Exploring Jamieson’s Views on Everyday Moral Theorising and Ethics

This work has been verified by our teacher: 20.02.2026 at 9:26

Homework type: Essay

Added: 17.02.2026 at 9:26

Jamieson on Moral Theorising: Everyday Ethics, Foundationalism, and the Nature of Moral Beliefs

Within British moral philosophy, a persistent concern is the relationship between grand ethical theory and the humdrum world of everyday choices. Dale Jamieson, though not a household name in the British philosophical tradition like Hume or Williams, offers a distinctive intervention: he argues that moral theorising is not the sole domain of philosophers, but is in fact an activity everyone practises in daily life. Ethical reasoning, he suggests, is performed by real people as they go about their business, even if they lack a formal vocabulary for it. The boundary between the rarefied world of university philosophy seminars and ordinary moral decision-making is therefore less strict than often assumed.

This essay will examine Jamieson’s claim about the ubiquity of moral theorising, the quiet but persistent influence of formal ethical theories on ordinary behaviour, and the question of foundationalism – the hope that some ethical beliefs might be self-evident or self-justifying. Through British examples, consideration of educational context, and critical engagement, I will explore what it means to ‘do ethics’ both on the page and in the street, and will ask if it is possible to find sure foundations for our everyday morality. The discussion will move through explanations of everyday moral theorising, the infiltration of moral theory into common practice, an analysis of foundationalism, and, finally, a reflection upon the possibilities for bridging philosophical ethics and life as it is actually lived.

---

I. Understanding Jamieson’s Claim: Moral Theorising as an Everyday Practice

This activity can be conscious – such as debating in a sixth form classroom about the ethics of voting or vegetarianism – or unconscious, as in snap decisions to help a stranger or apologise for a thoughtless remark. Children, for instance, routinely develop an implicit sense of fairness; playground disputes often revolve around accusations of “That’s not fair!” or “You said we’d take turns!” These are early, if unsystematic, attempts at applying notions of justice and promise-keeping, which echo formal theories that will (perhaps) be learned explicitly in later years.

A telling everyday example is the test of role reversal: one person, before deciding whether to take the last biscuit in the tin or let a sibling have it, might ask themselves, “How would I feel if our roles were reversed?” This is a kind of proto-Golden Rule reasoning, which existed long before its formalisation by philosophers. It is not necessary to have read any Aristotle or Bentham to realise that empathy and fairness matter; the rudiments of moral logic are deployed whenever people reflect even briefly on the implications of action.

Jamieson’s insistence on the universality of moral theorising has practical importance: it promotes a sense of participation and agency in ethical reflection, dispelling the myth that philosophy is by and for experts alone. Such recognition is especially vital in British schools and universities, which increasingly emphasise critical thinking, citizenship, and the development of moral literacy as part of education.

All the same, some challenges can be raised. Not every decision is preceded by intellectual deliberation. Many actions stem from habit, upbringing, and the emotional push and pull of group belonging. Is every instinctive response truly an act of theorising, or should we distinguish between genuine reflection and mere custom or socialisation? The difference between ‘intuitive ethics’ (spontaneous responses) and ‘reflective equilibrium’ (systematic adjustment of moral beliefs to achieve consistency) remains a live question, as the work of British philosopher Mary Midgley and others attests.

---

II. The Influence of Moral Theory on Moral Practices

Often, fragments of moral theory take root in this way. When someone condemns betrayal on the grounds that “You can’t just break your word,” echoes of deontological ethics are present. Empathetic responses draw on a kind of care ethics, even if the name is unknown: a child gives up their seat on a bus for an elderly passenger out of instinctive regard for vulnerability. Utilitarian calculations, though rarely systematic, appear when one chooses a career in the NHS out of desire to “make a difference” in people’s lives.

Psychological research, including that of British developmentalists like Simon Baron-Cohen, supports the view that children arrive at basic moral understandings well before formal moral education. Concepts such as fairness and harm are grasped intuitively, with explicit theory later providing structure. The culture of the UK, with its long-standing debates over fairness, social justice (as in arguments over the NHS or the welfare state), and pluralism, is shaped by centuries of inherited ethical norms, many reflecting Christian, Enlightenment, or, more recently, multicultural moral traditions.

