Short Lectures on Ethics: Ethics in Action | David R. Keller | Episode 2

Summary

The lecture explores ethics, defined as the philosophical study of morality, emphasizing the use of reason in moral judgment. It highlights the Western intellectual tradition, which combines faith from the Hebrews and reason from the Greeks. The speaker outlines four criteria for rational ethical theories: comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy. Socrates is presented as a model of ethics in action, exemplified by his decision not to escape from prison despite his impending death, as he believed doing so would harm his soul by violating moral principles. The lecture underscores the importance of rationality in ethical reasoning.

Takeaways

• 📚 Ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality, which involves making moral judgments about how best to live one’s life.
• ⚖️ Moral judgments include evaluating the character and actions of oneself and others.
• 🧠 The Western intellectual tradition, based on the Hebrews and Greeks, focuses on using reason, not just faith, to make moral judgments.
• 🔍 Rationality in ethics requires four criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy.
• 🐒 A comprehensive theory should include all relevant information, such as considering non-human animals in discussions about sentient life.
• 🧩 Coherence means that related concepts should form a unified theory, avoiding contradictions like mixing astrology with constitutional law.
• ❌ Consistency requires avoiding logical contradictions, as in opposing abortion but supporting the death penalty.
• 🔬 Adequacy means that ethical theories should be supported by empirical evidence, not just abstract ideas.
• 👤 Socrates serves as an exemplar of ethics in action, using reason to address moral problems, notably in Plato’s dialogue 'Crito'.
• 🗣️ In 'Crito', Socrates reasons that it’s unethical to escape prison because it would harm his soul by breaking his agreement to follow the laws of Athens.

Q & A

What is the definition of ethics as presented in the script?

Ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality, which involves making moral judgments about how best to live one's life, including judging the character of oneself and others as well as actions.

How does the Western intellectual tradition approach ethics?

The Western intellectual tradition approaches ethics by using the tools of reason to make moral judgments, focusing on the cultural tradition stemming back to the Hebrews and the Greeks, representing faith and reason, respectively.

What are the four criteria for rationality as mentioned in the script?

The four criteria for rationality are comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy. A theory must include all relevant information, link related concepts into a unified whole, not be logically contradictory, and be supported by empirical evidence.

Why is Socrates considered an exemplar in reasoning about moral problems?

Socrates is considered an exemplar because he used logical reasoning to address moral problems and his conclusions guided his actions, making himself the object of rational inquiry and focusing on the inner moral world rather than the external natural world.

What is the significance of Socrates' trial and his decision not to escape in the context of ethics?

The significance of Socrates' trial and his decision not to escape lies in his demonstration of ethics in action, where he used reason to determine that escaping would harm his soul and undermine the laws of Athens, which he had agreed to live by.

How does Socrates' reasoning in the 'Crito' dialogue meet the criteria of rationality?

Socrates' reasoning in the 'Crito' dialogue is comprehensive as he considers various harms, coherent as it is unified by the theme of harm and promises, consistent as he adheres to his previous conclusions, and adequate as it addresses concrete outcomes.

What is the analogy Socrates draws between the body and the soul in the script?

Socrates draws an analogy between the body and the soul, suggesting that just as an athlete in training should listen to an expert coach for the health of the body, in matters of ethics affecting the health of the soul, one should listen to ethical experts rather than the masses.

Why does Socrates believe that escaping prison would be harmful to his soul?

Socrates believes that escaping prison would be harmful to his soul because it would involve breaking his agreement to live by the laws of Athens and undermining the authority of the law, which could damage the social structure and harm his moral integrity.

What are the two paramount conclusions that Socrates and Crito have arrived at in their conversations?

The two paramount conclusions that Socrates and Crito have arrived at are that one ought to never do harm and one ought to abide by one's agreements provided they are just.

How does the script distinguish between normative ethics and meta-ethics?

The script does not explicitly distinguish between normative ethics and meta-ethics, but it implies that normative ethics would involve the actual ethical theories and their application, while meta-ethics would involve questions about the nature and validity of those ethical theories.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Defining Ethics and the Western Tradition

In this introduction, David Keller defines ethics as the philosophical study of morality. Morality involves making judgments about how to live one’s life and judging actions and characters of oneself and others. Keller emphasizes that using reason, rather than relying on mystical or religious methods, is key to ethics. The focus of the lectures is the Western intellectual tradition, rooted in the fusion of Hebrew faith and Greek reason, which shaped Roman culture, Christianity, and European civilization. Ethics, in this context, is about using reason to make moral judgments.

