Ethics PHI 112

here's a predecessor of mill, David Hume, making a concise case for Hedonism

"Ask a man why he uses exercise he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then inquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply , Because sickness is painful. If you push your inquiries father, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate in, and is never referred to any other object. Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also Reply, but it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is in absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress In Infinitum ; In that one thinking always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. "(an inquiry concerning the principles of morals(1777))

Jon Stuart Mill

"Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things(Which are as numerous in the Utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either from the pleasure inherent In themselves, or as a means to promotion Of pleasure in the prevention of pain "

Strengths of ethical relativism

1. Ethical relativism can easily explain the diversity of moral opinions and the difficulty arriving at a consensus on controversial moral issues. 2. The conventionalist moral standard is that in action is morally right or wrong if it is considered such by society. doesn't such a standard have these advantages it gives us a clear procedure for resolving ethical disputes it is democratic and creates social harmony 3. ethical relativism encourages people to follow the principle live and let live it places a high value on tolerance and is a corrective to the evils of ethnocentrism( the attitude that your society is superior to all others ). It reminds us that people shouldn't be condemned just because they do things differently than we do 3. Ethical relativism provides for a flexible morality people don't have to adhere to one set of moral rules etched in granted for all time instead ethical relativism allows morality two changes people's needs an attitude change society progressive and as circumstances change just as the horse and buggy gave way to the automobile shouldn't morality be a function of societies growing needs

Strengths of Egoism

1. Is self-love or serving your own interests over those of others Necessarily wrong? Isn't it right for you to spend the money you earned on your tuition as opposed to distributing it among others? The American declaration of independence says we have unalienable Rates that include life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Aren't these right egoistic Concerns? The document doesn't guarantee the right of everybody to be happy, nor does it say that you have an obligation to secure other people's happiness. Instead, it says you have the right to pursue your own happiness 2. I am the best judge of my own wants and needs and you are the best judge of yours. Each of us is also in the best position to pursue our own wants and needs effectively. On the other hand, when others try to do what they think is "best quote for us, they often end up being intrusive and making a mess of things. Furthermore, when I consider others needs more important than my own,Am I not showing a lack of self-esteem? Does an altruism show a lack of respect for others by treating them as helpless beggars who are dependent on me for their well-being? Isn't charity degrading to the recipient, treating them as incompetent to look after their own entrance? Isn't it a healthier ethic to please the highest value on my own self and interest in to give others the dignity in the right to pursue their own interest ?what do you think? 3. The golden rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Doesn't ruin play that the reason to treat others decently is that it is to your advantage to do so, because they will be more inclined to treat you decently? Isn't the primary reason for being honest, keeping promises, and for filling the other demands of morality the fact that it will be in your best interest to act this way? Isn't egoism really the basis

Weaknesses of ethical relativism

1. at a time Ruth Benedict was writing her article 1930 for the Nazis were beginning to take over Europe Benedict was silent about this culture practice in her paper someone said that no one can watch the movie Schindler's list which depicts nazi atrocities and remain an ethical relativist when an ethical relativist have to say that the rest of the world has no right to condemn the elitist racist in genocidal actions of the Nazis as long as the Nazis were being consistent with their own moral ideals does an ethical relativism imply that we can never criticize the excepted practices of another society no matter how evil those practices are 2. Can morality be simply A function of what the 51% majority in a society says it is? Let's say the majority of people believe that physician assisted suicide was wrong last week, but this week the polls show that the majority opinion has changed. Do you these polls mean that the physician assisted suicide was wrong last week but is morally right this week? Isn't this approach odd and problematic? We may be able to change peoples opinions of rightness or wrongness of a controversial practice through and effective advertising campaign but do we want to say that morality of a practice can be changed or a public relation campaign 3. if conventionalism is correct, then how can we ever decide the rightness or wrongness of something that has no clear social consensus? For example I cannot possibly decide the morality of a new medical controversy such as cloning genetically identical babies until I find out what the rest of society thinks. But, likewise, no one else in society can decide the morality of this new procedure without knowing what the majority thinks in other words,When we face problems that have no already established social consensus we could never decide for sales what is right and consequently there could never be a majority opinion about what is right 4. if morality depends on social concerns, how large does a group have to be to constitute a valid standard for morality does it require 1000 people? How about 100 people or even 10 people although we may each be a citizen of a particular nation we are also members of any number of subcultures within that nation each of which has different cultural practices if morality is relative to our culture could I claim that it is right for me to murder people because I belong to the mafia subculture in which this practice is acceptable for the more one person could belong to several different Subcultures

