Lecture 29: Why be moral? Pt. III
Lecture objectives:
 Identify the structure of Rachels’ strategy
 Define ‘counterargument’
 Understand the use of counterarguments in
philosophical argumentation
 Compare Rachels’ strategy with Socrates’ reply
to Glaucon
Rachels strategy in replying to the ethical egoist is as
follows:
Make the strongest case FOR ethical egoism
 three arguments
Make the strongest case AGAINST ethical egoism
 three arguments
Balance each argument with counterarguments
 equipoise? Or decisive reply?
For
Against
1
For
1
2
3
CA



Against
1
2
3
3 For : 3 Counter
CA



3 Against: 2 Counter
Each argument makes a positive case one way or the
other: For or Against.
Each counterargument serves to weaken or undermine
an argument.
 A counterargument is not an argument IN
FAVOUR of the opposing position.
A counterargument to an argument FOR ethical
egoism does not make the opposing position
either true or more likely.
Possible counterarguments to arguments :
 That the arguments are invalid
 That they are not sound
 That they are logically inconsistent
 That they are self-defeating
 That they are incoherent
 That they are empty or irrelevant
 That they are arbitrary
2
 That they make exaggerated or unreasonable
distinctions
 That its implications are more limited than its
aspirations
Additional element of Rachels’ strategy:
 to clear the ground for mounting a positive answer
to this driving question about a duty for famine relief.
So where might he go from here?
 some persons’ well-being is worth promoting for its
own sake (“elitist”)
 everyone’s well-being is worth promoting for its
own sake (“egalitarian”)
Does it follow from the claim that all needs are equally
worthy of recognition that:
 each of those needs should be met?
 each of those needs is equally our duty?
Note what Rachels says specifically:
“our morality must include some recognition of the needs of
others.”
At this point, he is not justified in making any other
claim.
3
Socrates’ strategy:
Note:
1. Both Rachels and Socrates take seriously the
arguments of the ethical egoist.
2. Both appeal to the reasonableness of the ethical
egoist.
3. Both reply to the ethical egoist using arguments.
By analogy:
Well-ordered social life  well-ordered moral life
Argument concerning the ontology of moral life:
 What defines Socrates’ view is a conception of the
well-ordered life, i.e., moral life.
 One should act in such a way as one’s actions
reflects a well-ordered life.
Well-ordered life
Moral Act
 A well-ordered life is defined in terms of the parts
of the soul and in terms of the role of the individual
within society.
4
moral life of individuals  moral life of community
moral = well-ordered
Moral life
Moral character (private)  soul
Moral conduct (public)  moral code
Compare to Rachels:
 not arguing that ethical egoism misunderstands what
it means to be human (an ontological claim) or to lead
a moral life, or that it misconstrues the nature of moral
rectitude.
 not concerned about the development of moral
character.
5