Ethics 1 (69) - 2

The most famous formulation of the Categorical Imperative is:

"Act only according to that maxim, by which, you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

CRITICISMS: Existential Risks/Unforeseen consequences—

"Blade Runner," "The Terminator" and other doomsday scenarios.

Rousseau argues that we are actually better, healthier, and saner in the state of nature and extols the

"noble savage," uncorrupted by private property, inequality, social class differences, schooling, and the trappings of civilized society.

3. Human have an infinite worth and dignity which sets them above all things that are merely conditionally valuable. Man is an end-in-himself. There is something ultimate in being human and possessing reason. As a rational end-in-himself, the Human Being is the author of the moral law, such that obedience to duty is not an act of slavish submission but an act of dignified autonomy. You should hold yourself as an autonomous, dignified, ultimate being! Having this status, all persons are worthy of respect. Therefore,

"you must always treat people as an end and never as a means only." This means you are not supposed to use people as a means to your ends. People are not objects—they are ultimate beings of infinite worth and dignity. (An apt metaphor in a less secular context: we are created in the image of God.) There are situations where you get someone to serve your end (e.g., I hire a painter), but this is allowed. (Note: an exchange fairly agreed to is not using the painter as a means only"). But the key moral point is that all people, by the fact that they are people, deserve respect. This is one of the claims by believers who assert 'human rights.'

--CP is a deterrent. Claims that social science research demonstrates otherwise, only show that CP does not deter everyone, i.e., those who were convicted and interviewed by social scientists.

(I regard this as an important point as to what social science research can tell us and what it does not.) We have no idea how many people thought about killing someone, but did not—fearing the consequences.

--Social science studies show that CP does not deter criminals

. As the NY Times editorial writer put it: "the facts are undeniable. The death penalty does not deter crime." (4/30/11).

Assumptions: In ethics we make assumptions we do not make in other fields of philosophical study such as-

1. people are free to act in one way or another, that we have free will. (counters evidence supporting determinism). "We must believe in free will, we have no choice" - Isaac Bashevis Singer 2. People are or are capable of becoming national moral agents. people can reflect on the way they act (unless there is reason to believe the contrary, which is why courts make exceptions for the insane) 3. some means other than force can be found to convince people to act in certain ways. 4. Philosophers do not assume that our standards must be the rules of our society. In many respects "Moral Philosophy" begins when people find their prevailing code of moral rules to be unsatisfactory.

Transhumanism:

1. senses: hearing, vision (eyesight of an eagle, night vision of lions), computer chips. Would people want the developed sense of smell of a bloodhound or pig? These enhancements will certainly have military applications! 2. athletic performance—fast twitch muscles and reflexes, strength, endurance, speed, eye-hand coordination 3. mood control—psychopharmacology. Zoloft and Prozac, mystical experience 4. intelligence increase—neuroscience, cognitive science to enhance attention span, memory, mathematical aptitude 5. life extension—technologies for living longer, fuller lives

Two Factual Observations:

1. there are ethical standards in every human society, i.e., there could not be a cooperative collective of humans without some rules that govern out actions & behavior. 2. Morality is a matter concerning individuals and it is a social enterprise. Like language, morality exists before the individual (who is inducted into it) and it goes on after the individual is long gone.

The major aim (which we will focus on) is to challenge and correct biases that result in

1.) the subordination of women and 2.) undervalue women's approach to ethical situations.

--Currently, there are

19 states, along with Washington, DC, that have abolished CP. 26 states retain it, and 4 have declared a moratorium on its use.

Cost/benefit analysis:

A very compelling set of arguments entail the immense financial burden of fighting a war on drugs. In the U.S. we spend multiple billions in a losing war. The burden and cost to law enforcement, court costs, incarceration, parole, etc. are staggering. According to Huemer, a majority of people caught in our Federal criminal justice system are there for drug related offences, as are over 20% of prisoners and parolees in State run correctional facilities. Some put the federal cost of arresting some 750,000 people per year for possession of small amounts of marijuana at $13.5 billion dollars. This sum rises steeply when one considers law enforcement on the state and local levels.

