• Moral action requires both motivation (empathy) and reasoning.
• Motivation comes from family, education.
• Reasoning is highly refined common sense.

• Moral reasoning is constrained (like all reasoning) by general principles of good reasoning:
• Relies on facts (well-supported empirical claims)
• Requires good logic and consistency
• Universalizability: if cases (or persons) are treated differently, it must be because there is a morally relevant difference between them (a.k.a. "formal justice")
• Requires systematic and coherent use of moral principles and values
• "Material Justice" : the moral principles and values used to make a bridge between facts and recommendations
• Several competing approaches here; each tends to emphasize a different value (such as autonomy, utility, or justice)
• Relationship between the right and the good (deontology vs. consequentialism)
• Deontological: libertarianism, contractarianism, Kant
• Consequentialist: utilitarianism
• Notice: We are more likely to notice the moral bridge between facts and moral judgments when we disagree. But just because we agree, it doesn’t follow that our judgments are tenable (slavery!).

• This structure helps us find space between dogmatism and relativism to explore moral issues.
• Also helpful: Weston (A Practical Companion to Ethics, chap. 1).
• The upshot: we can often come up with some answers to moral questions:
• Some answers are bad ones.
• Sometimes there is a clearly best solution.
• Often there is much to be said on at least 2 sides and reasonable people may well disagree.

• In private life, we can use such moral exploration for individual action.
• Public policy requires an additional step: How do we reconcile competing views in a pluralistic society?
• No set answers, but Weston, chaps 3-5 can help us think constructively and move forward in fair and reasonable ways.
• Relationship between morality and the law?
• Some useful vocabulary:
• Impartiality: equal consideration of each individual’s interests (also: "fairness")
• Neutrality: not taking a stand; neutrality can nonetheless further a particular outcome so it’s not necessarily a way to avoid responsibility!
• Bias: taking a position without sufficient justificatory evidence
• Objectivity: precludes wishful thinking and requires
• Scrupulous examination of relevant facts
• Well argued support
• Natural: at least 4 possible (conflicting!) meanings (from Pierce):
• That which happens in the absence of human intervention
• Everything that humans do
• What humans have in common with the rest of the animal world (or some elements of it)
• What distinguishes us from the rest of the animal world
• Autonomy: can be used in diverse ways, ranging from self-determination to individual plans for action constrained by prudence and morality
• Utility:
• Non-moral use: usefulness
• Moral use: acting so as to create the greatest good for the greatest number
• Prudence: acting so as to promote one’s own interest
• Morality: acting so as to take account of the interests of all affected parties
• Enlightened Self-interest: a partial bridge between prudence and morality 
• A rough guideline for beginners:
• Start with a particular issue.
• What would the consequences of a laissez-faire approach be?
• Potential harm?
• Potential loss of benefit?
• Benefits and burdens fairly allocated?
• Policy consistent with similar cases?
• Overall consequences of treating groups of cases this way?
• Is approach alert to possible more fundamental unfairness?
• What assumptions underlie the solution? Are they reasonable?

Laura Purdy

Professor of Philosophy

Wells College

January 31, 2002