05:07

📜 Four Criteria of Rationality

Keller introduces four criteria that define rational thinking: comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy. He explains that for a theory to be rational, it must meet these criteria.

Keywords

💡Ethics

Ethics is defined in the script as the philosophical study of morality, which involves making moral judgments about how to live one's life. It is central to the video's theme as it sets the stage for understanding the Western intellectual tradition's approach to morality. The script discusses how ethics uses the tools of reason to make these judgments, contrasting with other methods such as flipping a coin or relying on religious precepts.

💡Morality

Morality is described as the propensity in human nature to make moral judgments, including assessing the character of oneself and others as well as actions. It is intrinsically linked to the concept of ethics and is the subject of philosophical inquiry in the script. The video emphasizes that morality is about discerning right from wrong, which is a fundamental aspect of ethical reasoning.

💡Western Intellectual Tradition

The Western intellectual tradition is characterized as a cultural tradition with roots in Hebrew and Greek thought, representing faith and reason respectively. This tradition is crucial to the video's narrative as it provides the historical and cultural backdrop against which ethical theories are developed and analyzed. The script discusses how these traditions merged in Roman culture and influenced the rise of Christianity and European civilization.

💡Reason

Reason is presented as the method of ethics, emphasizing the use of logical and rational tools to make moral judgments. It is a key concept in the video as it distinguishes the ethical approach from other methods like mysticism or religious dogma. The script illustrates the importance of reason through Socrates' example, who uses reason to navigate moral dilemmas.

💡Rationality

Rationality is discussed in terms of four criteria that a theory must meet to be considered rational: comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy. These criteria are integral to the video's exploration of ethical theories, providing a framework for evaluating the soundness of moral judgments. The script uses these criteria to analyze Socrates' reasoning in the 'Crito' dialogue, demonstrating how rationality is applied in ethics.

💡Comprehensiveness

Comprehensiveness is one of the criteria of rationality, requiring that a theory include all relevant information. It is highlighted in the video as essential for a theory to be considered rational, as it ensures that no critical considerations are overlooked. The script uses the example of a theory on sentient life that excludes non-human animals to illustrate the importance of comprehensiveness in ethical reasoning.

💡Coherence

Coherence is another criterion for rationality, demanding that a theory integrates related concepts into a unified whole. The video uses coherence to critique theories that mix incompatible concepts, such as an argument on gun rights that combines constitutional law with astrology, which fails the criterion of coherence.

💡Consistency

Consistency is a key criterion for rationality, which requires that a theory does not contain logical contradictions. The video emphasizes the importance of consistency in ethical reasoning, using the script's example of an argument that values human life but advocates the death penalty for abortion, thus contradicting itself.

💡Adequacy

Adequacy is the fourth criterion of rationality, which stipulates that a theory should be supported by empirical evidence and connected to the real world. The video discusses adequacy in the context of ethical theories, suggesting that they should not be abstract but should have practical implications and be grounded in observable reality.

💡Socrates

Socrates is portrayed as an exemplar of ethical reasoning, using reason to address moral problems and guide actions. His approach to ethics is central to the video's message, as it demonstrates the application of rationality in moral decision-making. The script recounts Socrates' reasoning in the 'Crito' dialogue, where he decides not to escape prison despite a death sentence, upholding his agreements and avoiding harm to the social structure.

Highlights

Ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality.

Morality involves making judgments about how to live one's life and the character of oneself and others.

Western intellectual tradition combines Hebrew faith and Greek reason, influencing Roman culture and Christianity.

Ethics uses reason to make moral judgments, focusing on the Western tradition's approach.

Rationality in ethics is judged by four criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, consistency, and adequacy.

Comprehensive theories in ethics include all relevant information without obvious exclusions.

Coherent theories integrate related concepts into a unified whole systematically.

Consistent theories avoid logical contradictions.

Adequate theories are supported by empirical evidence and connect to the real world.

Socrates, as depicted by Plato, exemplifies ethics in action through logical reasoning about moral problems.

Socrates redirected philosophy's focus from the natural world to moral self-inquiry.

In the 'Apology', Socrates defends his actions and beliefs during his trial in Athens.

Socrates considers whether to escape prison, weighing the moral implications against the advice of his friend Crito.

Socrates argues that ethical decisions should be based on expert advice, not public opinion.

He analogizes the health of the soul to an athlete's training, emphasizing the importance of expert guidance.

Socrates concludes that escaping prison would harm his soul and undermine the social structure of Athens.