It is worth noting that:

A.) the Kantian and Utilitarian systems, although very different and even contradictory in their structure, will usually get you to the same answer. If one looks closely, philosophers have to go out of their way to concoct bizarre or tailor-made examples to score points for their side. There are numerous examples of this. B). These two rival systems are always being discussed, argued about, criticized, defended, and revised and improved upon. They are so important they are pretty much required for an Intro to Ethics course and even for the much more general Intro to Philosophy course. C.) Yet, the numbers of 'true believers,' of people who really believe in their system and defend it philosophically probably number in the low hundreds. But so powerful is this small academic community of deep and careful thinkers, that they command a great deal of attention and respect. Philosophers do have some important things to say and to teach!

Among the supporters of ethical subjectivism in the 20th century were

A.J. Ayers and Bertrand Russell

Some Arguments Against AA:

AA raises issues of procedural justice. By making gender, race, or ethnicity a relevant category it changes the rules and takes us farther from the ideal of a color blind society. It brings discrimination right back into the equation, after many fought so hard to remove it. Prevailing liberal theory holds that accidents of birth ought to be irrelevant for how people are treated. Race, ethnicity, religion, etc. should be irrelevant. We should be judged by the content of our character. There's no such thing as perfect justice. It is impossible to undo the injustices of the past. It is unfair to penalize or reward young people for the sins or suffering of their ancestors. People who experienced segregation and were denied opportunities deserve compensation. However, people two or three generations later do not. Moreover, it's very difficult to identify how people are affected by past discrimination and who deserves preferential treatment. 'Rights' adhere in individuals, not in groups. At least theoretically, 'rights' are held by individuals. Conferring rights onto groups of people raises some difficult issues of defining the members of the group. Moreover, there is something arbitrary about granting preferential treatment to people by category. Thus, a major problem with AA is that it does not work for the people it is designed to help. Instead of helping poor African Americans, most of the beneficiaries of AA in the top educational institutions come from the Caribbean and Africa. Finally, in some cases, there is a counter-productive net effect to aggressive recruitment of minorities in higher education. One dynamic in play is that giving students a boost in admissions might set them up for difficulties, frustration, and attrition. For example, students who are qualified and prepared to succeed at Cape Fear Community College are accepted to UNCW where they must struggle to survive; students who are well suited for UNCW are given the opportunity to study at UNC where they have a hard time succeeding; students who are qualified for Chapel Hill are recruited by Stanford where they struggle to compete academically. Of course, many AA students rise to the challenge and succeed; however, high attrition rates suggest that many have a hard time remaining in school.

Actual costs to normal brain function:

According to neuroscience, illicit drugs such as hallucinogens, amphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and cannabis distort and cloud the mind. They impair short term memory in the temporal lobe and disrupt communication between the users' limbs and the cerebellum. Moreover, they "cause the pleasure part of the brain (the nucleus accumbens), the emotional part of the brain (the amygdala) and hormonal part of the brain (the hypothalamus) to overrule the self-control part of the brain (the lateral habenula by way of the fasciculus retroflexus). ... whereas heavy drinking can kill cells in the fasciculus retroflexus in a matter of months to a few years, cocaine does it in a few weeks to a month, and meth in a few days to ta week.' Drugs interfere with people acting appropriately toward themselves and other.

Hume's best friend

Adam Smith was also a supporter of ethical subjectivism. In Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), he accepts Hume's views and expands them with his treatment of the causes of the passions and ways to ascertain proper conduct and moral rules.

Locke and Rousseau argue that the state gets its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

All recognize that the advantages of living together outweigh the perfect freedom of the state of nature. No rational person would disagree.

Anti-paternalism:

American values favor liberty and minimizing government interference. Our paternalistic anti-drug laws and Draconian law enforcement come at a great cost to our civil liberties. Moreover, many people regard recreational drugs as essential to their pursuit of happiness. Thus, some regard our drug laws as hypocritical in terms of our professed values.

Although most versions of NLT are associated with religious views (e.g., God created the world with a plan and purpose), they do not depend on the existence of a personal God (unlike DCT). For example,

Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero believed that natural law exists as part of the natural order.

--The utilitarian calculus:

As far as executing the innocent, this is a major problem for defenders of CP. Fallible humans create flawed institutions and mistakes occur. In a democratic country, even with a very good legal system, mistakes do happen. However, far more innocents might be murdered if there is no death penalty and murderers go free. So for democratic systems with independent judiciaries, the odds of misusing CP are minimized. So overall, CP can be justified on utilitarian grounds of protecting the innocent. There analogy is that we build highways knowing that there will be fatalities on these highways; we allow for pharmaceutical medicines knowing that some small number of people will have horrible reactions to these medicines.

