A Refutation of Ordinary MoralityThe Limits of Morality.Shelly Kagan

Abstract

The jacket of this book announces that it is the first volume in the Oxford Ethics Series edited by Derek Parfit and states that the aim of the series is make undeniable in philosophical argument about morality or rationality. That is aiming high: almost all claims to progress in philosophy are deniable. Nevertheless The Limits of Morality comes close to the mark. Because it is a long and complex book, my primary goal in this review will be to display the structure of the argument and give an idea of its substance. The problem that drives The Limits of Morality is the claim that any utilitarian or consequentialist ethic is too demanding to be taken seriously. Critics of consequentialism point out that it seems to make even the most harmless activities wrong; if the time or money I spent going to the movies could have done more good had I spent it differently-and in a world like ours that usually seems true-I did wrong when I went to the movies. Ordinary morality, the morality that we intuitively accept, denies that we are morally required always to do what has the best overall consequences. It allows for an area of human life in which we have options-we may, but we are not required to, do the act that has best consequences. From this perspective, the consequentialist appears to be an extremist, and this is the term Kagan uses to describe those who take the view that we should always do what has the best overall consequences. The term is not intended to be pejorative, for Kagan rejects (correctly, in my view) the popular idea that the role of moral theory is to account for or come to an equilibrium with our moral intuitions. So a position may appear extreme, judged by our intuitions, yet still be right. Ordinary morality does require us to make some sacrifices, usually when the sacrifice is modest and the gain great. Kagan's illustration is a case in which a child is drowning in front of me, and I can save her, at no risk or cost to myself other than getting my clothes wet. Ordinary morality says that I should save the child.' Another possible position-minimalism-refuses to go even this far in the direction of consequentialism. Minimalists deny that we are required to sacrifice