# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hi there!

This blog is dedicated to Edexcel's Unit 4: Implications (ethics) course at A2 - I hope you find some of these revision materials helpful!

We're going to start off with Schneewind's article 'Modern Moral Philosophy'. Personally, I think this article is the hardest one to write about, since there are so many different scholars and ethical positions to remember and discuss. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to begin with the scholars that Schneewind discusses more prominently throughout his article (hopefully, in simpler terms):

1: Montaigne:
Montaigne was an influential thinker of the late 1500's, as he began to suggest that perhaps, the top-down (meaning that morality is imposed on us from someone superior, in this case God) and objective morality found within Christian ethics (which was the preferred ethical system of the time) was too difficult for humans to follow; the standards off Christian ethics were too high for humans to live up to. This placed Montaigne in a difficult position, as he was himself, a Catholic. However, it is important to note that this would have been controversial in an orthodox Catholic society that was reflected in Western thought in the 1500s/1600's, and, may have inspired this slow shift into secularism (belief against God).

However, Montaigne suggested that 'there are no clear norms governing social and political life beyond the laws of our own country, which he held, are to always be obeyed'. In other words, the clearest - and therefore easiest - moral law for us to follow came from the law of the country in which we live in, given by governments and other sources of sovereignty (e.g. a king or queen).

This led Montaigne to suggest an important and influential idea: that perhaps we may 'personally find a way of life which our own nature makes necessary for us'. This means that actually, morality does not come from an external source, but from our very own nature. This acts as the beginnings of the shift into AUTONOMY. The term autonomy means that humans follow their own moral ideas/create their own moral guidance (otherwise referred to as 'self-governance'); we do not conform to one, objective and top-down moral law. Thus top-down moral theories are diametrically opposed to autonomy.

Schneewind then briefly goes onto discuss why Christian ethics (Divine command ethics) may have become difficult for us to follow and this is due to the introduction of Protestantism that had 'split Europe so deeply, that there could be no agreement on what the historical religion required'. In other words, Catholicism and Protestantism were so different, it caused a huge divide in Europe's religious ethics, that there was no longer one ethical system to guide all

Because Montaigne's ideas were so influential at the time, it is important to refer to him throughout your essay, especially when discussing shifts within human morality. :)

2: Aquinas' Natural Moral Law:
Schneewind claims that even though Aristotle's Virtue ethics was still being taught, it did not seem to be an influential theory. Therefore, the next big moral theory was not Virtue ethics, but 'Thomistic natural law tradition'.
You should already have some knowledge of this if you have studied ethics for paper 3, but this is what Schneewind outlines in his article:

It was based on human reason, and even though it was grounded in religious ethics, due to the utilisation of reason, was not necessarily 'biased' towards Christian moral principles

It was believed by both Catholics and Protestants (helping to overcome the split that Protestantism caused in Europe)

We have to follow God's laws, even if we do not think they are beneficial - remember God is seen as this omniscient being, so obviously, they must be beneficial to all

Perhaps most importantly: Natural moral law (NML) can only be known by 'the wise' or people who are at the higher end of the social hierarchy within the Church, and it is up to 'the wise' to translate and instruct the rules of NML to those who are not wise enough to access it (basically, the rest of society)

Based on 'reward and punishment' (otherwise known as eschatological reward, which is the reward - or punishment - we receive on judgement day: hell or heaven?) and that God knows whether we have been obedient or disobedient to his law

It expresses God's glory

It allows humans to determine their own purposes (another subtle example of autonomy here, suggesting that classic NML played a role in this shift into autonomy) but this was limited through the moral rules given to us by God

Schneewind claims this NML played a major role in the 17th century and was based on this Thomistic NML, but was changed significantly to fit the needs of the people in this particular era (remember, humans have been undergoing a moral revolution for some time now)

3: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645):

Grotius was a large contributor to moral thinking in the 1600's. He claimed 'rights are a natural attribute of the individual independently of any contribution the individual makes to the community'. In simple terms, this means that humans must have some form of rights, even if their contribution to the community (politics/economic/moral/agricultural etc) is small.

In 'Law of War and Peace' (1625) Grotius represented the roots of what eventually made 'social contract theory'. He claimed that humans are 'sociable by nature', and when we live in 'political societies' we want our rights - as individuals - to be respected, but some of these rights can be 'traded' for political security. This led Grotius to conclude 'we determine our own lives within the space our rights create'. In other words, we are in control of our moral lives and moral personality, but this is limited by the rights we have and trade for political security.

