Wrongness What is it that makes an action wrong

Summary

In this exploration of 'wrongness,' Alonzo Fyfe delves into what makes an action morally wrong. He defends a theory asserting that an action is wrong if people generally have strong reasons to give others reasons not to do that action. Using drunk driving as a prime example, Fyfe explains that moral facts are grounded in reason-based aversions, not in free will or divine mandates. He challenges traditional philosophical positions like motivational internalism and argues against the necessity of free will in moral judgments, focusing instead on creating external and internal sanctions to guide behavior. Fyfe suggests that morality is grounded in practical and social reasoning and invites readers to evaluate various actions within this framework.

Highlights

• Explains wrongness as a social construct based on shared reasons to avoid harm 🧠✨.
• Uses drunk driving to illustrate the communal reasons underpinning moral judgments 🚗⚠️.
• Rejects free will in moral discussions, aligning morality with societal needs rather than divine justice 🌍.
• Addresses philosophical errors in linking morality with motivational internalism 🤯.
• Proposes a pragmatic approach to morality, focusing on real-world implications and social reasoning 🌐.

Key Takeaways

• An action is wrong if society has strong reasons to discourage it 🚫.
• Drunk driving is morally wrong due to its inherent risk to others' lives and property 🚗💥.
• Moral facts exist independently of personal beliefs and are based on societal reasoning 🤔.
• Motivational internalism and free will are unnecessary for understanding morality in this framework 🙅‍♂️.
• Morality involves creating reasons to guide behavior, divorced from divine punishment concepts 🌟.

Overview

Alonzo Fyfe presents a refreshing take on the concept of 'wrongness', rejecting traditional philosophical notions that require free will or divine instruction for moral understanding. His argument hinges on the idea that actions are wrong when people collectively have compelling reasons to prevent them. Improper actions, like drunk driving, are highlighted because of their capacity to harm, and not due to any metaphysical or divine command.

Fyfe robustly critiques motivational internalism – a theory suggesting that moral judgment naturally leads to motivation – by arguing that moral facts exist independently of an individual's motivations. According to his view, moral wrongness is about the societal infrastructure that encourages behavior through reason-based aversions, highlighting how external and internal sanctions play a crucial role in guiding actions.

