September 13, 2023
Ethics: How Hard Can It Be?
Sarah McGrath
Professor of Philosophy, Princeton University
Ethics: How Hard Can It Be?
Sarah McGrath
Professor of Philosophy, Princeton University
Stephen Schreiber, introducer, and Sarah McGrath
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the 82nd Year
President John Cotton convened the second meeting of the Old Guard’s 82nd year at 701 Carnegie Center on September13, 2023. Julia Coale led the members in the first verse of “America.” Owen Leach read the minutes of the previous meeting.
John commended and thanked the Venue Committee (Chair Lynne Durkee, Joan Girgus, and Stephen Schreiber) who managed to find venues for all 13 meetings of the Old Guard’s fall program when Springdale County Club became unavailable. Five meetings will be at 701 Carnegie Center, three at the Convocation Room of the Friend Center, and three at the Princeton Public Library.
John reminded members to pay this year’s dues. He directed members who have misplaced their badges to Larry Hans. Greg Dobbs has Old Guard thumb drives for new members and others can exchange old drives for updated ones. Members who lost their thumb drives can get new ones from Greg for a $5 fee. With the increase in COVID cases, John reminded members to consider masks and vaccines.
Four guests attended the meeting: Peter Szego, guest of Frances Slade; Karen Fridkis, guest of Cynthia Maltenfort; Alice St. Claire, guest of Richard Scribner; and Jane James, guest of David Long.
Stephen Schreiber introduced our speaker, Sarah McGrath. Dr. McGrath is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. She received a B.A. from the University of Arizona, an M.A. from Tufts University, and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. She joined the Princeton faculty in 2007, after being an assistant professor at the College of the Holy Cross and Brandeis University. Her primary areas of interest are metaphysics and ethics, topics upon which she has written extensively. She is also an international lecturer.
Dr. McGrath’s thought-provoking lecture was titled, “Ethics: How Hard Can It Be?” in which she gave a crash course in ethics, or moral philosophy, focusing primarily on metaethics, the most abstract of the moral philosophy disciplines. The answer to the question posed by the presentation’s title has been the topic of debate among noted moral philosophers from ancient Greece through the present day. heir diverse schools of thought on the topic can be placed on a spectrum, with those who support an objective or factual basis for ethical norms on one end, and those who posit that ethics is purely subjective and individual, on the other end.
On the subjective end of the spectrum are moral anti-realists. For example, Hume’s view was that ethics was not a matter of reason, but a matter of “passions” and as such couldn’t be evaluated as reasonable or unreasonable. Similarly, moral relativism asserts there is no single true morality; different individuals have different values.
On the other, objective end of the spectrum are moral realists such as Plato, who believed there are objective moral truths. John Stuart Mill’s view was that a moral fact is something that can be studied and that makes the greatest contribution to total happiness.
This leads to the question of whether there can be moral experts. Should we defer to other “experts” to answer our ethical dilemmas, blindly adopting their views? Sometimes such blind deference seems appropriate, such as when another person has better information about relevant non-moral facts, and we share a moral outlook or when we worry that our judgment might be compromised. But in other situations, blind deference seems odd and inappropriate.
Going a step further, Dr McGrath explored the skepticism about moral expertise. Why does this skepticism exist? She put forth three possible explanations:
1. Ethics is easy, so we don’t need an expert: Thomas Aquinas believed that there is no need for a moral expert because morality is universally available. Every person is in a position to know the most basic principles of morality because these truths are imprinted on our conscience. In contrast, we can recognize and defer to experts in meteorology and physics because these disciplines are based on hard, esoteric facts that aren’t available to everyone.
But if ethics is so easy, why do so many sincere and intelligent people and even moral philosophers disagree?
2. Most people believe they have superior knowledge and judgment and therefore have no need to defer to the moral judgment of an expert. This is what Dr. McGrath terms the “Lake Wobegon Effect.”
The objection to this theory is that we can’t all be superior to each other, so some of us must have inflated opinions of our judgment and might need guidance from moral experts.
3. There are no moral facts and so there can be no moral experts. As the moral anti-realists believe, it’s not hard to make a decision when you know what your values are.
But this runs directly contrary to the moral realists’ belief that moral facts are objective and mind independent.
Even if we believe that a moral expert exists, how can we identify such an expert? We can’t get objective “track record” evidence of their superior moral judgment in the way that we can track the record of a weather forecaster.
Dr. McGrath left us with the final thought that because ethical questions are situational, if we arrive at our moral views by deferring to an expert, then we won’t be in a position to do the right thing for the right reasons in any particular situation.