Once again, it is important to note here, that this is another subtle form of AUTONOMY - this is because Grotius believes we can 'determine our own lives', meaning we have moral free will or choice, but this is limited through political rights.

Schneewind claims that Hobbes 'stressed our self-interested aims' (which can be linked to the selfishness found in Virtue ethics):

There is no 'ultimate good'

We want some form of 'power' to protect us from death

Since all humans are equal in ability, if we refused to follow a sovereign capable of 'enforcing peace' when we wish to follow 'our private goals' (emphasising this role of selfishness), then this could use a war

Therefore, he saw morality and laws of nature as a necessity for order in society

Our 'limitless desires' as humans can therefore cause conflict in society, and this can be only resolved through the ruling of a 'ruler' or sovereign who is higher than 'any legal control' (who are above the law) who can enforce peace to prevent these conflicts.

However, Hobbes claims that our desires as humans influence us anyway to set up this ruler and overcome this problem of conflict.

Schneewind points out that Locke was against the views of Grotius and Hobbes, although believed in some form of social contract and that our human rights cannot be violated, meaning there are 'moral limits to what the government may do'. Locke believed that the threat of punishment has to be enforced in order to keep humanity under control and the majority of people cannot know what morality requires (morality is not accessible to all, conforming to the Thomistic view)

This means that as a human race, we need 'morality imposed on us'. Thus, this is a top-down ethical concept, meaning it is the opposite to autonomy, contradicting Hobbes' view that man, rather than God can be the creator of secular powers.

Bayle is a key philosopher who you can mention in your essay - he is a very influential thinker, and Schneewind claims he made a 'shocking claim that atheists could form a perfectly decent society'. The reason why this claim was so shocking at the time (1861), was because society was still based on some form of religious views; how could atheists be moral if they do not follow the word of God? Therefore, it is worth mentioning that this influenced a shift into secularistic thinking, which ultimately links to AUTONOMY, as we move way from God's top-down moral theory.

7: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury

The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (what a pretentious name!!) is another key influential thinker in moral thinking. He reintroduced this idea of autonomy through claiming that 'we have a moral faculty which enables us to judge our own motives'. In other words, we have an inner moral sense, that allows us to judge whether our ethical motives (or actions) are right or wrong; morality lies within human nature itself.

For many philosophers, the idea of 'motives' or 'motivation' plays a key role - For example, Kant claimed that it is insufficient to carry out an action because it is our duty, but it must be because our motive is that it is 'morally obligatory to do so'. It is ways like this, you can interlink other philosophers into your exam (although, I will explain this a little bit later on), as remember, this paper is SYNOPTIC :) you need to show the examiner all of your skills you have learned throughout the past 2 years (regardless of how boring it might have been...)

Shaftesbury claimed 'we are virtuous when we act only on those we approve; and we approve only our benevolent or sociable motives'. In much simpler terms, this basically stresses the idea of motivation, and we often show virtuous characteristics when we act on situations we approve of, and these situations usually have a 'benevolent' (almost loving) and sociable basis. Thus, 'our moral sense must be our guide in determining whether allegedly divine commands came from God or some demon'. This is an important point here, as it emphasises the concept of secularism, as people are beginning to doubt supposed claims of God regarding morality, linking back to Bayle.

This, most importantly, led Shaftesbury to conclude: 'morality thus became an outgrowth of human feelings' - another form of AUTONOMY. This is because morality does not come from a top-down external force, but within human feeling itself (linking to the ideas of emotivists such as A.J Ayer)

Schneewind briefly explains here that the debate between natural lawyers who focused on reason, debated with supporters of Shaftesbury, who focused on feeling and autonomy, leading to the biggie: what is the 'extent to which humans can be autonomous?'

From here on, Schneewind has a brief discussion of what has been said so far and the debates of the 18th century:

The idea of virtue, actually means we work for the good of others, rather than for selfish matters

This can be done through moral feelings of approval or disapproval

or intuitionism

everyone has access to the requirements of morality as 'brilliance and education' is replaced with intuitionism (which is self-evident)

Hobbes was criticised because he claimed morality was too selfish and that actually, we naturally desire the good of others instead of this

'if we act on our selfish interests, somehow, we will also be helping others

this means that self interest (which was originally seen as immoral and evil) would lead us to virtuous behaviour (as we are helping others)

From hereon, Schneewind discusses the ideas of thinkers who challenged the idea that the only right actions are those which produce good - or an action is right because it produces good. One of these thinkers is Hume (1711-1776):

Hume reject NML and believed virtue ethics was a better theory

Morality is rooted in our feelings (approval and disapproval) as our feelings motivate us to act morally and not reason (disputing NML)

We approve of those acts which are 'beneficial' and disapprove of those which cause 'harm'

We are self-interested, but we also desire the good of others and when we do good for others and act out of self-interest, we result in development of our virtue

These include 'parental affection and kindness to the needy' - but Hume's main question was, can all virtues be explained like this?

Hume found a problem in justice: as Bishop Butler (1962-1752) explains, justice does not always bring about good, as for example, a virtuous parent who is poor, according to justice, must return found money from an unvirtuous millionaire (aka scrooge) - thus, Hume questions 'if what is right is always determined by what is good, how can we account for the virtue of justice?' since justice does not always bring about good, yet by its definition, justice is good: it is self-contradictory

Hume claimed that rules of justice benefited society, even if in some cases, they are hard to follow or produce consequences that do not make us happy

This next bit is slightly confusing: 'a disinterested desire to observe these rules grow naturally within us, out of sympathetic appreciation of the feelings of others'. In other words, we as humans, we have a growing desire to not follow these rules of justice that cause 'hardships' because we have sympathy for others - thus in the case of returning money to an un-virtuous millionaire, people would say 'don't give it him back! we feel sorry for you as a virtuous poor parent...keep it!' (well at least, this is what I think he says!)

Therefore, follow laws is based on our feelings and desires - another hint towards AUTONOMY

9: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

We have all heard of Kant through his deontological ethical theory: 'The Categorical Imperative'. Schneewind explains here, that Kant had an even stronger view that morality came from human nature. This is rather interesting, as Schneewind claims that Kant argued that morality must impose absolute duties on us (since deontology is concerned with duty), showing that this is an absolute moral theory, and we must follow these acts, regardless of the situation. However, these laws can only 'arise from a law we impose on ourselves' - in other words, we must make our own laws and follow them. Schneewind then explains that this is linked to Kant's view of freedom: 'when we know we morally must do something, we know we can do it: and this can only be true if we are free'. This means moral behaviour is not determined (or caused by) any factors outside of ourselves such as the environment or biology, humans have free will. Kant claims that we only become s free when 'our actions are determined by something within our own nature', which once again suggests that human morality is AUTONOMOUS

This therefore disputes NML and divine command ethics, as this means that through free moral actions, we do not carry out 'natural goods' or follow an 'external laws God imposes' (i.e. divine command ethics): 'our moral obligations must arise from a law which we ourselves legislate'

These are some more key points Schneewind explains about Kant's deontology:

Moral law does not always require us to do good to others (actions do not necessarily have to maximise the good for it to be moral) - instead, it requires us to carry out acts that could be seen as a universal law ('a law according to which we could rationally agree to have everyone act')

He describes this 'formal law' (or 'The Categorical Imperative') as a means to 'test' our moral plans - if these plans go against this test of morality (that everyone would carry out this act as a universal law), then we should not carry it out

Therefore, Kant differs to Hume greatly, as he believes that we 'must settle what is right before we can know what is good', since Hume believed that good consequences always determine what is right.

Perhaps, the most interesting point for Schneewind is that Kant believes 'we are fully autonomous', which shows that during this enlightenment era, human morality underwent a shift into full autonomy. Kant claims 'motive' plays a key role in our morality - because we have imposed this law on ourselves, by ourselves, this means we have 'special respect' towards it. Kant then claims that we can always 'be dutiful out of respect', thus we do not need 'external sources' such as divine command ethics to motivate us for guidance to carry out our duty any more, due to the respect given to the laws we have legislated and imposed on ourselves.

10. Thomas Reid (1710-1796)

Thomas Reid is described as 'more conservative' by Schneewind, and believes in a form of 'common-sense morality' (morality can be know through common sense). This is because we can reach an understanding of morality through intuition, and we can 'readily apply' these principles. He took perhaps are more straight forward approach to ethics, as he believed that all we have to know is that we are 'required to help others, act fairly, tell the truth and so on', thus there is no further need to categorise these principles. This allowed Reid to dispute the 'secularistic hedonism he saw in Hume' (remember, Hume believed that what is good, determines what is right, portraying hedonistic views found in Bentham), thus he attempted to defend Christianity, now built into common sense.

