. For example, under murder, there are topics such as abortion. Most people collectively agree that murder is wrong, but is abortion murder? What if the woman was raped, does that make a difference? What about the death penalty? Should someone be sent to death because they killed someone, an eye for an eye? Some people think yes, some people completely disagree. There are so many things to consider and so many cultural and individual ethics that it can often lead to intense disagreements even between family members who grew up in the same household. With America being such a large country with so many different cultural groups, it makes more sense to me now why it is easier for America to quickly become very divided.

I found the CTAA reading and following podcast very interesting for many reasons. While I was familiar with a few concepts, I found the reading and podcast to be very informative on society. It helped me understand how our society functions and contends with each other, more specifically the role of normative and relative ethical frameworks and how they operate within society. These ideas in the reading made me think of my Justice class were we recently discussed abortion and the varying arguments people may hold following different ethical theories. One argument against abortion that we discussed was that many argue abortion is wrong since a fetus is an innocent person and an innocent person has a right to life, so to kill a fetus by having an abortion would be wrong. However this argument leaves many ideas to be defined in relative terms by each individual. When is a fetus actually considered an innocent person? People with varying viewpoints define that marker of life of a fetus very differently. Arguments in support of abortion often rely on the right of the mother to use her autonomy to make decisions that effect her life and whether she consented to the use of her body by the fetus. Since there is no agreement with the two sides of this argument regarding the practice of abortion, this topic, as well as the concept of the point in which the fetus becomes an innocent person with rights, remains highly controversial. Meaning that there is not one universal truth, as described by normative ethics, about the morality of the practice that can be accepted by all. This is even further seen through how the government struggles to make laws about the legality of abortion. 

One idea that stuck with me from the podcast was the discussion of the varying degrees of killing others and how some are deemed more morally unacceptable and met with harsher punishments. I found this of particular interest because while I readily accepted that murder was more morally unacceptable than unintentional manslaughter, I never really thought about the specific reasoning behind why as a society we considered different levels of killing more morally wrong. However, through this reading and the podcast it was made clear to me how consequentialism, deontic ethics, and aretaic ethics all influence this thinking and our punishments regarding killing. By combining these evaluation means to consider the topic of the morality of the degrees of killing, it is now explicitly clear to me the logic behind our society’s views on this issue. These evaluation means and the roommate with the coffee on your computer analogy also helped me to understand when I would get frustrated with people in my own life because of their actions or the consequences of their actions. In my previous life experience even if I have been inconvenienced or in a sense wronged by the actions of another if I felt that it was an accident, meaning it was unintentional, I find it harder to stay upset with the person or blame them because it was not explicitly their fault since it was not their intention. My feelings with experiences like this is the past now make more sense to me after learning about aretaic ethics.

I thought this reading was really interesting. At first, I was a little confused about where it was going as I have never fully stopped to think about morally in the form of arguments. I have always let my own morals guide me and that has not really failed me yet. However, when you look deeper, there is clearly a lot more there. I thought that argument forms for moral actions were really fascinating because I could understand them. It feels like a natural progression from our readings in Warren and about logic. However, I do think it is easier to wrap my brain around. While all the forms varied slightly, the main concept of “should you do or not do this action and why” remained. I think this will make it a lot simpler going forward when it comes to mapping and breaking down these arguments.

Moral arguments are basically trying to prove why you should act a certain way based on one’s morals, but there is an issue when everyone’s morals are different. I thought the section differentiating between universalism and egoism (pg 156-57) was extremely important. Not everyone bases their morals the same way and will act differently according to that. Some find it advantageous to only act in their own self-interest, while others believe that it is moral to act if it will maximize happiness for all. I think that while the latter is an amazing goal, it is very unlikely. In this day and age, there are very few things you can actually improve the lives of all. This is why I think it is important to not focus on helping everyone, but helping the most you can. What frustrates me the most about this is that there seems to be a pattern of people we put in power (aka like the whole government) being egoists. A lot of their policymaking is based on whether or not they think they would get reelected or what they have a financial interest in. I think it is really sad that we (or at least I) cannot trust the people who are supposed to protect us to always do so. Either way, I hope that one day I could be in a position where I get to work on completing actions that have the most net happiness! 