A lively question and answer session followed with several intriguing questions, including some relating to the current Israeli Supreme Court, how to navigate cultural ethics in an increasingly global business world, and whether a culture’s code of ethics is defined by the mores of the majority.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Schmidt
John commended and thanked the Venue Committee (Chair Lynne Durkee, Joan Girgus, and Stephen Schreiber) who managed to find venues for all 13 meetings of the Old Guard’s fall program when Springdale County Club became unavailable. Five meetings will be at 701 Carnegie Center, three at the Convocation Room of the Friend Center, and three at the Princeton Public Library.
John reminded members to pay this year’s dues. He directed members who have misplaced their badges to Larry Hans. Greg Dobbs has Old Guard thumb drives for new members and others can exchange old drives for updated ones. Members who lost their thumb drives can get new ones from Greg for a $5 fee. With the increase in COVID cases, John reminded members to consider masks and vaccines.
Four guests attended the meeting: Peter Szego, guest of Frances Slade; Karen Fridkis, guest of Cynthia Maltenfort; Alice St. Claire, guest of Richard Scribner; and Jane James, guest of David Long.
Stephen Schreiber introduced our speaker, Sarah McGrath. Dr. McGrath is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. She received a B.A. from the University of Arizona, an M.A. from Tufts University, and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. She joined the Princeton faculty in 2007, after being an assistant professor at the College of the Holy Cross and Brandeis University. Her primary areas of interest are metaphysics and ethics, topics upon which she has written extensively. She is also an international lecturer.
Dr. McGrath’s thought-provoking lecture was titled, “Ethics: How Hard Can It Be?” in which she gave a crash course in ethics, or moral philosophy, focusing primarily on metaethics, the most abstract of the moral philosophy disciplines. The answer to the question posed by the presentation’s title has been the topic of debate among noted moral philosophers from ancient Greece through the present day. heir diverse schools of thought on the topic can be placed on a spectrum, with those who support an objective or factual basis for ethical norms on one end, and those who posit that ethics is purely subjective and individual, on the other end.
On the subjective end of the spectrum are moral anti-realists. For example, Hume’s view was that ethics was not a matter of reason, but a matter of “passions” and as such couldn’t be evaluated as reasonable or unreasonable. Similarly, moral relativism asserts there is no single true morality; different individuals have different values.
On the other, objective end of the spectrum are moral realists such as Plato, who believed there are objective moral truths. John Stuart Mill’s view was that a moral fact is something that can be studied and that makes the greatest contribution to total happiness.
This leads to the question of whether there can be moral experts. Should we defer to other “experts” to answer our ethical dilemmas, blindly adopting their views? Sometimes such blind deference seems appropriate, such as when another person has better information about relevant non-moral facts, and we share a moral outlook or when we worry that our judgment might be compromised. But in other situations, blind deference seems odd and inappropriate.
Going a step further, Dr McGrath explored the skepticism about moral expertise. Why does this skepticism exist? She put forth three possible explanations:
1. Ethics is easy, so we don’t need an expert: Thomas Aquinas believed that there is no need for a moral expert because morality is universally available. Every person is in a position to know the most basic principles of morality because these truths are imprinted on our conscience. In contrast, we can recognize and defer to experts in meteorology and physics because these disciplines are based on hard, esoteric facts that aren’t available to everyone.
But if ethics is so easy, why do so many sincere and intelligent people and even moral philosophers disagree?
2. Most people believe they have superior knowledge and judgment and therefore have no need to defer to the moral judgment of an expert. This is what Dr. McGrath terms the “Lake Wobegon Effect.”
The objection to this theory is that we can’t all be superior to each other, so some of us must have inflated opinions of our judgment and might need guidance from moral experts.
3. There are no moral facts and so there can be no moral experts. As the moral anti-realists believe, it’s not hard to make a decision when you know what your values are.
But this runs directly contrary to the moral realists’ belief that moral facts are objective and mind independent.
Even if we believe that a moral expert exists, how can we identify such an expert? We can’t get objective “track record” evidence of their superior moral judgment in the way that we can track the record of a weather forecaster.
Dr. McGrath left us with the final thought that because ethical questions are situational, if we arrive at our moral views by deferring to an expert, then we won’t be in a position to do the right thing for the right reasons in any particular situation.
A lively question and answer session followed with several intriguing questions, including some relating to the current Israeli Supreme Court, how to navigate cultural ethics in an increasingly global business world, and whether a culture’s code of ethics is defined by the mores of the majority.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Schmidt