Providing an unconventional take on ethical discourse, Fyfe argues that perceived moral obligations don't derive from free will, but from the shared human practice of creating reasons to promote or discourage behavior. He offers a practical framework for assessing actions, emphasizing the importance of social consequences and communal reasoning over philosophical or theological doctrines.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction to Theory of Wrongness The chapter "Introduction to Theory of Wrongness" explores the complexities of determining whether an action is considered wrong. It poses scenarios such as driving under the influence, committing acts of molestation, or stealing classified documents to introduce the subject. The video aims to present and defend a theory of wrongness, suggesting that an action is wrong if people generally have many and strong reasons to oppose it.
• 00:30 - 01:30: Drunk Driving Example In the chapter titled 'Drunk Driving Example', the discussion revolves around using the example of drunk driving to illustrate broader ideas about the morality of certain actions. The key argument is centered on the question of whether drunk driving is wrong. The narrative suggests that there are generally compelling reasons for everyone to oppose drunk driving due to its potential to cause harm, such as killing or maiming individuals and destroying property. It emphasizes that anyone who wants to avoid such harmful consequences would likely find drunk driving objectionable due to these negative outcomes.
• 01:30 - 02:30: Neo-Humean Theory of Reasons This chapter explores the Neo-Humean Theory of Reasons, focusing on the moral implications of actions such as drunk driving. It presents the argument that individuals affected by tragic events, like accidents caused by drunk drivers, have compelling reasons to persuade others not to engage in such behavior. The chapter asserts that the wrongness or immorality attributed to drunk driving stems from the overwhelming reasons people have to discourage it and the scarcity of reasons that justify it.
• 02:30 - 03:30: Desire-based Reasons This chapter delves into the concept of desire-based reasons, grounded in the neo-Humean theory of reasons. It proposes that having a reason to perform an action is linked to possessing a desire that the action would fulfill. The theory, inspired by the philosophical writings of David Hume, is illustrated with practical examples. For instance, the aversion to pain represents a reason not to place one's hand in a hot fire, as doing so would serve the desire to avoid pain.
• 03:30 - 04:30: Generalization of Wrongness The chapter explores the concept of generalizing personal aversion to pain as a rational basis for avoiding actions that cause pain and influencing others to do the same for mutual benefit. It begins by explaining that the experience of pain creates a personal reason to avoid harmful actions, such as putting one's hand in a fire. This personal aversion to pain is then extended to interactions with others. By encouraging others not to engage in actions that could cause personal harm, an individual can reduce the likelihood of experiencing pain themselves. This reasoning is presented as a simple yet effective formula for minimizing pain through both personal and social strategies.
• 04:30 - 05:30: External and Internal Sanctions This chapter discusses the concept of external and internal sanctions and how they influence human behavior. It highlights how personal desires, such as the desire to avoid death, injury, or destruction of property, create desire-based reasons to act in certain ways. These desires extend to protecting one's friends and family from harm or catastrophic losses. The chapter also explores how these reasons are communicated to others, creating a social environment where people are given reasons to refrain from harmful actions, such as driving recklessly. This establishes a network of reasons that promote safety and prevent potential harm.
• 05:30 - 06:30: Moral Facts and Motivational Internalism The chapter discusses the concept of moral facts and motivational internalism, questioning whether an individual's desire is enough to determine the wrongness of an act. It uses the example of drunk driving to illustrate that, for something to be considered wrong, it must be recognized not just by an individual but by the majority or nearly everyone. The individual’s personal desires alone do not suffice to establish moral wrongness; there must be collective reasoning and agreement.
• 06:30 - 08:30: Rejection of Free Will The chapter titled 'Rejection of Free Will' explores the concept of moral responsibility, particularly in the context of drunk driving. It posits that moral wrongness is determined by the general reasons people have that cause everybody to avoid certain behaviors. The narrative questions how to instill reasons in people not to drive while drunk, emphasizing that it's not solely about individual indifference but rather about creating a collective understanding of responsibility.
• 08:30 - 10:30: Moral Categories and Excuses The chapter discusses moral categories and excuses, focusing on the ethical reasons and external sanctions that deter people from driving while drunk. It explains that external sanctions like legal and social penalties, including revoking driving privileges, fines, and imprisonment, serve as reasons for individuals not to engage in drunk driving.
• 10:30 - 12:00: Application and Conclusion The chapter discusses the relationship between penalties and behaviors, specifically focusing on drunk driving. It explains the common notion that harsher penalties imply stronger reasons for those penalties but acknowledges that the reality is more complex. The importance of social and legal penalties in discouraging drunk driving is highlighted. Additionally, the chapter hints at methods of preventing undesired actions through internal motivations, though it does not elaborate on this aspect.

