1. “Why Should I Be Moral?

”
The central question, "Why should I be moral?", probes the motivation behind moral behavior. This
question is critical in ethics because it seeks to understand why individuals adhere to moral principles.
Several key philosophical concepts arise when exploring this topic:
- “Moral Obligation”: One possible answer to the question is the concept of moral obligation. Some
philosophers, such as “Immanuel Kant”, argue that people are bound by duty to follow moral rules. The
categorical imperative emphasizes acting in a way that you would want everyone to act, not just for
personal gain but because it's the right thing to do.

Example: Imagine a person finds a lost wallet filled with cash. Even though no one is watching, they feel
compelled to return it to its owner because of a moral obligation to do what is right. Immanuel Kant
would argue that the individual is motivated by the categorical imperative, which dictates that we
should act according to principles we believe everyone should follow (e.g., honesty and respect for
others' property).

- “Consequentialism”: Another response lies in “consequentialist” theories, where morality is seen as a

tool to maximize positive outcomes or minimize harm. This ties in with “utilitarianism” (e.g., “Jeremy
Bentham” and “John Stuart Mill”), which claims that one should act in a way that produces the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people. Here, the motivation to be moral stems from achieving
desirable results or avoiding negative consequences.

Example: A doctor has a limited supply of medicine and must decide how to allocate it. Following
utilitarianism, the doctor would likely give the medicine to those who can benefit the most and recover
fully, maximizing overall well-being. Here, the motivation is to produce the best outcome for the
greatest number of people.

- “Reciprocity”: Reciprocity plays a role in moral reasoning. Philosophers like “John Locke” discuss
how morality can emerge from social contracts where individuals follow rules to avoid harm and receive
benefits in return. This suggests that people are moral because they expect others to reciprocate and
follow the same moral guidelines.

Example: In a community, people follow a rule that everyone helps their neighbors when needed. One
person assists their neighbor by helping repair their roof, knowing that if they ever need help, their
neighbor will reciprocate. This is an example of reciprocity, where moral actions are driven by the
expectation of mutual benefit.

- “Social and Evolutionary Explanations”: From an “evolutionary perspective”, some argue that moral
behavior evolved to promote survival and cooperation within groups. “Evolutionary ethicists” (e.g.,
“Charles Darwin”, “E.O. Wilson”) suggest that being moral is advantageous for individuals and groups
because it enhances cooperation, trust, and social cohesion. This perspective ties morality to self-interest:
people act morally because it helps them in the long run by maintaining stable relationships.

Example: Imagine a group of prehistoric humans working together to hunt. Cooperation is essential to
their survival, and those who do not follow the group's moral code (such as sharing food) are excluded,
risking their survival. Evolutionary ethicists argue that moral behaviors, like cooperation and fairness,
evolved because they helped humans survive as a species.
- “Psychological and Emotional Factors”: Moral motivations are not purely rational. “David Hume”
and others highlight how emotions, such as empathy and guilt, often drive moral behavior. People may be
moral because they feel compassion for others or want to avoid the negative feelings associated with
wrongdoing.

Example: A person might refrain from lying because they feel guilty when they deceive others, or they
might help a friend in distress out of empathy. David Hume and other philosophers suggest that
emotions, such as guilt and empathy, are powerful motivators for moral behavior.

- “Morality and Self-Interest”: Some argue that being moral is in an individual’s self-interest. “Plato”,
in The Republic, addresses this in his story of the “Ring of Gyges”, where a man becomes invisible and
can act immorally without consequences. Plato argues that even if one could avoid punishment, being
moral is inherently valuable because it leads to a harmonious soul. Others argue that immorality leads to
psychological discord and social consequences, even if unseen.

Example: In Plato’s Ring of Gyges story, a shepherd finds a ring that makes him invisible, giving him the
power to commit immoral acts without consequence. Plato argues that even with such power, acting
immorally would corrupt the person internally, disrupting their harmony and happiness. Therefore,
being moral is in one’s own self-interest because it leads to a better life, even without external
consequences.

- “Religious and Divine Command”: Some religious traditions assert that morality is grounded in divine
command. “Thomas Aquinas” and others argue that humans should be moral because it aligns with the
will of God, and failing to do so results in eternal punishment or reward.

Example: A person might follow a moral code because they believe it aligns with God’s will. For instance,
someone might refrain from stealing because they believe it is a sin, and they want to avoid divine
punishment and gain spiritual rewards in the afterlife. Thomas Aquinas and other religious philosophers
argue that morality is grounded in divine command.

- “Application in Literature – The Lord of the Flies”: William Golding's The Lord of the Flies explores
morality through a group of boys stranded on an island. As their society breaks down, their moral
behavior deteriorates, illustrating how the absence of social structures and accountability leads to chaos.
The novel reflects the fragile nature of morality and questions whether humans are inherently moral or
shaped by societal constraints. The boys’ descent into violence suggests that moral order depends on
societal norms, echoing the concerns of moral philosophers.