The 'Speech of the Laws of Athens' illustrates Socrates' commitment to the social contract and the laws' authority.

Socrates' decision not to escape reflects a comprehensive, coherent, consistent, and adequate ethical reasoning.

The lecture series will continue with an exploration of different ethical theories and the distinction between normative and meta-ethics.

Transcripts

my name is David Keller in the last

lecture we defined ethics as the

philosophical study of morality and

morality is the propensity in human

nature of making moral judgments about

how best to live one's life the making

of moral judgments includes judging the

character of yourself and others as well

as actions of yourself and other others

now there are many different ways of

making moral judgments we decided last

time you can flip a coin you can go for

mystical experience you can defer to the

precepts of religion or you can use the

tools of Reason using the tools of

reason is the method of ethics now the

focus of these the this short the series

of short lectures on ethics is the

Western intellectual tradition before we

move on and define ethics in greater

detail let's get clear in our minds what

we mean by the Western tradition the

Western tradition is that cultural

tradition stemming back to the Hebrews

and the Greeks each representing faith

on one hand and reason on the other

these two great traditions came together

in their end in the Roman Empire in

Roman culture which laid the groundwork

for the rise of Christianity and

European civilization and its offshoots

so the focus of our attention here today

is the Western intellectual tradition

and how the Western tradition has

employed the you that the tools of

reason to make moral judgments and that

is ethics

if we say that making moral judgments

using the tools of reason and

rationality is ethics we need to

understand in greater detail what it

means to be rational what does it mean

to be reasonable I offer you four

criteria the first criteria for

rationality is comprehensiveness for a

theory to meet the criterion of

rationality it should include all of the

relevant information or at least not

exclude anything obvious for example a

theory that claimed that all sentient

life is is morally valuable but failed

to make any mention of non-human animals

those animals such as primates and and

mammals that appear to be K that appear

to be sentient could not be considered a

comprehensive theory because it makes

claims about sentence but excludes

critical considerations about sentient

life such a theory would not be

considered comprehensive and hence not

rational secondly rash theories which

are considered to be rational should be

coherent the theory must link all

related concepts into a unified whole in

a systematic and integrated way for

example if you were to give me an

argument about gun rights using an inner

mixture of constitutional law and

astrology I would not consider your

theory

to be coherent because astrology and

constitutional law cannot be integrated

into a unified whole a unified theory

your theory would fall short of the

criterion of coherence thirdly theories

that are rational should be consistent

that is they should not be logically

contradictory for example an argument

that claimed that all human life

including potential human life is

intrinsically valuable and that

therefore women who have abortions

should receive the death penalty could

not be considered consistent that theory

would be logically contradictory it's

it's a that argument was made in a class

of mine incidentally not one that I made

up it's logically contradictory because

it it holds human life to be valuable

but then denigrates human life by

upholding the death penalty in an

inconsistent way fourthly rational

theories should be adequate that is they

should be supported by empirical

evidence they should connect to the

world somehow they should just not be

abstract conceptual systems but have

connection with the world that we live

in and the world that we see in our

everyday lives for example the claim

that pre-emptive war is prudent foreign

policy ought to provide some concrete

examples of how this policy is more

adequate than they taunt

and that how they taught has failed in

ways in which pre-emptive war succeeds

in other words to be convinced by a

hypothesis hypothesis all of us want

some concrete evidence to back it up and

that is captured by the criterion of

adequacy now I have argued that we all

make moral judgments and that ethics is

that method which employs the tools of

reason as I have captured here in with

four criteria I'd like to provide you

now with an example of ethics in action

in the person of Socrates Socrates at

least depicted by Plato is an exemplar

in reasoning logically about moral

problems and arriving at conclusions

which guide his actions Socrates

accomplished this in two ways first he

made himself the object of rational

inquiry the philosophers before Socrates

typically were concerned with the

natural world they were what they

wondered about the constitution of

nature what what what what natural

processes consisted of their attention

was generally focused outward at the

world all of them all the pre-socratic

philosophers we call them nature

philosophers in a way they were meta

physicians Socrates changed the emphasis

of rational inquiry of philosophy by

turning the object of inquiry back from

the world on to him

and in this way he refocused philosophy

from the outer world onto himself that

is why we call him the first moral

philosopher the first ethicist of the

Western intellectual tradition

after recounting the trial of Socrates

and Socrates is prosaic defense of

himself in a dialogue called the apology

Socrates was cry brought the trial for

allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens

