The Nature of Moral Disagreement

Dr. Dimitria Electra Gatzia

 

 

How do we come to form judgments about various moral issues?

 

The best way to understand how we come to take a position on various moral issues is to think about it in the following way:

 

 

Moral judgments are statements, which can be true or false, we make to express what we think about a moral issue. ‘We should not killing innocent people’ or ‘We should not break our promises’ or ‘We should not harm others unnecessarily’, etc., are all moral judgments that can be either true or false.

 

·    Moral values are a set of values we hold. ‘Equals should be treated equally’, for example, is a value most of us hold. We determine which values are justified through the use of reason.

 

o        Moral values take the form of moral premises in moral arguments.

 

·    Factual claims are statements that are either true or false. ‘Women are good drivers’ is a factual claim and as such it is either true or false. We determine which factual claims are true through empirical investigation.

 

o        Factual claims take the form of non-moral premises in moral arguments.

 

Since moral judgments have two separate components, moral values (or moral premises when they appear as part of an argument) and facts (or non-moral premises when they appear as premises in a moral argument), it is not necessarily true that when we disagree about moral issues (that is, we make contrary moral judgments) the disagreement stems from differences in moral values. It is possible that two people have the same values and still disagree on a given moral issue. To see this consider the following examples:

 

·       Pro-life vs. Pro-choice

Generally, pro-lifers believe that abortion is wrong while pro-choices believe that abortion is right. However, contrary to popular belief, their disagreement is not based on differences in moral values. In fact, most of the times they share the same values (or standards): they both, for example, believe that killing innocent persons is wrong. What they disagree about is whether the fetus is a person. If fetuses are not persons, they are not entitled to the same rights as the mothers who are undeniably persons. Notice, however, that whether fetuses are, in fact, persons is not an evaluative statement and hence not a moral statement. It is rather a descriptive statement: it describes how things actually are. Descriptive claims can be either true or false. Hence, the disagreement is not about values but rather about who should be included under the rubric ‘person’.

 

 

·       Male chauvinists vs. Feminists

 

Male chauvinists believe it is wrong to give women the same rights as men while feminists believe that women should have the same rights as men. However, contrary to popular belief, their disagreement is not based on differences in moral values (or standards): they both generally believe that equals should be treated equally. What they disagree about is whether women are, in fact, equal to men. (Racism works along these lines also.) Notice, however, that whether women are, in fact, equal to men is not an evaluative statement and hence not a moral statement. It is rather a descriptive statement: it describes how things actually are. Hence the disagreement is not about values but should be included under the rubric ‘equals’.

 

 

Applying the Distinction:

 

Case Study 1: Euthanasia

 

Values:

The church’s doctrine: the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong

The Utilitarian doctrine: one ought to do what would promote the greatest happiness for all those who will be affected

 

Facts:

Let us assume we accept the same facts. For example, the person is terminally ill, suffers a great deal, and wants to die.

 

Moral Judgments:

(a)   If we hold the church’s doctrine, we will conclude that euthanasia is morally wrong

(b)   But if we hold the utilitarian doctrine we will conclude that euthanasia is morally right.

 

(Notice that the disagreement (that is, differences in the moral judgments we accept) here arises from the difference in values, not the facts.)

 

Case Study 2: Non-human Animals

 

Aquinas (Natural Law Theory): Since God created animals for humans, it is not wrong to kill and eat animals (although it is wrong to be cruel to animals. Question: Can someone who holds that animals are created for our own pleasure say that it is wrong to be cruel to animals? Why is it wrong if they are there to satisfy us?)

 

Peter Singer (Utilitarianism): The belief that animals are not equal to human beings (the notion of equality Singer is using here has to do with "equality of consideration", not of "treatment") is as prejudicial as racism and sexism. We only reason we hold this belief is that animals are not human beings (they do not belong to our ‘superior’ group). This Singer calls this prejudice speciesism. The utilitarian says that we should judge actions on the basis of whether they promote happiness or unhappiness. If keeping animals in animal farms deprives them of a happy life, it is wrong to do so, especially when eating animals is not a need but rather a luxury, i.e., we can survive without eating them.

 

Question: What are the moral values and what are the facts involved in this case study? Is the disagreement about values or facts?

 

 

Food for Thought:

 

This distinction between values and facts (as components of moral judgments) is very useful in trying to understand why we accept different moral judgments than others. It also allows you to keep an open mind when discussing moral issues with others. The lesson here is simple: never assume that your disagreement stems from differences in values.

 

Can you find other examples like the above ones? Can you explain why a given disagreement arises if it is not the result of difference in moral values?