People also employ ‘rules of thumb’ – heuristics – to handle moral decisions. “When in doubt, tell the truth” or “Treat others as you would like to be treated” — these are not always followed, but their presence guides conduct. However, uncritical adherence to partial pieces of theory can be dangerous. Taking ‘never lie’ as an absolute may cause conflict in situations where kindness, privacy, or social harmony should weigh in. Overreliance on simplistic rules, or a “grab-bag” approach to moral fragments, can foster inconsistency, self-righteousness, or even hypocrisy.

A further danger lies in sliding into a relativism where any behaviour can be justified by cobbling together suitable fragments. Lacking understanding of the foundational logic behind moral ideas, people risk using ethics merely as a rhetorical shield, as George Orwell warned in *Politics and the English Language* about the dangers of unthinking slogan use.

---

III. Foundationalism in Ethics: Defining and Explaining the Concept

A self-evident belief is one whose truth is immediately apparent – for instance, “a whole is greater than its part.” A self-justifying belief needs no appeal to further reasons – it is accepted because, once understood, its legitimacy is beyond question. In ethics, candidates for foundational status might be “It is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm,” or “Justice is a good.” Yet, as Jamieson notes, finding secure yet ethically substantive propositions is problematic. Tautologies like “All murder is wrong by definition” add little to moral debate, while more substantial claims – “Stealing is wrong” – invite immediate challenge and call for further defence.

British philosophers, from G.E. Moore with his ‘open question argument’, to more contemporary figures, have long noticed this difficulty. Moore famously pointed out that definitions of ‘good’ which are analytically true offer no guidance in actual moral controversy, while interesting moral claims always seem, on scrutiny, to require further justification.

Jamieson’s own critique is that foundationalism sets itself an impossible task. The beliefs that are certain enough to count as foundational (“Murder is wrong by definition”) are empty; those which are rich enough to be relevant (“Killing is sometimes wrong, sometimes justified”) need argument, context, history – in short, participation in ongoing theorising.

---

IV. Exploring Ethical Beliefs: Can They Be Self-Evident or Self-Justifying?

Nor does self-justification, understood as the view that certain moral beliefs are beyond the need for support, fare much better. Some thinkers argue that we have innate moral intuitions: the sudden feeling of wrongness when witnessing cruelty, for example. But appeals to intuition have been criticised by philosophers like Bernard Williams, who points out that intuitions are as much a product of history and culture as of any inbuilt sense – what is ‘obvious’ to an English school pupil may be quite foreign elsewhere.

The tension between certainty and interest in moral foundations remains acute. Jamieson’s doubt – that we cannot find ethical claims which are both indubitable and rich enough to guide us – is shared by many working within the analytical tradition. This recognition has led some philosophers in Britain to advocate alternative approaches, such as ethical coherentism, where beliefs justify each other in a web of mutual support, or pragmatic pluralism, where the quest for rigid foundations is surrendered in favour of ongoing negotiation and revision.

---

V. Synthesising Jamieson’s Views and Broader Implications for Moral Philosophy and Practice

Understanding the theory behind common moral judgements can also sharpen practice. Recognising that declaring “It’s not fair!” is, in fact, a claim about justice, invites reflection on what justice is and why it is valued. In a plural society like Britain’s, with its range of traditions and contested values, this recognition helps to ground respectful disagreement and genuine dialogue.

The difficulty of foundationalism, meanwhile, reminds us to be wary of claims to ‘obvious’ moral truth. The vitality of moral philosophy may in fact stem from its lack of simple foundations, and the necessity of argument and interpretation. Pluralistic approaches to morality – which accept a diversity of partly-incommensurable values and try to manage their tensions – may offer a more realistic account of how people actually live and reason.

Finally, Jamieson challenges us not to fence off ethical theory from daily life. Instead, he encourages an integration of theory, belief, and practice, in which ongoing reflection – individual and communal – plays a central role. The British tradition, with its emphasis on open debate, public reason, and the living together of many ways of life, is especially well-suited to develop this model.

---

Conclusion