Wrongness What is it that makes an action wrong Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 do you want to know of something you're planning on doing is wrong attempting to drive home after having too much to drink molesting your stepdaughter stealing top secret documents and storing them in your desk at home this video presents a theory of wrongness a theory that if accurate will help to distinguish between right and wrong actions I'm going to defend the following account of wrongness and act is wrong if and only if people generally have many and strong reasons to give all
• 00:30 - 01:00 others reasons not to do acts of that type and few reasons not to to illustrate the ideas that I'll be presenting I'll be using an example of drunk driving is drunk driving wrong well do people generally have reasons to give everybody reasons not to drive while drunk and few reasons not to given the tendency of drunk driving to kill and maim others and destroy their property anybody who doesn't want to be killed or maimed or have their property
• 01:00 - 01:30 destroyed or have somebody they care about such as their best friend's two-year-old son killed or maimed by a drunk driver has reasons to give everybody a reason not to drive while drunk so yeah drunk driving seems to be wrong when I say that drunk driving is wrong or immoral I'm saying that people generally have many and strong reasons to give all others reasons not to drive while drunk and few reasons not to
• 01:30 - 02:00 so what does this mean exactly let me first look at the concept of having a reason I'm going to use what is generally known as a neo-human theory of reasons if this Theory didn't originate with the philosophical writings of David Hume it at least was inspired by those writings on this account you'll have a reason to do something is to have a desire that would be served by doing it so for example I seem to have someone required an aversion of pain if I put my hand in a hot fire I would
• 02:00 - 02:30 experience pain I don't like Kane therefore I have a reason not to put my hand in a hot fire now this same aversion to pain also gives me a reason to give other people reasons not to do things that could result in my being in pain if I can get others not to do things that might cause me pain then I experience less pain it's a rather simple formula I also have desire based reasons to
• 02:30 - 03:00 avoid death or injury or to have my property destroyed I have desire-based reasons to prevent my friends and family from Death Or injury or other destructive losses all of these desires give me reasons to give other people reasons to avoid doing things that could cause me my friends my family to suffer death or injury or other catastrophic losses and these reasons are reasons to give other people reasons not to drive while
• 03:00 - 03:30 drunk though my desire alone isn't sufficient to make something wrong I have desires that would be fulfilled if everybody gave me all their money but I have to admit it's not wrong for others to keep their money for drunk driving to be wrong I can't be the only person who has reasons to give other people reasons not to drive while drunk it must be the case that everybody or at least nearly everybody has reasons to give other people reasons not to
• 03:30 - 04:00 drive while drunk maybe perhaps there are a few people who have no such reason but that shouldn't matter something doesn't become permissible simply because a person comes into existence who doesn't care so what matters for moral wrongness is that people generally have reasons to cause everybody to have reasons not to drive while drunk so then next question how do you give other people reasons not to drive well drunk well you make it the case that they have
• 04:00 - 04:30 a desire that would be served by not driving while drunk and how do you do this well there are two ways one way to create reasons for others not to do something is to create external sanctions in plain English this is legal and social penalties learn to take away their driving privileges find them lock them in prison these types of laws give everybody a reason not to drive while drunk
• 04:30 - 05:00 generally it's considered that the harsher the penalty the stronger the reason but in fact things turn out to be a bit more complex than this we'll set those complexities aside for the moment still this is the general idea drunk driving is wrong suggests that people generally have a lot of strong reasons to threaten those who drive while drunk with social and legal penalties the second way to get people not to do something is to create internal
• 05:00 - 05:30 sanctions these are feelings of guilt or shame or a simple aversion to performing acts of a particular type many people perhaps most people who choose not to drive all drunk aren't responding to external sanctions they wouldn't drive well drunk even if they knew they couldn't get caught because they have an internal aversion to even potentially being the cause of somebody else's suffering or death when we condemn drunk driving is wrong when we show our contempt and disgust
• 05:30 - 06:00 for those who would impose such risks on others we help to promote this internal sanction Against Drunk Driving generally when we talk about external sanctions we're talking about the law and when we talk about internal sanctions we're talking about morality generally this isn't a hard and fast distinction here now there's one feature of both external and internal sanctions that I want to shine a spotlight on external and internal sanctions are used to create reasons not to perform actions