Reid believed that there were 'self evident principles requiring justice and veracity (truthfulness) as well as benevolence, and sometimes in conflict with it: so guidance about right action cannot be obtained from solely considering the good'. This links to the ideas of Kant, who also believed that we cannot deem an action right, just based on the amount of good it does.

11. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Schneewind places both Reid and Bentham into the same paragraph, in order to allow for a direct comparison: 'Bentham, by contrast, thought that appeals to intuition simply hid the dangerous self interest of those who made them', suggesting that Bentham is against this self-interested approach to morality found in some theories such as Virtue ethics.

Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism and believed that the utilitarian principle (maximise the greatest good for the greatest number) was the most rational principle and thus, 'provided a rational method of making moral decisions', he claimed that this is the only moral principle that could do this. Bentham also claims that 'if producing the general happiness and producing our own do not walkways call for the same action, then...we should change society so that they do: otherwise, people will not be reliably moved to act as morality requires'. This links back to Kant's focus on motivation and motive in morality, creating a link between the two. Therefore, Bentham can be described as a social and political reformers.

J.S Mill is another key utilitarianist and he attempted to overcome some of the critiques of Bentham's Act utilitarianism. These are the following key ideas of J.S Mill:

We learn common-sense morality through childhood and this is done through learning about consequences and rewards of actions, and accumulates in the wisdom of mankind, thus, we should live by it (this is a form of a posteriori morality)

However, we cannot do this in new or unusual cases because we do not have the experience of that case to apply common sense

In these situations, we should 'appeal to the principle of utility'

Common sense has a tendency to be undecided in new cases, and utilitarianism when used in these cases will 'not lead to conclusions common-sense finds unacceptable;e'

He also postulated a new theory of moral motivation: 'we can become directly attached to our moral principles, just as a miser becomes attached to his money, even if we start by viewing them as instrumental to our own happiness'. This attachment to our moral principles, suggests a personal and 'inner motivation' to act morally and to become FULLY AUTONOMOUS - contributing to this shift in morality

13. William Whewell (1794-1866)

Whewell was a 19th century British intuitionist and attempted, like many other intuitionists of this era, to defend a 'Christian ethic against the utilitarian claim that the point of morality is to produce worldly happiness for all'. We do not hear much about Whewell throughout this article, so perhaps this is important to note: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/#Mor

The thinker Sidgwick makes a very interesting point about utilitarianism and intuitionism, and Schneewind picks up on this. In 'The Methods of Ethics (1874)' Sidgwick attempted to show that the intuitionist view 'about the foundations of morality', could be used by utilitarianism to make is point applicable. In other words: 'utilitarianism needed an intuition as its foundation; but without the utilitarian methods, intuitionism would be useless in settling moral disputes'.

However, Sidgwick did argue that utilitarianism as a moral theory, provided the best common-sense based moral theory, and Schneewind claims he argued for this 'in detail'.

15. Franz Brentano, Max Scheler, Nicolai Hartmann (intuitionists)

Schneewind briefly mentions these philosophical thinkers in one large group. He argued that their ideas opposed Kant, as they believed that 'through feeling, we have access to a realm of real values' and these made the 'hierarchies of objectively existing values'. In other words, this is a clear form of intuitionism, as through feeling, we have access to objective moral values and principles (e.g. do not murder is always a key example to use). They claim that 'these values show the content of the good, and ultimately set the direction for right action', thus, we use these values to pave our way to defining what makes a 'right action' in morality. This, according to Schneewind, 'allows us to move beyond the view, shared by Kant and the utilitarians, that the good for man can only be defined in terms of satisfaction of desires'. This, in simpler terms means, we no longer have to based morality on the fulfilling of human desires found in Kant and utilitarianism.

G.E Moore was an influential thinker in meta-ethics and in the realm of intuitionism. He wrote the 'Principa Ethica', in which he claims that 'knowledge of values could not be derived from knowledge of facts, but only from intuitionism'. This means, that we can understand moral value through intuitionism, rather than objective fact, as intuitionism allows to understand 'the goodness of kinds of states of affairs, such as beauty, pleasure, friendship and knowledge'. Schneewind claims that Moore took a utilitarianist view, as he believes that right acts can be determined through whether or not it produces good. However, this 'goes beyond the hedonistic version (of utilitarianism)', and opposing Kant and utilitarianism which 'both claim to provide a rational procedure for settling moral disputes, the intuitional views all rely ultimately on claims to insight, and offer no method for settling disagreement'. In other words, intuitionism claims that because morals and values are known objectively through insight and intuition, there can be no way to settle these disagreements.