Example: In William Golding’s The Lord of the Flies, the boys initially try to create rules and maintain
order. However, without societal structures to enforce morality, many of them succumb to their baser
instincts, leading to violence and chaos. This demonstrates how societal norms and accountability play a
crucial role in maintaining moral behavior. It raises questions about whether humans are inherently
moral or if moral behavior is imposed by society
Week 1 “Ethics and Morality”
1. “Ethics” – The branch of philosophy that deals with questions about what is morally right or wrong,
good or bad, fair or unfair. Ethics guides how people make decisions and live their lives.
- Example: Deciding whether to lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings falls under ethical
considerations.
2. “Morality” – Refers to the principles or rules people follow regarding what is right and wrong in
behavior. It’s often shaped by cultural, religious, or personal beliefs.
- Example: Many cultures consider stealing morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
“Key Ethical Theories”
1. “Moral Principles” – These are fundamental guidelines that people use to determine the rightness or
wrongness of actions.
- Example: "Do not harm others" is a moral principle.
2. “Objectivism” – The idea that moral truths exist independently of individual beliefs or cultural norms.
According to objectivists, some things are morally right or wrong universally.
- Example: The belief that murder is wrong, regardless of the society or individual involved.
3. “Subjectivism” – The idea that moral beliefs are shaped by personal feelings, opinions, and
experiences, meaning there is no objective moral truth.
- Example: One person may feel that eating meat is wrong, while another may see no issue with it.
4. “Ethical Relativism” – The belief that moral standards are culturally based and vary from one society
to another, meaning there are no universal moral standards.
- Example: Some cultures view polygamy as acceptable, while others see it as morally wrong.
5. “Cultural Relativism” – A more specific type of ethical relativism that suggests people should
understand and respect cultural differences in moral beliefs.
- Example: In some cultures, arranged marriages are normal and moral, while in others, they are seen as
outdated or oppressive.
6. “Moral Objectivism vs. Ethical Relativism” – These are two opposing views. Objectivism argues for
universal moral truths, while relativism argues that moral truths vary by culture or personal perspective.

“Moral Disagreement and Toleration”

1. “Moral Disagreement” – This occurs when different cultures, groups, or individuals have opposing
beliefs about what is right and wrong.
- Example: One society may view abortion as morally wrong, while another may consider it a personal
choice.
2. “Toleration” – The practice of accepting and respecting different beliefs, even if they contradict one's
own moral views.
- Example: Respecting someone’s choice to follow a different religion, even if you don’t agree with
their beliefs.

“Ethical Absolutism vs. Pluralism”

1. “Absolutism” – The belief that there are fixed, unchanging moral standards that apply to all people at
all times.
- Example: The belief that lying is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.
2. “Pluralism” – The belief that there are multiple valid moral principles that can guide behavior, and
these principles might sometimes conflict.
- Example: A person might believe that telling the truth is important, but also believe that protecting
someone’s feelings is important. Sometimes, these two principles conflict.

“Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism”

1. “Cognitivism” – The view that moral statements are expressions of factual knowledge and can be
judged as true or false.
- Example: "Stealing is wrong" is a statement that, according to cognitivists, can be factually true or
false.
2. “Non-Cognitivism” – The belief that moral statements are expressions of feelings or attitudes and
cannot be judged as true or false.
- Example: When someone says, "Stealing is wrong," they’re not stating a fact but expressing
disapproval of stealing.

“Moral Nihilism, Ethical Egoism, and Psychological Egoism”

1. “Moral Nihilism” – The view that there are no moral truths or inherent right or wrong actions.
- Example: A moral nihilist might argue that concepts like good or evil are just human constructs with
no real basis.
2. “Ethical Egoism” – The belief that individuals should act in their own self-interest. This doesn't mean
being selfish but rather making decisions based on what will benefit oneself.
- Example: Choosing a job that pays more even if it means moving far away from family, because it
benefits you the most.

3. “Psychological Egoism” – The theory that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even when
they appear to be acting altruistically.
 - Example: Donating to charity might seem selfless, but a psychological egoist might argue that people
do it to feel good about themselves.

“Traits of Moral Principles”

1. “Prescriptivity” – Moral principles act as rules or commands that guide behavior, telling us what we
should or shouldn’t do.
- Example: "Do not cheat" is a prescriptive principle.
2. “Universalizability” – Moral principles should apply to everyone in similar situations.
- Example: If it’s wrong for one person to steal, it should be wrong for everyone to steal in similar
circumstances.
3. “Overridingness” – Moral principles take precedence over other types of principles (legal, aesthetic,
etc.).
- Example: If a law says segregation is legal, but it’s morally wrong, the moral principle overrides the
legal rule.
4. “Publicity” – Moral principles must be known and made public so people can be held accountable.
- Example: A secret moral rule that no one knows about wouldn’t be useful.
5. “Practicability” – Moral principles must be practical and not place impossible demands on people.
- Example: If a moral rule required people to be perfect, it would be impractical since humans are not
perfect.