Objections to Utilitarianism

4 Utilitarianism is self undermining: if we think and feel in utilitarian Ways, That will often lead us to act wrongly by utilitarianism own lights (I.e. well often fail to maximize net pleasure)

utilitarianism

According to utilitarianism, to determine whether an action is morally right, you'll add up all the pleasures it produces, subtract all the pains it produces, then you compare the sum to the sum of pleasures and pains that would have been produced by the other action you could have performed. If your action produces the most net pleasure(I.e. The highest Sum), Then your action was right. Otherwise, it's wrong/immoral.

Deontological ethics

Any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of the intrinsic moral value of the act itself

Consequentialism

Any ethical theory that judges the more rightness or wrongness of an act according to the desirability or undesirability of the actions consequences also called teleological ethics

Virtue ethics

Any theory that sees the primary focus of ethics to be the character of the person rather than the persons actions or duties

Utilitarianism

Awesome braces the hedonistic theory of intrinsic value (Or what he can just call hedonism), i.e. It claims at all and only pleasure is intrinsically good, and all and only pain is intrinsically bad

Utilitarianism

Defined a morally right action [ by agent A in circumstances C] as One that produces at least as much [net pleasure] as any alternative action that could be performed [ by A in C]

Instrumental value

Desirability of something in terms of other ends It achieves

4b Alienation objection

If were entirely impartial (as utilitarianism seems to require), then will be in capable of having many kinds of close personal relationships. But these close, personal, partial relationships are one of the greatest sources of pleasure in life!

4a Time calculating objection

If you're required to do complicated calculations of utility before every action, then you'll often blow it(e.g. in cases where you'll need to act quickly)

When you combine consequentialism, Hedonism, and impartiality, you'll get utilitarianism

In favor of consequentialism: Trying vs. succeeding Problems with "Satisficing"

Something can be intrinsically neutral and:

Instrumentally good, instrumentally neutral, instrumentally bad

something can be intrinsically good and :

Instrumentally good, instrumentally neutral, instrumentally bad

Utilitarianism

Is a version of consequentialism, i.e. It claims that the consequences of an action entirely determine the rightness or wrongness of that action ( instead of e.g. The agents motives, or the "kind "of action it is) More specifically, it says that the right action is the one with the best net consequences

Negatives Of ethical objectivism

It is notoriously difficult to find agreement concerning what actions are right or wrong. Taking the issue one step back, it is also difficult to find agreement concerning what principles should be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. There are facts about planets and stars that serve to confirm it will refute our theories about them. But right now or wrongness does not seem to be observable features of nature against which our moral theories can be tested. Unlike scientific inquiry , There are no meters, telescopes, or microscopes for observing and measuring the moral qualities of actions. Don't these considerations support the relativist claim that morality is a function of opinions attitude emotions or social traditions rather than objective truth 2. even though other societies have moral codes very different from ours, many of them seem to flourish and provide a basis for human happiness doesn't the existence of such society suggest that there are no moral absolutes but that morality is a matter of what works for a particular society

Strengths of ethical objectivism

It is possible to avoid having any objective moral principles at all is it possible to constantly live and defend relativism don't the relativist Contradict themselves when they say you should not judge another person or cultures morality isn't this statement like saying "you should never use the word never "or "you should always avoid the word always "if you break a promise to a relativist or cheat him of what he is due, do you think you would except your defense that he should not respond you because morality is simply a matter of opinion 2. As long as there are at least two persons in the world there will always be conflicts but one of the purposes of morality is to provide and objective, rational, and impartial way to resolve conflicts. Doesn't relativism leave us without any basis for rationality resolving morals? If every person or societies allowed to embrace whatever morality pleases them or is convenient, isn't morality than useless

Negatives of egoism

It's cool legalist often present a choice between cure egoism being concerned exclusively with our own interest in pure altruism being concerned exclusively with others interest because a policy of always sacrificing our own interest is on 10 table ethical egoism seems to win out by default but isn't this argument a full stick Donnie wind a more defensible ethical

Mills come back to that

Mills come back to that Distinction between the moral status of actions and the moral worth of persons motives are only directly relevant to the moral worth of persons again, utilitarianism Doesn't tell us how we are to think or feel, but only hell we are to act