17. G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831)

Hegel was a key influential thinker who criticised Kantian ethics. Hegel believed that Kant's 'purely formal principle requires content, and argued that the content can only come from the institutions, vocabularies, and orientations with which society provides it members', thus, morality is based on community, rather than the individual. This leads Hegel to conclude 'the moral personality must be formed by the community in which the person lives'; individual choice is not important.

Schneewind then goes onto briefly discuss the thinkers who agree with this 'community-based ethics', suggesting that there has been a shift out of autonomy. These include:

Auguste Comte: he 'ignored individual moral judgement' and replaced them with scientific sociology, taking a 'historical evolution of society' approach to morality

Karl Marx: historical development within society created by 'economic forces' also means that individual choices have little value in morality

18. John Dewey (1859 -1952)

He was an influential thinker in the area of American pragmatism, although according to Schneewind, was heavily influenced by Hegel, and his belief in the importance of community in creating the moral personality.

Dewey attempted to portray that 'a liberal society need not presuppose (require or presume)...either a standpoint outside history or a single abstract principle at its basis' - in other words, a liberal society does not need to base its morality on historical development or one abstract moral principle, just as Hegel claimed.

Dewey believed that although individuals are shaped through their community, they can often postulated 'new solutions to social problems', which results in the reforming of the community and ultimately, their own individual moral values.

19. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Before we are introduced to Nietzsche, Schneewind briefly discusses how thinkers such as Montaigne during the 17th century and 18th century argued that due to cultural relativism, the 'existence of an eternal universally binding morality' is highly unlikely. Schneewind claims that this issue enjoyed some revival through Nietzsche's writing.

In 'The Genealogy of Morals' (1887) and other works, Nietzsche claimed that the struggles for 'mastery, and eve and resentment of those who achieved it, were the roots of modern morality'. Thus, human morality is seen by Nietzsche as a smoke screen for the human struggle for power. Therefore, Schneewind summarises Nietzsche's claims as the idea that 'there is no impersonal guide to action: all one can do is decide what sort of person one proposes to be, and to strive to be so'. This concept of a lack of impersonal guidelines (meaning there are plenty of personal guidelines) suggests this idea of subjectivity and personal experience of morality, highlighting this idea of autonomy within morality.

Nietzsche can be placed into a category known as 'nihilism'.

20. Edward Westermack and Moritz Schlick

Schneewind, here claims that due to a rise in anthropology (study of society), philosophers such as Westermack reintroduced this idea of whether there can be any such thing as 'moral knowledge'. This particular debate was extended through the work of Schlick who claimed that those beliefs which do not meet the same 'tests' (e.g. verification principle, falsification principle) as scientific beliefs are meaningless. G.E Moore (previously mentioned) argued that moral statements cannot derive from fact, thus according to logical positivists (an approach by the Vienna circle in the 1920s) that moral beliefs cannot be 'empirically tested' in the way scientific beliefs can. Therefore, moral beliefs are just based on preference and feeling and thus, are non-cognitive (they have no objective value), which led to the influential debate found within meta-ethics.

Schneewind claims that Satre took a very 'existentialist' approach to morality, which can be found within Neitzschean views, to argue that morality 'rests on nothing but the totally untrammelled free decision of each individual'. Therefore, morality becomes essentially meaningless. Stare therefore believed in a form of autonomy, as morality is based on human free will and decision.

R.M Hare advocates 'prescriptivism', which is an attempt made by philosophers to give meaning to ethical statements that relativism and emotivism strips it from. These include R.M Hare and Richard Brant, who claimed that ethical language can have its own kind of 'non-scientific rationality'

Schneewind discusses the work of Rawls in 'New Directions'. Rawls believes justice as self-evidently right and more important than the good or happiness found within utilitarianism. Schneewind, however, points out that it is important to understand what Rawls means by justice: 'as fairness'. Rawls, in 'A Theory of Justice' puts forward the following two principles:

To make sure every citizen has 'an equal claim to ... basic rights and liberties'

To fairly distribute 'social advantages' such as opportunities and wealth. This utilised a principle known as the 'Difference Principle', which argues that 'social and economic inequalities...are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edexcel A2 Religious studies revision - Unit 4: Implications (ethics)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hi there! This blog is dedicated to Edexcel's Unit 4: Implications (ethics) course at A2 - I hope you find some of these revision materials helpful! We're going to start off with Schneewind's article 'Modern Moral Philosophy'. Personally, I think this article is the hardest one to write about, since there are so many different scholars and ethical positions to remember and discuss.