“Domains of Ethical Assessment”

1. “Action” – Ethics can evaluate the rightness or wrongness of specific actions.
- Example: Killing someone is generally seen as morally wrong.
2. “Consequences” – Moral judgments can be based on the outcomes of actions.
- Example: If telling a lie saves someone’s life, the positive consequence might make the lie acceptable.
3. “Character” – People’s moral character, like whether they are honest or courageous, is also a key
factor in ethical assessment.
- Example: A person who consistently tells the truth is considered virtuous.
4. “Motive” – The reasons behind actions are important when judging morality.
- Example: Helping someone out of genuine care is morally better than helping them for selfish reasons.

“Deontological Ethics”
1. “Deontological Ethics” – Focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of their
consequences.
- Example: Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it would become a universal law.”
2. “Kant’s Ethics” – According to Kant, some actions are always morally wrong (e.g., lying), no matter
the outcome.

“Teleological Ethics (Consequentialism)”

1. “Teleological Ethics” – Focuses on the consequences of actions to determine what is morally right or
wrong.
- Example: Utilitarianism, which advocates actions that promote the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people.
2. “Utilitarianism” – Proposed by “Jeremy Bentham” and “John Stuart Mill”, this theory promotes
actions that lead to the greatest overall happiness.
- Example: If lying saves a lot of people from harm, a utilitarian might argue that it’s the morally right
thing to do.

“Virtue Ethics”
1. “Virtue Ethics” – Focuses on developing virtuous character traits, like honesty, courage, and kindness,
rather than specific rules for actions.
- Example: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics emphasizes finding the balance or "golden mean" between
extremes, such as courage (the balance between recklessness and cowardice).

“Supererogatory Acts”
1. “Supererogatory Acts” – Actions that go beyond what is morally required. These acts are
praiseworthy but not obligatory.
- Example: Donating a kidney to a stranger is an example of a supererogatory act.

“Morality and Other Concepts”

1. “Legal vs. Moral Duties” – Not everything that is legal is moral, and not all immoral acts are illegal.
- Example: Segregation was once legal, but most would agree it was morally wrong.
2. “Morality and Religion” – Religion often provides moral guidelines, but these don’t always align with
secular moral principles.
 - Example: Some religious teachings might prohibit divorce, while secular morality might allow it in
cases of abuse.
3. “Morality and Law” – While laws are often based on moral principles, they are not the same thing.

2. “The Basic Problem of Ethics by Gilbert Harman”

Gilbert Harman’s work dives deep into the philosophical conflict between “moral relativism” and “moral
realism”, with a focus on the challenges of establishing universally valid moral truths. He explores the
nature of moral facts and how different people perceive moral norms. Harman is particularly skeptical of
moral objectivity, offering arguments against it.
“Key Concepts from Harman’s Work”:
- “Moral Relativism”: Harman argues that morality is not universal but relative to different societies and
cultures. Moral rules are shaped by the context in which they arise, meaning that what is moral in one
society may be immoral in another. For example, different societies have contrasting views on practices
such as capital punishment, arranged marriages, or property rights. Harman emphasizes that these
differences challenge the idea of a single, universal moral standard.

Example: In some cultures, arranged marriages are seen as a moral duty to preserve family honor and
ensure stability. In other cultures, arranged marriages might be viewed as a violation of individual
freedom. Moral relativism, as argued by Harman, suggests that moral judgments like these are valid
within their own cultural contexts and cannot be universally applied across all societies.

- “Moral Realism”: Harman critiques moral realism, which claims that moral facts exist independently of
human beliefs or practices. Objectivists argue that moral truths are as real as scientific facts, waiting to be
discovered through reason. Harman, however, questions whether moral facts exist at all, suggesting that
morality may be more like a social construct than a discoverable truth.

Example: An objectivist might argue that regardless of cultural practices, certain actions, like slavery or
genocide, are always morally wrong. Moral objectivism claims that some moral facts (such as "slavery is
wrong") are true for all people, regardless of cultural norms. Harman challenges this view by questioning
whether such objective moral facts exist

- “Moral Diversity”: Harman uses the concept of moral diversity to support relativism. Across cultures
and time periods, people have disagreed about moral rules, which makes it difficult to argue that there is a
single, objective moral truth. He contrasts this with the idea of scientific facts, which remain consistent
regardless of cultural or personal belief.

Example: Consider the practice of capital punishment. In some countries, it is seen as a necessary justice
for serious crimes, while in others, it is considered a violation of human rights. This is an example of
moral diversity, where different cultures have opposing views on what constitutes moral behavior.
Harman uses this to support the argument that morality is shaped by social contexts rather than being
universally applicable

- “Moral Explanation and Observation”: Harman introduces an important challenge to realism through
what he calls “moral observation”. He argues that unlike scientific facts, moral facts cannot be observed
in the same way. In science, if we claim a rock is solid, we can physically touch it. However, moral
claims, such as “lying is wrong,” lack observable evidence in the same way. This undermines the
objectivist claim that moral facts exist in the same manner as scientific facts.

Example: Suppose two people observe a theft. One person says, "Stealing is wrong," while the other
says, "Stealing is sometimes necessary for survival." Unlike scientific facts (e.g., observing that an object
falls due to gravity), these moral judgments cannot be verified by simply observing the world. Harman
argues that moral facts are not like scientific facts that can be observed directly, which complicates the
claim that there are objective moral truths.