and inventing Definity divinities of

gods on his own after he was found

guilty on those charges and sent to

prison to await his death sentence Plato

pictures Socrates wondering whether he

should escape whether he should take the

advice of his good friend credo and flee

Athens in this dialogue the credo Plato

gives us an excellent example of ethics

in action of how one can make moral

judgments using the tools of Reason

which meet the four criteria that I have

just outlined in the credo

Socrates is in prison it's before dawn

cryto comes to Socrates pleading with

him to escape because on that very day

he will be put to death but he will be

forced to drink the hemlock credo gives

in an emotional outpouring many

different reasons why Socrates should

escape Socrates will be harming himself

by playing into the hands of his enemies

making his enemies victorious Socrates

will be deserting his own sons and and

and be and hence be a poor father it

would be more courageous and manly to

escape credo and others will lose a

friend if Socrates is put to death and

most prominently there will be adverse

public opinion people the people of

Athens will assume that credo and others

were too cheap to bribe the guards and

facilitate Socrates escape and they will

be labeled lousy friends Socrates in

response to credo says you're my good

friend cried oh I appreciate your

concern but in questions of ethics in

questions of moral judgment one ought to

reason through the situation carefully

and not act on gut emotion or gut

instinct and so Socrates first and

foremost decides whether it is OK in

situations of ethics in moral situations

to react to public opinion to what

others think Socrates gives an argument

which briefly

this he says decried Oh an athlete in

training an athlete preparing for the

Olympics could either take the advice of

of the masses of all one's friends and

all one's family or the advice of a very

small number of people or perhaps only

one person the expert the coach and

Socrates says Socrates asked cried oh if

you're an athlete in training do you

take the advice of the many or the

advice of the few the experts the

conclusion is that it's better to take

the advice of the expert the coach

because taking the advice of the many

the friends and the family and everyone

else that is very supportive of you

getting to the Olympics might result in

damaging your body that your your

friends and family might give you the

advice to Train eight hours a day and

and run and swim and and and do push-ups

and gymnastics and all kinds of stuff

which might result in damaging your body

pulling a ligament or straining a muscle

damn damaging cartilage or something

whereas a coach is an expert in the

field of athletic training and knows

that you need to train in a systematic

and methodical way to achieve your full

potential the conclusion of this

argument is that an athlete in training

should listen to the advice of the

expert not the non expert or the masses

the question then becomes well I forgot

one critical thing

Socrates draws an analogy between the

body and the soul and Socrates says

questions of ethics are just like an

athlete in training except for what is

in question is the health of the soul

not the health of the body and just as

we as athletes and training want to

listen to the experts and not the masses

in questions of ethics which affect the

health of our soul we also need to

listen to the experts not the masses and

the question of escape from prison

repudiating the verdict of the jury is a

moral question it's a moral issue the

outcome of making the right or wrong

decision could be damaging the soul or

helping the soul so the question becomes

since Socrates should not listen to the

advice of the masses and he therefore

rejects

Kratos notion that adverse public

opinion in this situation has any

relevance at all the question becomes

who is the expert in ethics who should

Socrates go to to decide whether he

should escape from prison or stay in

prison faces death sentence and and die

Socrates initially got himself into

trouble by engaging in conversation in

the public marketplace with some of the

most powerful and prominent people of

Athens on questions of ethics piety

courage beauty truth and so on and he

concluded that many of the people who

claimed to have knowledge of these

things really didn't

and that in questions of ethics there

was no one in Athens that really was war

more wise than he was because he at

least was wise in his own ignorance

therefore Socrates is the expert in

ethics

if there is one so there's no one that

he can go to and ask what the right

thing to do in the situation is he has

to figure it out for himself so he says

to cried Oh cried oh I appreciate your

concern but here we cannot defer to the

opinions of the masses we you and I have

to reason through this or ourselves we

need to figure out what the right thing

for me to do is I cannot just react

unthinkingly to the opinion of the

masses I've got to figure out what to do

myself he then turns to credo and says

credo you and I have been engaged in

conversations for many years and in all

these conversations we've arrived at two

conclusions they are one ought to never

do harm and one ought to abide by one's

agreements provided they are just and

Kryta and Socrates looks to cry to and

says given the fact that these have been

our two paramount conclusions over

innumerable conversations over many

years it's obvious what I should do and

cryto says I'm upset Socrates it's not

clear on my mind I'm not sure what

you're getting at so so Socrates to make

it more clear to credo gives us what is

known by philosophers as the speech of

the laws of Athens where he flushes out

the nuances

of the these two premises Socrates says

building on the the fundamental