The moral argument asserted:

As the late A.M.Rosenthal used to argue, the government must take a moral stand. Illegal drugs are dangerous and the government must protect its citizens from this scourge. This brings us full circle, as it begs the question of paternalism and illegal drug use.

Finally, it is a given that ethics is part and parcel of key guiding values such as

Benevolence and Justice

The United States and India are the only Western Liberal Democracies that still use

Capital Punishment

Ethics

Concerned with intent, means, & consequences of moral behavior. Ethics is a discipline concerned with questions of right and wrong. It is the systematic endeavor to understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories.

Bentham's Utilitarianism is

Consequentialist

Unfortunately, science and technology do come with problems. All sorts of negative consequences, foreseen and unforeseen. Or are some of these consequences actually positive?

Dangers of terrorism (super-empowered individuals); Decline of nation state, erosion of borders, nationality, and citizenship; Surveillance and loss of liberty/privacy; Pollution, loss of eco-systems, global warming/climate change, overpopulation; Antibiotics and bacteria

--Regarding the noticeable racial disparities in incarceration, this is indeed a problem, but it correlates with the crime rate.

Defenders of CP will point out that it is fallacious to suppose that the prison population should be proportionate to the ethnic makeup of the overall population. Thomas Sowell claims that there is no historical evidence (in the U.S. or anywhere else) showing that, were it not for discrimination there would be proportional representation in anything by race, sex, nationality, etc. Sowell argues that economic and social outcomes differ among individuals and groups in ways that cannot be explained by any one factor.

Approaches to the study of ethics:

Descriptive Empirical Inquiry, Normative Ethics, Meta-Ethics, Applied Ethics

Psychological egoism is a __________________ Theory

Descriptive; that is, it makes a claim that it is the case that people are incapable of desiring or pursuing anything but their own interest as an end in itself.

--On the topic of deterrence, some enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty claim that the problem stems from a systematic, legally drawn out process of costly appeals, delays, and a failure to implement most executions.

Deterrence would be strengthened and could be achieved if executions were more certain and swift. The automatic series of appeals that require 16-20 years to happen are certainly expensive and may well add to the pain of the co-victims. Hard core supporters of CP argue that sure and swift implementation would resolve these problems.

Charles L. Stevenson

Developed emotivism (an improved version of subjectivism) in the 1930's.

Reduce social inequality and racial disparities:

Drug legislation, law enforcement, and the judicial system are particularly harsh on the poor and ethnic minorities. For example, vastly different penalties for the same drug (e.g. crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine; methamphetamine vs. d-amphetamine), and more vigorous law enforcement in particular neighborhoods along with racial profiling, have resulted in the world's largest prison population, which is disproportionately African American and Hispanic.

consistency and generality

Ethical statements must be self consistent as well as consistent with other statements one accepts. Inconsistency is a fatal flaw, for it gives us no clear direction about what is right or wrong. It confuses rather than guides us. At times, inconsistencies are red flags that alert us to dishonesty and falsehood.

4. The fundamental laws of morality are the same for every rational being, whether humans, angels, rational aliens, or God.

Every rational being has a conscience and a conception of moral obligation, which carry their own authority. The point of doing ethics, then, is to examine their nature, in order to prevent these conceptions from being corrupted. This leads us to *moral absolutism, objectivism, and natural law.* Each individual is a rational/noumenal (spiritual) moral agent. Reason (and conscience) function the same for all of us, just as math and physics. There is a universal element to the mind (beyond the physical/phenomenal world).

Criticisms: Change Human Nature and undermine morality and democracy—

Francis Fukuyama and Jurgen Habermas argue that this will undermine human autonomy by making us subject to the "haves" unilaterally imposed specifications. Re: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man." Lewis argues "what we call man's power over nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with nature as its instrument." People with enhancement advantages will use their advantages to gain and retain power, and thus prevent access to the masses.

8. In order to act rightly, we must have

Free Will. Moral philosophy depends on this.