“Chapter 1 – Skepticism about Moral Objectivity”:

- Harman begins by critiquing “moral objectivity”. He points out that many moral claims are difficult to
verify or prove in a manner comparable to scientific facts. This leads to “moral skepticism”—the idea that
we should be cautious in claiming that moral facts exist independently of human culture.
“Chapter 2 – The Nature of Moral Relativity”:
- Harman explores the relationship between morality and culture, defending the position that moral
judgments are influenced by social, cultural, and historical contexts. He argues that “moral relativity”
better explains why moral disagreements persist across different societies. For example, practices such as
cannibalism or slavery may be condemned by some cultures and accepted by others. This suggests that
morality is contingent upon social norms rather than grounded in universal truths.

3. “Wright’s Moral Epistemology”

Wright’s approach to ethics focuses on “moral realism” and the idea that we can know and understand
moral truths. He takes a different stance from Harman by arguing that moral facts do exist and can be
known through careful reasoning. His work also emphasizes the “epistemology” of ethics, which is the
study of how we come to know what is morally right or wrong.
“Key Concepts from Wright’s Work”:
- “Moral Realism”: Wright defends the idea that moral truths are real and independent of individual or
cultural belief. Unlike Harman, Wright argues that some moral facts (e.g., "murder is wrong") hold true
regardless of cultural differences. He emphasizes that moral facts exist similarly to scientific facts, though
they are understood through reason rather than physical observation.

Example: Suppose someone argues that human rights, such as the right to life or freedom from torture,
are universal moral truths. Wright’s moral realism holds that these rights are objectively true,
regardless of whether some cultures or individuals reject them. For example, even if a society endorses
torture, Wright would argue that it remains morally wrong, based on an objective moral standard.

- “Moral Knowledge”: Wright argues that we can come to know moral facts through reflective processes
and rational thinking. Moral knowledge is not merely subjective or culturally contingent; rather, it is
accessible through ethical reasoning, much like how we understand scientific principles.

Example: Consider a person reflecting on whether it’s ethical to lie in a given situation. Through
reasoning and reflection, they conclude that lying in this case would be wrong because it undermines
trust. Wright argues that people can arrive at moral knowledge in this way, using rational thought to
determine what is morally right or wrong.

- “Reflective Equilibrium”: Wright uses the concept of “reflective equilibrium” to explain how we
balance our moral intuitions with principles to arrive at moral truths. This method involves adjusting both
principles and judgments until they align. For example, one might hold the principle that “all people
should be treated equally” but adjust that principle when considering cases like affirmative action, which
aims to correct historical injustices.

Example: A person may believe that "all killing is wrong." However, after considering self-defense or war
situations, they adjust their belief to allow exceptions. This process, where moral beliefs are tested and
revised to maintain consistency, is called reflective equilibrium. Wright suggests that through such
reasoning, people can align their moral intuitions with ethical principles to find moral truths.

- “Moral Objectivity”: Wright challenges Harman’s skepticism by defending the idea that moral
reasoning can lead to objective conclusions. He argues that while moral facts may be difficult to observe
in the way scientific facts are, they can still be understood through rational discourse and reflection. This
stance is a direct response to the problem of “moral observation” raised by Harman.

Example: If a person argues that "murder is always wrong," they are making an objective moral claim.
Wright would defend this by saying that, through reasoning and reflection, we can know this to be true,
regardless of whether certain cultures or individuals accept it. He contrasts this with Harman’s
relativism, arguing that moral facts can exist independently of cultural beliefs.

“Moral Knowledge and Experience”:

- Wright suggests that moral knowledge can be attained through experience, interaction, and reflection.
People can come to understand moral truths by critically engaging with ethical dilemmas and learning
from experience. This process emphasizes the role of reasoning and reflection in ethical decision-making,
countering the relativist claim that moral beliefs are merely subjective or culturally determined.

Example: Imagine a person who initially believes that stealing is always wrong. After witnessing a person
stealing food to survive in extreme poverty, they reflect on the situation and conclude that there may be
exceptions to their rule. Wright would argue that this person is gaining moral knowledge through
experience and reflection, adjusting their beliefs to account for complex situations.

“Moral Realism vs. Relativism”:

- Wright’s theory stands in direct opposition to Harman’s relativism. Where Harman argues that morality
is a social construct, Wright defends the existence of objective moral truths. Wright’s moral realism
asserts that, despite cultural differences, certain moral principles remain universally valid and knowable
through reason.
“Key Themes Across All Works”
1. “Relativism vs. Realism”:
- The key debate across these sources is between “moral relativism” (Harman) and “moral realism” or
“realism” (Wright). Harman contends that moral rules vary across societies, while Wright defends the
idea that there are universal moral facts that can be known through reason.
2. “The Role of Society in Morality”:
- Harman emphasizes the influence of societal norms and cultural practices on moral beliefs, whereas
Wright suggests that moral truths transcend social boundaries. In The Lord of the Flies, Golding
illustrates how the breakdown of societal structures leads to moral collapse, emphasizing the fragile
nature of social morality.
3. “The Challenge of Moral Knowledge”:
- Harman challenges the very possibility of “moral knowledge”, questioning how we can know moral
truths if they are not observable. Wright, however, argues that moral knowledge is attainable through
reason, reflection, and ethical discourse.