• 06:00 - 06:30 of a particular type laws for example apply sanctions against those who perform a certain type of action drunk driving running a red light theft rape murder and the like and internal sanctions also Target acts of a particular type typically the same type of Acts listed above what this means is that an action is wrong because it is an action of a particular type and people generally have reasons to give people reasons not to perform acts of that type
• 06:30 - 07:00 what makes it wrong to break a promise is that it is an instance of the type promise breaking and people generally have reasons to give everybody reasons to keep their promises so now I want to look at what this means what does this say about morality first it says that there are moral facts people generally have many and strong reasons to give others reasons not to drive while drunk this is a fact it was a fact before I was born it will
• 07:00 - 07:30 be a fact after I die and there is nothing about my beliefs or desires that can have any influence on this fact now if you're unfamiliar with philosophical ethics don't be nervous about this phrase motivational internalism is false I take the phrase motivational internalism to be a thesis where professional academic philosophers messed up their understanding of morality though my message to academic
• 07:30 - 08:00 philosophers is this scrap the idea of motivational internalism if you're interested this thesis of motivational internalism says that moral facts come with a certain power to motivate it must be the case under this thesis that if I judge drunk driving to be wrong then I must have some aversion or motivating reason not to drive while drunk according to motivational internalism however I can judge that people generally have reasons to create reasons
• 08:00 - 08:30 and others not to drive while drunk even if I have no reason to avoid driving while drunk other people can have reasons to create something that doesn't currently exist ultimately I reject motivational internalism because it has an absurd implication it says that if I don't care about the harms that I might inflict on others and I know that I can avoid the external sanctions that others would place on me then drunk driving isn't wrong this might be clearer with a different
• 08:30 - 09:00 example if I don't care about the effects I will have on a child and I know that I can avoid society's sanctions motivational internalism says that it wouldn't be wrong for me to molest a child and that doesn't seem right in fact the theory of wrongness that I propose says that the opposite is true wrong action shows evidence that one doesn't have a sufficiently wrong reason not to perform acts of that type and that people generally have reasons to create even stronger reasons not to
• 09:00 - 09:30 perform acts of that type so now I want to bring up the third implication there's no place for free will in this account of wrongdoing we create internal and external sanctions because they have the ability to influence a person's behavior and if that behavior contains free will then the whole project of creating internal and external reasons would have to be scrapped fortunately Free Will doesn't exist therefore I don't have to worry about
• 09:30 - 10:00 the fact that there is no room for free will in this account of wrongdoing so if there's no place for free will and morality then why do so many people think that Free Will is important to morality my answer is this Scholars got messed up when they thought they needed to justify having a just God condemn people to Eternal damnation the threat of hell is certainly consistent with creating external reasons to perform or not to perform
• 10:00 - 10:30 actions of particular types such as bearing false witness the problem comes when a perfectly good all-knowing God has to punish somebody in the afterlife I mean nobody here is going to know if God said just kidding and failed to punish to solve this problem Scholars invented Free Will and a special type of dessert that made it acceptable for God to condemn people to hell for their transgressions on Earth this has since contaminated academic thinking on this matter even
• 10:30 - 11:00 philosophers who don't believe in God or an afterlife in which people receive rewards and punishments still think in terms of Free Will and this special type of dessert but while academics were being confused by Concepts and theories originally designed to justify God's punishment of transgressors in the afterlife regular people in their regular everyday interactions remain focused on the problem of creating internal and external reasons not to engage in certain types of actions in this life
• 11:00 - 11:30 okay next I suspect that an academic philosopher might argue that by removing motivational internalism and Free Will for Morality I've changed the subject what I'm talking about isn't morality at all it's something else part of my response to that objection is call out what you will the name would give something doesn't matter revoking Pluto's status as a planet didn't change its size or its orbit at least I'm referring to something real and useful giving people reasons not to perform
• 11:30 - 12:00 acts of a type that tend to harm others morality that requires desire independent values and Free Will doesn't exist it should be tossed in the metaphysical Dustbin so that we can get on with reality a second part of my answer is that this really is morality the best theory of wrongness is the theory that best explains and predicts our use of the concepts and its relations to other Concepts and I'll give you a couple of examples we tend to divide actions into three moral categories there's that which is