Hugo Bedau, "The Case Against the Death Penalty," ACLU

Furman v. Georgia (1972) DP constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Gregg v. Georgia (1976) reinstates the DP in 38 states and the Federal government. Argues that CP is not a deterrent, it's unfair, irreversible, and unjustified retribution. Mistakes will always be with us. Despite precautions, most human activities cost lives (truckers, construction workers). In the case of executions, we are not talking about accidents, but of intentional killing. Punishment (regardless of the motivation) is not intended to avenge, offset, or compensate for the victims' suffering. Punishment is to vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime. Justice Brennan insisted that DP is uncivilized, inhuman, and inconsistent with the sanctity of life and human dignity. (But he does not argue for his assertions.) Similarly, Justice Harry Blackmun believed that for the state to put someone to death is inherently barbaric.

Aristotle teaches that virtue lies in finding the proper balance between the extremes of excess and deficiency. He refers to this balance as the

Golden Mean. Examples: the virtue of Courage is found between the deficiency of cowardice and the excess of foolhardiness; The virtue of self-love/proper pride is found between the deficiencies of servility/self-deprecation and the excesses of arrogance, conceit, and vanity;

We must use our reason to recognize and follow the

Good Will

The only thing that is intrinsically good is

Happiness, i.e., pleasure and the absence of pain. Anything that people value (e.g., health, wealth, delicious food, leisure), they value because it brings them happiness.

Ernest van den Haag, "In Defense of the Death Penalty," from Harvard Law Review, 1986.

Hardly any murderers get DP in the US. [In 2004 there were 59 executions but over 16,000 murders.] Most death row inmates will die of natural causes. Unequal distribution of DP is irrelevant to justice or morality. In response to the notion that CP violates human dignity, Van den Haag argues that, when deserved, execution does not degrade; rather, it affirms the convict's humanity by affirming his rationality and responsibility for his actions. (Philosophers Hegel and Kant make this point.) Does not life imprisonment violate human dignity by keeping alive a prisoner deprived of all autonomy?

Kant did not approach ethics by asking What is the good? and What ought I to do?

He believed that this was already known to most everyone. In fact, he believed that the truths of ethics had been known for thousands of years, and that a moral philosopher could hardly expect to discover something new in ethics. (Scholars today agree that Kant is one of the most original and creative philosophers.) For Kant, the real moral problem was the constant struggle to do what we know is right in the face of temptations and distractions (a Protestant/Pietist approach).

According to Kant, the objective, real, true world is unknowable to us through our sense perception.

He claims there is a world independent of mind (Kant's universalism) but we only know the world that the mind schematizes. For another analogy, think of the full spectrum of light that we know from physics. The human eye only perceives the range of colors from violet to red. However, our vision does not perceive the shorter light waves/higher frequency waves that are ultra violet and beyond (i.e.X ray, gamma ray) nor do we perceive the longer light waves/low frequency waves that are infrared and beyond (i.e., micro waves, radar, radio waves). True reality goes far beyond our human senses. Thus, Kant throws traditional metaphysics into question...but brings it back in his ethics.

The practice of CD has been used by

Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Instances of it are also found in religious scriptures of many religions

Some Main Points of Kantian Ethics

Here are the building blocks of Kantian ethics. Like Utilitarianism, Kant formulates a system. He argues for the following points, which will then lead us to the formula that can guide us for any ethical decision.

Adam Smith

Hume's best friend & supporter of ethical subjectivism. He wrote "The theory of Moral sentiments" (1759). He expands on Humes views with his own.

Immanuel Kant

Hume's contemporary & one of subjectivisms greatest opponents. He was insulted by Hume's dismissal of reason & inspired to devise an ethical system grounded in reason.

Increase of drug usage and addiction:

If drugs are legalized, it would inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in drug use. [Cf. "Less users and addicts" above.] This would cause more addiction, accidents, long term health problems, lower productivity, economic hardships, etc. This would add up to lots of destructive harm. Even if we concede the claim that intoxication is fundamental to human nature, addiction or excessive drug use can also lead to the neglect of one's health, children and other responsibilities.