Example: A person reflecting on the morality of euthanasia might struggle to determine whether it is
right or wrong. Harman would question whether moral knowledge in such cases is even possible, given
the lack of objective facts, while Wright would suggest that through rational reflection, people can come
to know whether euthanasia is morally permissible.

4. “Consequences of Abandoning Morality”:

- In both The Lord of the Flies and Harman’s discussions, the consequences of abandoning morality are
explored. Without societal structures to enforce moral behavior, chaos and violence can result, as seen in
Golding’s depiction of the boys’ descent into savagery. Harman suggests that moral rules exist primarily
because of societal agreements, while Wright believes moral order is grounded in objective truths.

“Final Thoughts”
This comprehensive reviewer ties together the central themes of “moral obligation”, “relativism”,
“realism”, and “moral knowledge” across the three works. Why Should I Be Moral? addresses the
personal motivations for morality, while Harman and Wright debate the foundations of moral truths.
Ultimately, these works explore the complexities of moral decision-making, the role of society in shaping
ethics, and the challenge of understanding moral facts in a diverse and pluralistic world.
To create a comprehensive reviewer based on the first and second parts of the text you provided, I'll break
down the key concepts and ideas, explaining them clearly while providing examples to support
understanding.
The Plurality of Moral Standards
“1. Understanding 'Ought' and 'Can'“
- The article begins by examining the relationship between two moral ideas: “"ought"“ and “"can."“
- Philosophers argue that if you say someone "ought" to do something, it implies they "can" do it. In other
words, there should be no moral obligation to perform an impossible action.
Example:
If a teacher tells a student, "You ought to finish your assignment by tomorrow," it’s understood that the
student has the ability to do so within the given time. If finishing by tomorrow was literally impossible
(e.g., due to a lack of resources or severe time constraints), then the obligation wouldn’t hold. The
principle of "ought implies can" says that people should only be expected to do what is within their
ability.
“2. Critique of the 'Ought Implies Can' Principle”
- The text argues that this principle doesn’t always work, especially when applied to the reality of moral
life.
- People often set very high moral standards for themselves that they are incapable of reaching, yet they
still feel they “ought” to try.
- This causes a conflict: you know you can’t always do what is morally perfect, but you still believe you
ought to strive for that perfect moral action.
Example:
Imagine someone who promises never to lie again. In reality, they may fail to meet this standard because
lying sometimes feels necessary in tough situations. Even though they believe they "ought" to tell the
truth, they find that they "can’t" always uphold this promise, showing the tension between what people
morally aspire to and what they are realistically capable of doing.
“3. Defining Empirical Possibility”
- The concept of “empirical possibility” plays a major role in understanding moral action. Empirical
possibility relates to what is realistically possible, based on past evidence or the nature of the action itself.
“Three types of empirical possibility are defined:”
1. “Repeatable Achievements”: Something is possible if you've already done it and have no reason to
believe you can’t do it again.
- “Example”: If you've successfully run 5 kilometers before, it’s empirically possible to do it again.
2. “Estimated Potentialities”: Even if you’ve never done something, you have reason to believe you
can do it based on future improvement or capacity.
- “Example”: You’ve never run 10 kilometers, but you believe it’s possible with training because
other people have managed to do it.
 3. “Hope Without Guarantee”: You might hope to do something in the future, even if it’s currently
out of reach, based on slim possibilities.
- “Example”: You hope to run a marathon one day, even though it seems impossible at the moment,
because some evidence suggests you could improve with years of training.
“4. 'Can't' vs. 'Impossible' in Physical and Intellectual Contexts”
- In high-jumping or learning a language, we might say, "I can’t jump higher" or "I can’t speak the
language fluently," but we hesitate to say it’s “impossible” to improve.
- This highlights the “elastic nature of empirical possibility”, where something could seem impossible
now, but future progress or effort might change that.
Example:
When an athlete says, "I can’t jump higher," they mean, "I haven’t jumped higher so far." But they may
not be ready to say it’s “impossible” to jump higher in the future, since their performance could improve
with training. Similarly, someone learning a language might say, "I can’t speak fluently yet," but they
believe with more study, fluency is possible.
“5. Moral Standards: Aspirational vs. Realistic”
- The article discusses “moral standards” and how people often confuse their “aspirational” standards
(what they hope to achieve) with “realistic” standards (what they can actually do).
- Sometimes, people set themselves impossibly high moral goals, which can lead to failure and
frustration.
- A key point is that we should judge ourselves by what is “right for us” (realistic standards), not by the
highest possible standard of behavior
Example:
If someone sets a goal to always forgive others, this might be an aspirational standard. However, in
certain moments, due to emotions or circumstances, they may not be able to forgive someone right away.
A more realistic standard would be to “aim for forgiveness” while acknowledging that it may take time
and effort.
“6. Reluctance to Acknowledge 'Impossible' in Moral Contexts”
- People are often reluctant to use the word “"impossible"“ when it comes to moral actions. For example,
someone might say, "I can’t turn the other cheek when insulted," but they hesitate to say it’s “impossible”
to do so because moral potential is hard to estimate.
- Unlike physical or intellectual potential, moral potential can evolve throughout a person’s life, making it
difficult to define what’s truly impossible.
Example:
A person who struggles with anger might say, "I can’t control my temper." But it’s hard to say that
controlling their temper is truly “impossible”, since moral growth can happen over time. With self-
reflection and effort, they might eventually improve their behavior, even if they currently struggle.
“7. Conflicts Between Different Moral Goals”
- The article identifies a “conflict between two moral principles”: aiming for “perfection” and doing “your
best”. Trying to be perfect all the time can be counterproductive because it sets the bar too high.
- Instead, one should focus on “realistic, progressive standards” that gradually lead toward moral
perfection.
Example:
If you try to always behave perfectly, you might end up feeling frustrated and overwhelmed. Instead, it’s
more helpful to focus on making small improvements, like being kinder in everyday interactions, which
slowly brings you closer to your ultimate moral goals.
“8. Moral Uncertainty and Different Standards”
- Moral life is often filled with “uncertainty”, especially when it comes to setting moral standards. You
might know what you “ought not to do” (e.g., lying or stealing), but it’s harder to know exactly what you
“should” do in a particular situation.
“Different Standards in Moral Life:”
- “Self-Respect Standard”: These are clear, rule-based standards that deal with the minimum level of
acceptable behavior.
- “Example”: You know that returning borrowed items is a basic rule, and failing to return a book
violates this standard.

