Hinckfuss - Moral Society

Preface

Some people claim that when they are speaking of moral obligations, rights, virtues or vices, they are speaking of their own personal preferences about how they and others should behave. Others claim to be speaking about the mores of their society -- the customs or conventions of that society. Such views of morality are relative, in the first case, to individual people, and in the second case, to societies. That is to say, on these accounts, the same action by some agent at some time, may be morally good with respect to one person or society and morally bad or morally indifferent with respect to some other person or society. The first account may also be described as subjective, that is to say, concerning personal feelings about behaviour rather than any objective facts about that behaviour.

Others claim that there is necessarily a prescriptive or perhaps an imperative aspect to our moral discourse. Some of these would claim that moral discourse is not to be taken as the sort of thing in which truth and falsity is relevant at all, though, perhaps 'correct' and 'incorrect' are still allowable. Clearly, what is prescribed or ordered by one person may not be prescribed or ordered by someone else. So such accounts of moral discourse remain relativist in that sense.

Nobody in their right mind would doubt the existence of personal preferences, societal mores and prescriptions and commands. But there are those, perhaps the great majority of us, who think that no amount of discussion of such matters alone can amount to moral discourse. They believe that if we knew any moral principles at all, these would provide an absolute and objective guide to behaviour that is independent of anyone's feelings, prescriptions or commands and what is acceptable in society.

This inquiry is primarily about this latter sense of morality and the sort of society in which absolute objective moral beliefs are a significant constraint on behaviour. There is nothing new in the idea that the indoctrination of such moral beliefs provides a mechanism for social control. The questions which this inquiry raises are firstly whether such indoctrination is some sort of a fraud or at least an artifice, and secondly whether or not this mode of societal control is conducive to human satisfaction.

These questions have been addressed by previous authors including Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and John Mackie. These authors answered both questions in the affirmative. I argue, to the contrary, that there is no evidence for the view that the use of absolute objective moral beliefs as a social control is conducive to human satisfaction. The matter is an empirical issue to be determined by psychological and sociological research. However, much research that is practiced under the name of moral sociology assumes a relativist approach to morality, so that what is being studied is the socialisation of human beings, or perhaps the development of altruism in children. These things are of great interest and doubtless of relevance to the study of morality in society. But I am concerned that they are no substitute for such a study. Some of the conjectures addressed in this inquiry have received some attention from psychologists and sociologists. But much more work needs to be done. If this essay gets some more people to think about moral sociology and stimulates more empirical research in the area, it will have done its job.

The author appreciates helpful discussions with his colleagues in the Philosophy Department at the University of Queensland, Richard Brandt and Frithjof Bergmann of the University of Michigan, the late John Mackie of University College, Oxford, Hector Munro of Monash University, the late Malcolm Rennie of Goolmangar, John Burnheim of the University of Sydney, Jack Smart of the Australian National University, Graham Jamieson, Janette Massey and many others. These people have not only helped me to clarify my views, but have also given me an insight into their own. Special thanks are due to Richard Sylvan who has been both encouraging and helpful in having the Philosophy Departments at the Australian National University produce a first edition of the book in his pre-print series Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy.