Moral or an ethical claim is characterized by being definitive of someone (A person, church, a corporation) ought or ought not to do or a claim about the merit or demerit of someone's character. Empirical claims are then claims about what is, was, or will be the case and whose truth or falsity depends on what did, does, or will happen. In contrast, moral or ethical or normative claims are primarily about what ought or ought not to be done or to have been done. Thus, moral and empirical claims seem to be of logically different sorts. Following are examples of certain moral claims: Children should be eliminated from television advertisements. Arguably, all the proceeding claims are unreasonable, so in saying that a claim is moral one, we speak only of the kind of claim it is and not of the assessment to be made of that claim. We cannot identify moral claims by their subject matter. We cannot rightly say that the moral claims are always about sex, the use of force, killing or truth telling. The following may be, and often are, claims about what someone ought to do: The United States ought to maximize its self-interest. In brief, based on the analysis given a considerable number of claims
of intuitively diverse sorts are classified as moral or ethical. Indeed,
many leading "policy" issues are moral issues, they are questions
about what we ought to do, or cease doing. Questions of what public
policy ought to be, or what laws we should or should not have, are moral
questions, and they can be thought of as part of moral philosophy. Some
questions that are important then and are moral or ethical in nature
are listed below: The extent to which we routinely engage in moral and other sorts of evaluation is rarely acknowledged. Indeed many people seem to hold the belief that they rarely, if ever, make moral or ethical judgments. There are 2 reasons for this. First, there are a small number of terms that seem "explicitly moral" right, wrong, ought, duty, has a right, wicked, evil, irresponsible, permissible and so on. It is tempting to think that in the absence of such language there is no moral claim being made. But we should consider the many (often apparently empirical) term that is used in an evaluative manner, indeed to make moral judgments about what ought to be done our, perhaps what is permissible to do: Consider the following examples: This policy is old fashioned. A second possible, more distinct indirect reason for the widespread failure to recognize the extents of moral evaluation is found in the fact that "morality gets a bad rap". The stereotypical image of the "moralist" or "the moralizer" is that a person who tends to make unreasonable, harsh, oral judgments and is overly ready to use the coercive power of the law to see to it that everyone obeys the judgments. Most of us are rightly appalled by such people and go to extreme lengths to avoid appearing like them for example we avoid the use of explicit moral language and comfort ourselves with the nation that we do not even make amoral claims. Another, more obscure reason for refusing to be explicit about moral
judgments is that from 1920's through 1940's especially, the Logical
Positivist movement insisted, most roughly, that only empirically testable
or verifiable claims were "cognitively meaningful". In brief,
it was held that everything else-poetry, moral claims, metaphysics,
and religious claims were either nonsense, the mere expression of fashion,
commanding, or prescribing, or at least not anything to which rational
discrimination was rational discrimination was relevant.
We engage in a small number of intellectual activities. They are largely exhausted by listing these four categories - moral justification, explanation, prediction and description. To think more clearly about trying to justify claims about what we ought to do regarding environmental issues, we need to consider the nature of explanation, description and so and explore briefly how these activities are related to one another. By doing so, we will be better, able to identify the role of moral argument and the respective roles of empirical and moral assumptions. Sometimes we simply want to describe the world: In 1992, 2 out of 3 Japanese were surveyed believe that that one could
become HIV infected by being bitten by mosquitoes. Much of the science aims simply at creating a correct description of the world. The examples state, above happen to be tense. Consider, for example, the transforming impact of the establishment of descriptive claims such as these: The earth is not the centre of the universe. The main activities of science fall into the categories of describing, explaining and predicting. Explaining and predicting, when fleshed out, take the form of making a claim and defending it, that is, setting out as argument. These arguments consist of empirical claims of one level of generality or another. There I is another activity in which we engage that often also takes the form of making a claim and defending it with arguments (reasons). We try to identify justification for moral judgments in cases of controversy below people and in cases about which we over selves are morally perplexed. To justify a moral claim is basically to give good reasons for the
claim. Often the claim in question will be to the effect that a certain
act is right (or wrong) either in the sense of being a duty or in a
sense of being permissible. Many actions seem both morally, justifiable
and explainable, such as Michael Jordan's choosing a career in professional
basketball. But to explain and to justify are not the same thing. There
may be an explanation of why U.S. serial Killer Jefferey Dahmer Killed
a number of innocent People and ate some of their body parts, but surely
there is no moral justification for his doing so.
Informally Stated: That creosote plant shouldn't be destroyed, because it is very valuable. More formally & Folly Stated: We ought to go to great lengths to avoid destroying rare living organisms. Many scientists and ordinary citizens have concluded that we ought to be acting quite differently from the way we have been with regard to preserving bio diversity. Halting destruction of the ozone layer, warding off massive global warming destroying coral reacts, polluting the air, and trusting the oceans. Many other defend policies that are directly to the contrary. Moral and empirical claims seem to be of logically different sorts. We cannot rightly inter any normative claim from any set of purely empirical premises. Indeed it seems correct that we cannot validity infer Rape is wrong (or right) from Rape will occur (or did or does). Lethal dosage 50 tests impose gratuitous pain on the animal subjects. In these examples much depend son the interpretation of the key term gratuitous, murder, growth, my resource, and Un-American and so on. There is an "is-ought gap" or that there is a group below facts and values-which may be controversial. Even if one cannot validly infer moral conclusions from purely empirical premises, empirical claims may still play a crucial role in moral arguments. Because we must often employ scientific inquiry to determine on which empirical assumptions we should rely upon, it follows that science and ethics are not divorced. Indeed, particular issues in applied ethics cannot be explored without some reliance on good science. Thus, many explorations in environmental ethics must make good use of the results of biology, botany, chemistry, geology, climatology, marine science forestry etc.
|