assumptions that one ought to never do

harm and want to one one ought to abide

by one's agreements provided they are

just Socrates points out through the

speech of the laws of Athens that

Socrates has tacitly agreed to live by

the laws of Athens by not leaving he he

had the free will to march outside of

the city walls and move down to the

Sparta or any other town a city-state in

Athens but he never chose to do that

Socrates in fact loved living in Athens

and chose to stay so through his actions

he tacitly consented to live by the laws

of Athens Socrates says that in fact he

owes his very existence to the laws

because it was under the laws under

under the the social framework that the

laws provided that his parents married

he was educated and he became a

philosopher and so he owes a lot of his

being his existence to the laws of

Athens by providing the social structure

within which he grew up

given this Socrates is within the scope

of the laws of the the laws authority

and

by repudiating the verdict by ignoring

the law he has the capacity to injure or

damage the law by undermining its very

Authority what's important to notice

here is that Plato is not implying that

it is the particular vertex that is in

question here the verdict being

corrupting the youth and inventing

divinities of one own rather it is the

authority of the laws themselves that is

in question if Socrates by example

ignores the verdict flees Athens he

undermines the authority of the law and

possibly damages the social structure

within which the laws give order

stability to the civil society of Athens

the laws for Plato provide the very

social structure through which citizens

live as as moral agents and ants and so

on so Socrates concludes if he escapes

he incurs a form of harm which which

repudiates the first fundamental premise

and he has agreed to live by the laws of

Athens through his actions and by

leaving he would repudiate or deny the

validity of the second premise one ought

to abide by one's agreements provided

they are just Socrates concludes

that he ought not escape because if he

does so he will go back on his agreement

to live by the laws of Athens and he

will harm the social structure of Athens

which concretely might harm his family

and his friends and therefore it is

unethical for him to leave Athens flee

his death sentence as ludicrous as it

may be because he will be incurring harm

and going against his agreements so at

the end of the Credo socrates concludes

if I escape my body will benefit but my

soul will be harmed I will have done

something unethical I will have

repudiated fundamental moral principles

based on reason and my soul my moral

integrity my very being my humaneness

will suffer if I stay and face my death

sentence my body will be harmed I will

die but my soul will remain intact with

full integrity and I will have done the

right thing I will have done the ethical

thing and for Socrates because the soul

is more important to the body in terms

of what it means to be human

it is much more important to benefit the

soul than to benefit the body the

conclusion is obvious in Socrates mind

as absurd as the verdict was and as

absurd as the court trial was as

recounted in the apology nonetheless

Socrates

not escape now I claimed that Socrates

as depicted by Plato in the cried o rip

represents ethics in action that is

using the tools of reason and

rationality as applied to moral problems

let's go through quickly each one of my

four criteria and see how this is so we

Socrates demonstrates ethics in action

because his reasoning is comprehensive

he carefully and methodically catalogs

and itemizes the various kinds of harms

that can be done by his alternative

actions to his soul to his body to his

friends to his family to the laws to the

social structure his his reasoning is

impressively comprehensive and sweeping

he doesn't seem to leave any relevant

information out given the situation at

hand secondly his reasoning is coherent

the parts of his argument are all

connected by the theme of harm and

upholding one's promises so the parts of

the argument hang together they cohere

into a unified and integrated whole

thirdly his reasoning is consistent in

fact consistency is the backbone of the

argument in the credo and it's the thing

that makes it so impressive he has

promised to live according to the laws

of Athens he will harm the body if he

stays and faces his death sentence but

he will not harm his soul and he

addresses the necessity of accepting the

verdict dubious as it is

because it's the authority of the laws

that are in question

not the verdict times itself so he

sticks his reasoning is consistent

throughout leading to a conclusion that

we may not suspect but nonetheless he

lives by his actions he's consistent

lastly his reasoning is adequate it

addresses the concrete outcomes of

alternative actions and varying degrees

of harm to the polis that is the city

state the social structure to his

friends his family and himself and so he

addresses every empirical concrete

factor that seems to be relevant to the

situation at hand well if you're like me

at first reading of the credo you react

that socrates was wrong that he should

escape given the ludicrous nature of the

charges but upon careful analysis and a

careful reading of the credo and a

careful consideration of the line of

argumentation we see the brilliance of

his reasoning in this way socrates

epitomizes the philosophical approach to

the study of morality that is ethics

next time in lecture three we will turn

to different kinds of ethical theories

in the Western intellectual tradition

and distinguish between what

philosophers call normative ethics that

is the actual ethical theories

themselves and meta ethics which are

questions about those ethical theories

thank you