Danger and Harm:

Illicit drugs are dangerous and cause great harm. They destroy individuals, their families, innocent bystanders, and come at a great cost to society. In the case of countries such as Columbia and Mexico, the drug trade leads to severe problems caused by immensely wealthy drug cartels and organized crime. Of course, many argue that these criminal enterprises are caused by/fueled by American demand to consume drugs. Some argue that if drugs are legalized, the criminal drug cartels won't go away; rather, they will produce and market far more potent forms of their drugs to keep business going. Furthermore, this causes the breakdown of government, mass destruction of civil order, and the anarchical breakdown of freedom.

Among subjectivism's great opponents was Hume's contemporary

Immanuel Kant, who was insulted by Hume's dismissal of reason and inspired to devise an ethical system grounded in reason.

Steroids and sports

In today's news (10/9/07), Olympic sprinter Marian Jones admitted to steroid use and is forfeiting her 5 olympic medals. Baseball's sluggers Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, sprinter Ben Johnson, football great Lyle Alzado, and the cheating East German Olympic teams (who were amazingly successful from the 1960's until reunification in 1989) are testimonials for the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs. Is the ban on steroids irrational? Note that athletes have been continuing to use steroids despite the rules. In the future, this technology will likely improve and eventually there will be little to no health risks. If/when steroids are safe, would a ban still make sense? What of performance enhancing drugs that improve learning, concentration, test-taking scores and overall academic performance? Is there anything wrong with students using nicotine, ritalin or aderall to write their term paper or take an exam?

--CP belongs to a barbaric age.

It is archaic and violates the sanctity of life. A better, more humane alternative exists—"life without the possibility of parole."

Pandora's Box:

It is bad enough that we allow the sale and use of alcohol and tobacco. If these had not become such a part of our culture, society would be much better off. Why make the irrevocable mistake of legalizing drugs? Once illicit drugs are legalized, we will not be able to put the genie back into the bottle.

justice, impartiality, and equality of treatment

It is necessary that our moral rules are consistent with these key principles as they are the ingredients of fairness. It is difficult to imagine actions that are good, right, wise, desirable, etc., if these actions violate or contradict the principles of benevolence, justice, impartiality and equality. (When we learn about Feminist ethics, we will encounter a strong challenge to the principle of impartiality.) Is it ethical to favor family, friends, the rich or the poor? For those who answer 'yes,' what of judges or those in positions of power? Is it permissible for them to use their power to help out a relative, a rich person, or someone who has or can do them a favor?

--CP is state sanctioned murder.

It is nothing more than society taking revenge.

Euthanasia has its etymological origins in Greek, meaning "good death."

It is the act of casing the quick or painless death, usually to relieve or avert suffering. The concept has been around since Ancient times. But nowadays, it usually refers to an easy death as an escape from some condition, usually a terminal condition that the patient feels to be intolerable. It is generally understood for purposes of the ethical debate that euthanasia is strictly limited to cases where the intention is to relieve suffering, where death is regarded as the lesser evil. The underlying presupposition is that the person is better off dead.

It is essential to remind ourselves that AA is a flawed instrument.

It raises contradictions and controversies that are irreconcilable. The major argument for AA against this charge is that it's the best plan we have. As problematic as it might be, there is no better proposal on the table. Most other proposals are implausible, unrealistic, or even more problematic. Thus, the challenge for critics of AA is to come up with a more effective response/solution to the problem of inequality. To do nothing is not a viable option—as all recognize the legacy of slavery and racism as well as the continued existence of racism.

utilitarianism's profound influence is due to the impressive talents of its founders, namely

Jeremy Bentham and James and John Stuart Mill

Many philosophical skeptics of human rights believe that

Jeremy Bentham scored a devastating knockdown punch in an early round when he declared the claims of the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" to be "nonsense upon stilts." Bentham's critique is clear and compelling. The best philosophical defenders of human rights prefer to sidestep Bentham's critique. For example, the pragmatic philosopher Richard Rorty defends a perspective of "anti-foundationalism." He deals with the problem by abandoning the effort to ground human rights philosophically. Instead of engaging in a futile debate, it is better to provide a 'sentimental education' to cultivate the emotional disposition to respect people's rights.

7. Right motives stem from doing one's Duty, i.e., "the necessity of an action executed from respect for the moral law."

Kant also writes: "The observance of a man's duty is the universal and sole condition of his worthiness to be happy." Kant draws a sharp distinction between Duty and Inclination, i.e., actions on principle and actions on impulse. With the Good Will, the correct motive is Duty for Duty's sake. This is an ultimate principle (e.g., the Christian command to love your enemy).

