John Nolt on Moral Arguments

For those of you studying IB Philosophy, or taking Higher but interested in going beyond the simplicities of the course, John Nolt’s Environmental Ethics for the Long Term has an excellent section on philosophical arguments in ethics.

Section 2.2.1 has one of the best explanations of the “is/ought” fallacy I have ever read. Using the terms ‘prescriptive’ and ‘descriptive’ to refer to premises that respectively contain or do not contain a sentiment of something being right or wrong, he uses the phrase ‘prescriptive reasoning’ to refer to an argument where (at least) one premise and the conclusion include some sort of moral valuing.

Of course an argument can be valid and sound if it contains no moral sentiments (1), and one which has ‘moral’ or ‘ought’ premises might lead to a valid and ‘ought’ type conclusion (2).

Example 1:

all volvo cars have a steering wheel

my car is a volvo

therefore my car has a steering wheel

Example 2:

one should intervene when one person is abusing another against the latter’s will

‘abusing another against their will’ is what happens in sex-trafficking

therefore you should be acting against sex-trafficking

Of course one might object to the ‘truth’ of each of the premises here, but if one did agree with both then it would commit you to the conclusion. This is an example of what Nolt calls ‘prescriptive reasoning’. The problem is when someone tries to move from purely ‘descriptive’ premises to a prescriptive conclusion. This is the is/ought fallacy. The example used by Nolt is the use of Social Darwinism by the Nazis, simply because the ‘strong’ or ‘fittest’ survive it certainly does not follow that one should act in a way to make this happen.

Allowing this ‘prescriptive reasoning’ to stand is not the same as believing it to be sound. In fact it can be particularly difficult to spot problematic premises. Consider the following:

We ought to eliminate suffering.

The only feasible way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate all sentient beings.

Therefore we ought to eliminate all sentient beings.*

*Nolt, J Environmental Ethics for the Long Term (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015) 39.

Kevin Bridges on Religion

I don’t really know – you know the big debate between religion and science. Atheism’s becoming quite cool in 2010. The big debate between religion and science. I would always take religion, purely on a basic level. ‘Member at school -science was quite difficult… You had to read stuff and remember stuff, right…. wheras religious was a skive… just some guilt-ridden, middle aged woman reading passages from the bible in a class full of hyperactive adolescents that’s pissin’ themselves laughing at something that’s drawn on the blackboard…

I’d like to believe in something… you don’t just live, and then die and that’s it… I’d like to believe that there’s something bigger than this…It’s hard – ya think ‘where’s the evidence?’ – ‘If there’s a God why is there so much evil in the world, famine, corruption greed a’ that?’

Mebby you need to make your own theories… I’ve combined a bit of religion and a bit of atheism, and came to my own conclusions. Mebby God created the world, but then he fucked off… He’s God – he’s gonna have more than one property in he?

Mebby we’ve got the place to ourselves – we’ve got an empty! This is the world… and like all good empties it’s got a bit out of control… we’ve got terrorism, greed – mebby God’ll come back one day and go “look at the state of the place! Everbody out!”

You’ve got world leaders and corrupt bankers, people shuffling out the door saying “sorry – we never thought you were coming back mate…”