Sources & Extracts

Review this excerpt and then go back to the main thread.

The search for a firm foundation for ethics has occupied moral philosophers since at least the 18th century. While some like John Stuart Mill or Herbert Spencer attempted to put ethics on a scientific basis, others hoped to stress conceptual analysis and deduction as a way to develop moral first principles.

Marcus Singer writes in the Kantian tradition in that his main argument sounds rather similar to Kant's categorical imperative. He published Generalization in Ethics in 1961. His views, if correct, pose major problems for ethical relativism.

The question "What would happen if everyone did that?" is one with which we are all familiar....The situations in which this sort of consideration might be advanced are of course exceedingly diverse. One who announces his intention of not voting in some election might be met by the question, "What would happen if no one voted?"

....Each of these cases provides an example of the use or application of a type of argument which I propose to call the generalization argument: "If everyone were to do that, the consequences would be disastrous (or undesirable); therefore, no one ought to do that."

....The basic problem about the generalization argument (which can be thought of indifferently as either an argument or a moral principle) is to determine the conditions under which it is a good or valid one....

....My ultimate aim is to determine...how moral judgments can rationally be supported, how moral perplexities can rationally be resolved, and how moral disputes can rationally be settled....What I hope to do is to lay the groundwork for a rational and normative system of ethics. [Generalization in Ethics, p. 3-6.]

 In constructing the generalization argument, Singer uses what he calls the generalization principle and the principle of consequences. The generalization principle is roughly that what is wrong for person A is wrong for similar persons in similar circumstances. The principle of consequences states that "If the consequences of A's doing x would be undesirable, then A ought not to do x." He gives both of these principles various qualifications and then combines them to produce the generalization argument. His most compact statement of the generalization argument is as follows:

It may be useful to display in one place, in slightly different language, this deduction of the generalization argument from the generalization principle and the principle of consequences. The principle of consequences (C) state that: If the consequences of A's doing x would be undesirable, then A does not have the right to do x. The following principle (GC) is what I called a generalization from C: If the consequences of everyone's doing x would be undesirable, then not everyone has the right to do x. Now the generalization principle (GP) may be stated as follows: If not everyone has the right to do x, then not anyone (no one) has the right to do x. The generalization argument (if the consequences of everyone's doing x would be undesirable, then no one has the right to do x) clearly follows from GP and GC. [Generalization in Ethics, p. 66]