I found it interesting to reflect on how as I read “Moral Arguments” and listened to the podcast, emotion easily influenced my judgement of the different theories and approaches to moral arguments. Rainbolt and Dwyer discuss the concept of standardization, and how this helps to remove emotional force from an argument, but cannot do so entirely. Even though the examples given to explain these approaches and were, to my understanding, not intended to influence the reader’s opinion on the approach itself, I found myself having to check in with myself as I was reading and listening ask whether or not I was focusing the examples to determine my opinion about the different kinds of moral arguments, or if I was focusing on how the moral arguments approached the topic used for the example. 

Considering how ingrained the idea of morality tends to be, it makes sense that I would align more or appreciate the discussion of certain concepts more, such as universalism from the reading and cultural relativism from the podcast, and how other approaches, such as egoism, I was immediately judgemental of and strongly opposed to this perspective. However, it was interesting to see how I had such a notable reaction to the explanation of certain approaches, and at times it was difficult to determine if these reactions were due to my pre-existing beliefs about morality, my stances on the example topics, or a combination of the two. 

One concept that I did not have such an immediate reaction to was that of universalizability and Kant’s test. This concept was one of the ones that I was most uncertain about my opinion on. On the one had, being able to apply something universally seems like a very unifying approach to moral arguments, however, I think it could struggle with understanding the social and cultural context of a situation. As I had less knowledge about this concept, and struggled more to understand it, it made it easier to approach that particular concept from a somewhat more neutral perspective. For me this brought up the tension between how the more we learn and conditioned by the world around us, the more we take in information with preconceived notions and opinions. I think this has both benefits and weaknesses, but poses an interesting take on learning, knowledge, and our judgements and biases. I recognize that this was not directly related to the homework, but I found it important to observe my own biases and reactions to the information presented, or my lack of response on topics I knew minimal about.

While reading through the various types of moral arguments, I was happy to see some philosophical ideas that I have been studying in my Justice & Civil Society course. For instance, one approach to justice is Utilitarianism, which believes that the happiness and welfare of society should be maximized for all human beings all the time. The consequentialist moral argument supports Utilitarianism because of universalism- the belief held that everyone is equally morally important and that everyone’s intrinsic values, like happiness, are of equal importance. According to the universalistic maximizing consequentialist, it is morally good to produce happiness for everyone globally, holding constant that everyone’s happiness is treated as equally important.

In studying Utilitarianism, I have seen how this philosophical approach to justice affects our moral obligations or viewpoints on things, such as charitable giving and sweatshops. For instance, Utilitarians who believe in Edward Singer’s strong principle would say that you are morally obligated to keep giving to charities and the extreme poor until you are sacrificing something that has comparable moral significance- like your happiness of attending the University of Richmond. In other words, keep giving until the happiness you sacrifice is greater than the happiness the other person would gain if you donated that marginal amount of money to them. Similarly, even though several of us would object to the idea and institution of sweatshops, Utilitarians would advocate for sweatshops to be built and ran in places of the world where they do not exist yet, such as underdeveloped countries like Malawi. Utilitarians believe that sweatshops provide greater happiness to sweatshop workers because if these workers are from underdeveloped countries and are living in extreme poverty, then the opportunity of improving one’s and one’s family’s economic well-being is far more significant than the harsh conditions and work environment that they- sweatshop workers- are subject to.

The podcast on ethics relates broadly to the world of business and economics. In my microeconomics class we talked about normative statements regarding economies and the definition is nearly the same. Normative statements in economics make a value judgement on how something should or should not be. I can see why this is valuable in critical thinking and arguments, because as humans most arguments we first subconsciously evaluate morally. Essentially, in both cases we are judging, as humans do, whether we think something is good or bad before evaluating the evidence.

Furthermore, I find the topic of cultural relativism interesting because it can be seen in the real world every day. The school’s dining hall has vegetarian options not only for vegetarians but also for students who are part of religions that find it morally wrong to eat pork. Meanwhile, these students may be sitting tables away from a student who is currently eating pork. This difference in ideology, however, does not usually cause disagreements in the same way bigger differences do. Additionally, it reminds me of evolutionary processes talked about in leadership and the social sciences. Humans evolving and innovating in different environments caused the differing ideologies that now constitute cultural relativism.

As someone who was raised Catholic and is now agnostic, I found the arguments made in the podcast and the reading incredibly interesting. Although I know that this is not true for all Catholics, I was pushed into Catholicism by someone who used their religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card for all of their morally questionable actions. We usually went to church twice a week, all of us were baptized, and we kept very far away from the mortal sins so we would be allowed into heaven no matter what else we did. This is, obviously, an intense normative framework that (in my incredibly biased opinion) eliminates any concept of free-will or self-determination of morals and virtues. Rather than logically determining if something is good or bad for myself, (though consequentialism, doenticism, or Aretaicism), the priests told me what would get me into heaven and I was expected to follow their directives without question. This is just my experience and it does not necessarily characterize the Catholic church as a whole, but in my view, the overbearing normative framework surrounding many religious institutions can lead to the inability to think for ones’ self and force someone to become a follower in the truest sense. (Sorry for any religious folks out there this is not meant to offend and is just my opinion! Please debate and discuss at will!)

For the reasons above, I personally lean towards a more relative framework that would teach citizens to evaluate morality for themselves. Although it might be idealistic, I believe that allowing people to wrestle with, contemplate, and understand why something is good or bad will make society more empathetic and intelligent as a whole. I don’t think that true relativism could work in any society because it would lead to literal anarchy, but I believe that blind followership is incredibly problematic as well. Those who have studied psychology may remember Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, in which the highest tier of development is following your personal morals based on your own values, save for a few widely accepted rights and wrongs. I agree with Kohlberg’s assessment, but know that it would be utopian to assume that this could be applicable to society generally speaking. Therefore, I believe that there should be a moderately relative framework for society with normative concepts that emphasize empathy and compassion.

Having listened to the podcast assigned as homework, I am reflecting back on a conversation I had in my Intro to International Relations course last fall. We discussed cultural relativism in depth but not quite in the same lens of ethics as discussed in the podcast. Cultural relativism as a topic has always interested me greatly. How are we to determine a right and wrong in the world when so many factors lead people to believe one or the other? What are the steps necessary to make the world a better place when we can’t even agree on what constitutes better or worse? Sure, there are times in which certain actions, such as murder or terrorism, have consequences which severely impact human good. So we can agree that those are bad. But there is so much in between that requires evaluation, and the frameworks which surround those evaluations are greatly important.

When discussing circumcision on the podcast this idea was made especially clear. What is it about male circumcision that makes it more socially acceptable than female circumcision or mutilation? For one, removing the female clitoris, a major sex organ, is, to me, pretty problematic. But just because I think that doesn’t mean that a woman who wants to undergo the ritual shouldn’t. But just because male circumcision isn’t quite the same doesn’t necessarily make it okay. Clearly, I’m not the only one who has tried to reconcile this debate.

I think in the grand scheme of things, it is dependent upon the natural evolution of ethics. In the reading, there was a brief mention of slavery being bad when introducing noncognitivists. We can all agree that the ownership and exploitation of any persons is bad. But at the time of slavery in the US, that wasn’t considered an ethical wrong. It took the development of ethics and morals alongside resistance, protest, and war to give way to a new way of thinking amongst people in the US. This evolution of ideas, customs and norms was greatly important and still is for so many other topics. The interrogation of good and bad, right and wrong, and so on and so forth, is what matters most in my opinion.