• 12:00 - 12:30 obligatory that which is prohibited and that which is neither drunk driving is prohibited and people generally have reasons to give everybody a reason not to drive while drunk we have reasons to promote an aversion to taking or damaging the property of others without their consent so these types of Acts are prohibited people can do other things but not that on the other side for example promises create obligations
• 12:30 - 13:00 for obligations we give people reasons both internal and external who perform the ACT rather than something else and then there's this huge range of actions where we have virtually no reason to give everybody a reason to perform the action which would have made it obligatory or to not perform the action which would have made it prohibited wearing a red shirt for example we have no reason to give everybody a reason to wear or to not wear a red shirt what we
• 13:00 - 13:30 wear what we eat where we live who we marry our profession our Hobbies there are virtually no reasons to promote Universal reasons to engage in or refrain from any of these activities so they are in the category of non-obligatory permission next another example this Theory allows us to account for different types of excuses for example it does no good to yell at a hurricane you can't give a
• 13:30 - 14:00 weed a reason not to grow in the garden and polio doesn't respond to external sanctions there's no sense of creating internal and external reasons to engage in this type of behavior since this behavior is not driven even indirectly by internal and external reasons next many forms of mental illness also render the creating of external and internal reasons entirely ineffective in these cases one can be Not Guilty by reason of mental illness however the effect that a
• 14:00 - 14:30 mental illness has on moral responsibility is a bit complex an individual may not choose to be a pedophile a pedophile may be motivated to have sex with children and pedophilia itself may not respond to external or internal sanctions however much of the behavior that pedophilia motivates can also be influenced once by other internal and external sanctions when this is the case the existence of a mental illness doesn't provide an excuse
• 14:30 - 15:00 against wrongdoing drunk driving is wrong but let's say you're out camping with your kid your kid is asleep you take a couple shots of alcohol to help you sleep out here in the wilderness and then 15 minutes later a bear mulls the kid you control the bleeding as well as you possibly can wrap the kid in a blanket load the kid into the car and make for the nearest hospital yes people generally do have reasons to promote in everybody in aversion to drunk driving
• 15:00 - 15:30 but we don't expect the aversion to be so strong that a parent will let their child bleed to death rather than drive while drunk and fourthly there's the excuse of duress people generally have reasons to cause everybody to have a reason not to perform some action but somebody kidnaps your kid and gives you a reason to perform some action that people generally have reasons to give everybody reasons not to perform if the threat is serious enough then go ahead and do what you are told a good
• 15:30 - 16:00 person would have an aversion to performing such an action but a good person can still be allowed to have a stronger aversion to the consequences of refusing to obey in addition to using this Theory to understand the three moral categories of action obligation prohibition and non-obligatory permission and to understand excuses we can use it to understand the slogan odd implies can we can't blame you for failing to teleport the children out of a burning
• 16:00 - 16:30 building if you have no ability to teleport the children out of a burning building we can understand the scope of this slogan by asking whether the type of behavior in question can be made more or less common by giving people reasons to perform or not perform actions of that type no matter what reasons we give people they can't teleport children out of a burning building so it's not the case that they ought to do so these are just three examples to
• 16:30 - 17:00 illustrate how we would test whether this is actually a theory of wrongdoing or merely changing the subject we would need to explain other things such as men's Ray or a culpability the types of evidence used in moral reasoning the principle of proportionality that the punishment should fit the crime and a number of other factors to determine if this fits into a theory that can explain and predict the use of moral terms I hold that the theory would be successful in this test but the proof is
• 17:00 - 17:30 going to have to require a number of videos now if this theory is any good it should be useful in answering all sorts of questions as to whether a certain type of action is right or wrong is it wrong to take or destroy other people's property without their consent well do people generally have reasons to give everybody reasons to refrain from taking or destroying other people's property without their consent seems to me that they do is it wrong to have sex with a mature and competent adult of the same gender I
• 17:30 - 18:00 see no reason to give everybody a reason to refrain from such Behavior is it wrong to use drugs is it wrong tea meat is it wrong to execute people for certain crimes and if so for which crimes is it wrong to invade neighboring countries for the purpose of claiming their territory as one's own I'm going to leave these questions up to the reader to answer at least for now there'll be more to say in the future