- “Inspirational Standard”: These are higher ideals you strive for, though they are harder to define and
achieve.
- “Example”: Returning a book with a note of appreciation or in a way that brings joy to the owner
represents an attempt to exceed basic expectations.
“9. Moral Crises and Conversion”
- Moral crises occur when there’s a significant change in someone’s “moral outlook”. These crises can
lead to:
1. “Moral Conversion”: Changing one’s fundamental moral beliefs, like switching from one moral
ideal to another.
- “Example”: A person who once believed in strict justice might undergo a moral conversion and start
believing in mercy and forgiveness as more important values.
2. “Moral Renewal”: Reinforcing or “recommitting” to an existing moral ideal, making it more vibrant
and central to one's actions.
 - “Example”: After a moral slump, a person might rediscover the importance of their commitment to
kindness, leading to renewed moral efforts.

Conclusion:
This text illustrates the complexities of moral life, highlighting the tension between “moral aspirations”
and “real-world capabilities”. It emphasizes the importance of setting “realistic standards”,
acknowledging moral uncertainty, and recognizing the potential for moral growth, even in the face of
setbacks.
Comprehensive Discussion on the Objectivity of Moral Judgments with
Examples

The concept of moral objectivity deals with whether moral judgments—statements about what is
right or wrong—are valid beyond personal feelings and societal preferences. In other words, it
asks if there’s a way to define moral truths that apply universally, regardless of individual or
cultural beliefs. This analysis explores key ideas surrounding objective morality, including moral
intuitions, cultural influences, and the evolving nature of ethical standards, using concrete
examples to make each idea clearer.

The Possibility of Objective Moral Judgments

One key question in moral philosophy is: How are moral judgments possible? For moral
judgments to be meaningful, they need to be valid beyond any single individual’s opinion. This
suggests that moral judgments might be based on a standard that is objective—that is, valid for
everyone, regardless of personal beliefs.

For instance, consider the moral judgment "Torturing innocent people is wrong." Most people
feel this is true, regardless of personal opinion. The argument here is that some actions, like
torturing innocent people, could be morally wrong independently of whether or not people agree,
pointing to an objective moral standard.

Subjective vs. Objective Standards

A core problem is whether morality is subjective (based on personal or cultural perspectives) or

objective (based on universal standards). Subjective morality would mean that what is right or
wrong depends entirely on individual beliefs or cultural norms. For example, some societies
view arranged marriages as morally acceptable, while others might see them as restricting
personal freedom. If morality is subjective, both views could be “right” for those respective
cultures.

Objective morality, on the other hand, would suggest that certain moral truths apply to everyone,
regardless of individual or societal beliefs. For example, if there’s an objective moral truth that
“violence against innocent people is wrong,” then it would be wrong in any society, even in
cultures that might tolerate or justify such actions.

Moral Intuitions and A Priori Goods

Some philosophers argue that we have inherent moral intuitions—understandings of right and
wrong that we recognize without needing evidence or reasoning. These intuitions, called a priori
moral truths, are often seen as self-evident, similar to mathematical truths.

An example of this is the concept of justice. Most people intuitively feel that treating people
fairly is right, even if they can't explain why. Philosopher Henry Sidgwick identified three core
moral intuitions, which he called the axioms of the good:
 1. Justice – treating people equally or fairly.
2. Prudence – acting in one’s long-term best interest.
3. Benevolence – showing kindness or goodwill toward others.