Conclusion:

Pleasures which employ our "higher faculties "are of a higher quality than pleasures which do not

higher faculties

Pleasures which employee our higher faculties include "the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings in imagination, in the moral Sentiment "and these are contrasted with the "pleasures of Mere sensation. "

Which pleasures have higher"quality "In this sense? Mills argument

Premise 1 : If all or almost all (or at least a majority of) competent judges would prefer pleasure A to pleasure B, Even though B has a similar ( or greater) intensity X duration to (than) A, Then A is a higher quality pleasure than B

Objections to Utilitarianism

Premise 2: all or almost all(or at least the majority of) Competent judges prefer pleasures which employ their "Higher faculties"To pleasures which do not.

Feminist ethics

The attempt to correct a male biases in traditional ethical theory by emphasizing relationships over abstract principles and compassion over analytical reason

Altruism

The claim that we should be unselfishly concerned for the welfare of others and should act for the sake of other peoples interests and needs

Conventional ethical relativism

The claim that what is really right or wrong is relative to each particular society and also called ethical conventionalism

Subjective ethical relativism

The doctrine That what is right or wrong is solely a matter of each individual personal opinion

Ethical hedonism

The moral theory that the moral right now or wrongness of an action is a function of them amount of pleasure or pain it produces

Ethical objectivism

The position that certain moral principles are universal (they all apply to all persons in all times) and objective ( they are not based on the opinions of individuals or cultures)

Ethical egoism

The position that people aren't always to do only what is in their own self interest

Hedonism

The position that pleasure is the only thing that has value

Ethical relativism

The position that there are no objective or universally valid moral principles because all moral judgments are simply a matter of human opinion

Intrinsic value

The property that something has if it is good or desirable in itself

Psychological Egoism

The theory that people always act so as to serve their own interest or at least what they believe to be their interest

Ethical egoism

The theory that people aren't always to do only what is in their Own self interest

Utilitarianism

The theory that the right action is one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of peopleThe theory that the right action is one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people

Divine Command Theory (DCT)

The theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is intrinsically related to the fact God either Comanche or forbids it

Kantian Ethics

The theory that we Have absolute moral duties that are determined by reason and that are not affected by the consequences

Mill's qualitative hedonism

The value of a pleasure = It's intensity X its duration X it's quality V=I x D x Q

Benthams quantitative Hedonism:

The value of a pleasure = it's intensity X its duration v=I x D

Ethical objectivism

Theory that there are universal and objectively valid moral principles that are relative neither to the individual nor to Society

Absolutism

They claim that not only are moral principles objective but also they cannot be overridden and there cannot be any exception to them

Psychological Hedonism

They claim that the only causes operating in human behavior or the desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain

Competent judge

To be a competent judge of to pleasures what needs to be "equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating enjoying, both. "

Objections to Ultilitarianism

Utilitarianism (U) is a doctrine were the only of swine Mill: pleasures which Employ out higher faculties are more valuable than (equally intense and long lasting) Base pleasures

Objections to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism implies that actions performed with awful motives can still be morally right

Objections to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is too demanding: it implies that actions Which seem to be merely supererogatory (e.g. numerous kinds of self-sacrifice) Are actually morally required

Objections to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism sometimes allows us to do really nasty things to (innocent) people

Utilitarianism

Utilitarians also embrace impartiality, i.e. -As John Stuart mills Puts it-"the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right and conduct, is not the agents on happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism Requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator"

utilitarianism

When you combine consequentialism,hedonism, and impartiality, you'll get utilitarianism

When you combine consequentialism, hedonism,And impartiality, you'll get utilitarianism

in favor of hedonism: Theoretical Elegance Humes argument

When you combine consequentialism, hedonism, and impartiality, you'll get utilitarianism

in favor of impartiality: See E. G. Rachels "argument that ethical egoism is unacceptably Arbitrary quote for a good argument for impartiality in ethics

Something can be intrinsically bad and:

instrumentally good, instrumentally neutral, instrumentally bad

Objections to Utilitarianism

objections to hedonism -Maybe some pleasures are not intrinsically good(E. G. Sadistic or false pleasures -Maybe some pains are not intrinsically bad(E. G. "Deserved"Pains, "merited "pains) -Maybe somethings other than pleasures are intrinsically good -Maybe somethings other than pains are intrinsically bad