|
 OK.
Here's the lecture.
I would like to make some comments on how
you might criticize moral theories in general. I want you to try to keep these ideas in mind as you criticize
Rawls. These aren't the only methods of criticism, not by any means. But
everyone agrees that they are powerful techniques.
- It may be possible to show that a
key concept in some theory is incoherent i.e., that it
contains a contradiction within itself when analyzed and
elaborated.
- It may be possible to show that a
key concept is extremely vague or obscure. The early 19th-century utilitarians spoke about maximizing happiness and
hoped to create a scientific morality with that goal.
Someone might argue that the concept of happiness is to
vague to bear this much theoretical weight.
- It may be possible to show that the
theory is internally inconsistent in that two of its
principles are logically incompatible. For example, someone
might argue that Rawls claims to value the separateness of
individuals, but that he in fact ends up by ignoring that very
separateness.
- It may be possible to show that a
theory presupposes something that is false or problemmatic.
Michael Sandel, for example, argues that Rawls' theory
presupposes a view of the self that is fatally flawed.
- It may be possible to show that the
logical consequences of a theory are false or morally
unacceptable. Someone might say, for example, that if one
holds a certain principle, then if follows logically that
one must accept this or that implication. If the implication
is morally abhorrent, then this may be used as an argument
against the principle. In this type of criticism it is not
important that we pedict that anything will actually occur
or not occur (or that it will occur often). Moral
philosophers often construct hypothetical examples and
counter examples of this sort. The liklihood that such an
example will occur in real life is not relevant to this type
of argument. It is not about whether things are likely to
happen.
- It may be possible to show that if
the principles of a given theory were adopted as government
policy, then certain consequences (e.g., an increase in
wealth or poverty) would follow. If the consequences are
morally good or morally abhorrent, then this may be used as
an argument for or against the theory. In this case, it is
crucial that we can plausibly predict that certain things
will occur. We might call these consequences "empirical
consequences" as opposed to "logical consequences."
- It may be possible to show that the
theory is based on false assumptions -- either empirical
assumptions or assumptions of some other kind. For
example, it is sometimes said that modern liberalism
presupposed a certain concept of the self and that such
selves do not exist or are not typical.
- It may be possible to argue by
moral analogy. When using this sort of argument one argues
that two situations are morally analogous. Therefore, if one
applies a certain moral judgment to the first situation, one
is obliged to apply the same moral judgment to the second.
For example, Peter Singer has argued that affluent people
are morally obligated to give a large portion of their
wealth to the poor by constructing an analogy to a situation
in which we are obliged to allow an expensive automobile to
be destroyed rather than let a child die. If this situation is analogous to the relationship between the world's wealthy and the world's poor, then the same judgment must be made in both cases.
- Sometimes it's possible to show that if one denies a certain
theory there are serious problems. A similar approach is to show
that all of the alternatives to one's theory are flawed.
|
|