These intuitions are considered universal because they resonate across cultures and personal
beliefs. For example, people from various backgrounds tend to agree that unjustly harming
others is wrong, even if they disagree on specific practices or beliefs.

Quantitative Goods and Intrinsic Values

Another way to assess moral judgments is through quantitative goods—the idea that moral value
can be measured by the degree of benefit something provides. This approach raises questions
about intrinsic goods—values that are good in themselves, like love, beauty, and friendship.
Many people consider these values morally significant, even if they don’t serve practical
purposes.

For example, friendship is widely regarded as an intrinsic good because it enriches human lives.
However, intrinsic goods like love and beauty are often experienced and valued in a subjective
way, so their universal moral worth is debated. While these values may not be quantifiable or
universally applicable, they are often seen as essential to human well-being.

Instrumental Value and Virtues

Intrinsic values like love and friendship also have instrumental value because they help
cultivate virtues—qualities that contribute to the well-being of individuals and society. Virtues,
in this sense, are qualities like kindness, honesty, and generosity that help people lead morally
fulfilling lives.

Consider honesty as a virtue. Being truthful is instrumental in building trust within communities,
and communities with high trust levels tend to function better. While honesty may have intrinsic
moral value, its instrumental benefit for society strengthens its value as a moral standard. For
example, if honesty is widely upheld, people feel secure in their relationships, business deals,
and interactions, leading to a stable and harmonious society.

Limits of Universal Moral Judgments

While we may hold values like honesty and justice as universally good, it’s challenging to derive
moral judgments that apply to all contexts. For instance, while most agree that lying is wrong,
there are situations where lying might be considered morally acceptable, such as lying to protect
someone from harm. This adaptability reflects the complexity of making moral judgments that
hold universally without exception.

Philosophers argue that concepts like "good," "bad," and "ought" have moral significance but
that we cannot apply them universally without considering specific circumstances. For example,
a society might value courage, but how courage is applied varies widely—what is courageous in
one context might be reckless in another.
Moral Revision and Ethical Tests

Over time, moral standards evolve as societies refine their understanding of ethical principles.
Two well-known approaches for evaluating moral judgments are utilitarianism and Kantian
ethics.

1. Utilitarian Test: Utilitarianism measures moral value by how much pleasure or

happiness an action brings. This test proposes that an action is right if it produces the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. For example, a policy aimed at reducing
poverty would be morally good if it increases the overall happiness and well-being of
society.
2. Kantian Test: Kantian ethics argues that actions are morally good if they align with a
rule or principle that could be universalized. This means acting only in ways that you
would want everyone else to act. For instance, if someone believes that stealing is wrong,
they should avoid stealing, not just because it’s illegal, but because they believe no one
should steal.

Ethical Development and Instincts

Ethical principles are refined through generations, with each era contributing to a broader
understanding of moral values. As societies advance, they draw from past moral traditions while
adapting to new social realities. This evolution is shaped by human instincts that remain largely
constant, like empathy and fairness. For example, the drive to protect children is a universal
instinct that leads to moral principles regarding child welfare.

Instincts like empathy and self-preservation have guided moral development. While these
instincts are constant, they are channeled differently based on cultural norms and education. For
instance, empathy might drive individuals in one society to care for the elderly, while in another,
it might focus on providing community services for the underprivileged.

The Basis of Moral Objectivity: Conclusion

The argument for moral objectivity ultimately rests on two key elements:

1. Ethical Development Across Generations: Each generation refines moral values,

building on previous experiences and adapting to new challenges. The moral wisdom
accumulated over time forms a foundation for objective ethics, even if the specific values
evolve.
2. Instincts and Social Organization: Human instincts like empathy, fairness, and
cooperation shape our moral values. Although these instincts remain relatively
unchanged, societies organize them into structured norms, guiding moral behavior for
individual and collective well-being.

In conclusion, moral values may not be absolute in every case, but they are grounded in shared
human experiences and instincts. By reflecting on historical lessons and evolving cultural
contexts, societies develop ethical principles that aim to benefit humanity as a whole.
Comprehensive Reviewer on The Plurality of Moral Judgments

This reviewer provides a detailed overview of the plurality of moral judgments, which operate
under three main standards: the standard of self-respect, the aspirational standard, and the
inspirational standard. These standards help individuals understand and evaluate their moral
judgments and actions on different levels, guiding them toward moral progress. Each standard
has unique functions and applications, shaping one’s path to moral growth and potential. Let's
examine each in detail with examples to clarify their implications.

1. Standards of Moral Judgments

1.1. Standard of Self-Respect

 Definition: The standard of self-respect refers to the moral expectations individuals set
for themselves regarding behavior and attitudes. This standard dictates what one believes
they ought to uphold to maintain personal integrity.
 Purpose: It serves as a baseline for acceptable moral behavior, helping people avoid
moral decay and maintain a sense of moral health.

Example: Suppose a person values honesty and believes lying compromises their self-respect.
Even in situations where lying might seem advantageous, their standard of self-respect
discourages them from lying, as doing so would violate their personal code.

1.2. Aspirational Standard

 Definition: The aspirational standard is a higher level of moral expectations, which

individuals look to when they feel dissatisfied with their current self-respect standards. It
represents a desire to improve and make moral progress beyond what one currently
upholds.
 Purpose: This standard pushes individuals to grow morally by setting higher
expectations than what they typically follow.

Example: If an individual already refrains from lying to avoid harming others, they might adopt
an aspirational standard that encourages them to actively support truth-telling in their
community, promoting honesty as a broader value.

1.3. Inspirational Standard

 Definition: The inspirational standard is the ideal of moral perfection, guiding people by
setting a model of ultimate virtue. It encompasses and ranks all other moral standards.
 Purpose: Although people may not expect to fully achieve this level, it serves as an
aspirational model of moral excellence—one that includes a wider set of rules and virtues
than those found in self-respect or aspirational standards.
Example: Saints or heroes often represent this standard. For example, figures like Mahatma
Gandhi or Mother Teresa exemplify moral ideals of selflessness and compassion, setting a
standard that inspires others to strive for similar, though perhaps more attainable, virtues.

2. Understanding Moral Standards

The concept of moral standards suggests a scale of standards that range from basic self-respect
to moral perfection. This scale highlights how moral standards encompass policies, dispositions,
and actions that guide behavior.

 Moral Rules vs. Moral Standards:

o Moral Rules: These are specific guidelines prescribing actions or behavior.
o Moral Standards: These relate to broader moral judgments, helping to evaluate
actions based on overarching principles.

Example: A moral rule might be “Do not lie,” while the corresponding standard may involve
deeper commitments, like “Maintain honesty in all aspects of life,” encompassing a broader and
more meaningful application of honesty.

Obligational vs. Aspirational-Inspirational Aspect

 Obligational Aspect: This aspect of moral standards focuses on rules and obligations. It
can feel burdensome or restrictive, but it’s necessary for moral order.
 Aspirational-Inspirational Aspect: This aspect allows individuals to aim for self-
improvement rather than feeling forced to meet perfection. It offers a path for moral
growth without the overwhelming pressure of immediate achievement.

Example: While society might obligate people to follow laws against theft (obligational aspect),
some might aspire to practice generosity and integrity, aiming for a higher moral character than
simply avoiding crime (aspirational aspect).

3. How Moral Standards Function

Each moral standard has a distinct function in promoting moral health, growth, and progress.
Here’s how they operate:

3.1. The Standard of Self-Respect

 Protection from Moral Decline: Self-respect standards help individuals recover from
moral decay by maintaining minimum acceptable behaviors.
 Control of Moral Satisfaction: This standard also regulates personal pride and
satisfaction, encouraging a continuous check on one’s actions and attitudes.
  Tool for Moral Growth: By upholding self-respect standards, people remain morally
healthy, cultivating the discipline necessary for more advanced moral aspirations.

Example: A person who occasionally feels tempted to gossip might refrain from doing so due to
their self-respect standard, as they value respect and kindness. Over time, this discipline can
evolve into a broader commitment to respect others.

3.2. The Aspirational Standard

 Direction and Ranking of Standards: The aspirational standard inspires individuals by

providing a higher level of moral expectation, encouraging them to aim for progress.

Example: If someone strives to be kind not only to family and friends but also to strangers, their
aspirational standard pushes them to practice kindness in more challenging situations, thus
ranking kindness as a valuable moral principle in all contexts.

3.3. Inspirational Standard

 Path Toward Moral Perfection: The inspirational standard represents the ultimate ideal,
providing an overarching goal toward which people can aim.

Example: A person might admire the compassion of figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and be
inspired to act against social injustice in their own small ways, even if they do not reach the same
level of activism.

4. Importance of These Standards

Moral standards are crucial because they allow individuals to approximate moral perfection by
setting achievable, progressive goals rather than expecting immediate perfection.

Key Insights

 "Ought Does Not Imply Can": Just because a person feels they ought to meet a
standard does not mean they can meet it in every situation. Morality recognizes
limitations, allowing room for growth rather than perfection.
 "Knowing Does Not Lead to Doing": Understanding what is right doesn’t always result
in moral action. This acknowledgment encourages the continuous refinement of moral
behavior rather than assuming knowledge alone is enough.

Example: Someone might believe in honesty but still struggle to admit a mistake to their boss.
Recognizing this gap, they might gradually work on expressing honesty in smaller steps until it
becomes more natural.

Evident Truisms
  Inestimable Moral Potential: One cannot fully estimate their moral capabilities. Life
offers countless opportunities for moral progress from birth to death.
 Genuine Conversion Possible: People can have significant moral or religious
transformations, showing that moral growth is achievable even after a lifetime of
different beliefs or actions.

Example: A person may once have prioritized self-interest but, through life experiences, shift
toward a more compassionate approach, demonstrating that moral standards can evolve
dramatically.

5. Concluding Reflections on Moral Judgments

Ethics acknowledges that moral development varies by personal and societal experiences.
Moral standards offer a structured pathway for individuals to evolve morally, starting from self-
respect to potentially inspirational actions. They remind us that morality is both a personal
journey and a societal progression, with each standard serving as a step toward greater moral
integrity.