2. Kantian Ethics So what does Kant say, what is the formula, the Categorical Imperative? Why is it so important? Why should we appreciate it? What makes it an intellectual achievement? First, a very brief bit of background:

Kant argued that because humans possess reason and ordinary moral conscience, they have the highest moral standing, right up there with God, Angels, and rational aliens. Humans are beings of infinite worth and dignity—you are an end-in-yourself. Kant believes that ordinary moral consciousness, or conscience reveals to everyone which moral precepts are universal, necessary, and valid for all rational beings. We are all endowed with the intellectual software to figure out what morality requires. Kant held that the fundamental laws of morality are the same for every rational being, whether humans, angels, rational aliens, or God. Reason (and conscience) function the same for all of us, just as math and physics, e.g. gravity; Boyle's Law.

2. Humans are rational creatures, capable of thinking about the choices they face and selecting among them on the basis of reasons.

Kant assumes the existence of "Ordinary Moral Consciousness." Kant believes that ordinary moral consciousness, or conscience reveals to everyone which moral precepts are universal, necessary, and valid for all rational beings.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant provides us with a single principle of morality in the Categorical Imperative. By 'categorical,' he means something that applies in every category, across the board, universal. By 'imperative' he means a command, entreaty, or urgent appeal.

6. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the nature of its motive.

Kant's ethics is thus deontological and not consequentialist. Deontology takes duty as the basis for morality, and holds that some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their results. For example, if a robber puts his gun on the forehead of a blind person and says: "your money or your life!" and the shock and fear of violent death restores the blind person's sight—we cannot call that action good—even if the consequences were positive.

--Among the most fundamental of human rights is the 'right to life.'

Killing a human is violates the dignity of the human person and violates this basic right. It is simply wrong to kill. This principle is so important that it applies categorically—even bad people have a right to life.

What do the philosophers say?

Liberals are on board defending genetic engineering. Ronald Dworkin defends it against charges that we are playing God. It improves people's lives and will ultimately promote equality. A means toward individual self-fulfillment. Bioethicist John Harris challenges the traditional objections to stem-cell research, genetic engineering, designer babies, and cloning to make an ethical case for using biotechnology for improving humanity and human life. Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler see it as a means by which we replace chance and luck with choice and control, bringing natural accident under the domain of justice. They also recognize that people who use these technologies will have competitive advantages in the job market, such as less sick days and health problems.

Branches of philisophy

Logic, Metaphysics, Ethic, Epistemology, Axiology (Aesthetics)

Actual benefits:

Many people regard drugs as useful and efficacious. Fighter pilots fly on strong amphetamines, steroids do enhance the performance of athletes, artists claim that drugs make them more creative, etc. Famously, for example, Doc Ellis of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched a perfect game against the San Diego Padres on June 12, 1970, while under the influence of LSD.

Human Nature to self-medicate:

Many scholars argue that the drive to intoxicate oneself is a natural urge among mammals. Elephants and baboons love to eat fermented fruit, koalas spend their lives intoxicated on eucalyptus leaves, and lab rats, mice, guinea pigs, and even pigeons prefer cocaine to food. Lab animals consistently prefer drugs to food and even choose negative reinforcement (e.g. electric shock) if that gets them another hit.

--Life without the possibility of parole might be rendered somewhat meaningless as parole boards, governors, and the president, can issue pardons.

Moreover, convicted murderers who are imprisoned can still murder fellow prisoners and prison guards. And, the claim that our high tech, supermax prisons are escape proof is belied by the spectacular 2015 escape of Joachin "El Chapo" Guzman. Abolitionists can rightly reply that this case is the exception that proves the rule.

David Hume

Most important advocate of ethical subjectivism. He is widely considered the greatest of the British philosophers. Located foundation of ethics in our moral sentiments. "Reason is and only ought to be, a slave for the passions."

John Locke (1632-1704) and Rousseau (1712-1778) begin with the state of nature and eventually arrive at the social contract.

Neither paints as bleak a picture as Hobbes of our pre-social situation. On the contrary, both see total liberty as a great good and see harmony where Hobbes sees war.

A necessary addendum:

Never forget that there is No such thing as 'perfect justice' in this world! By that I mean to say that we can never right a wrong perfectly. We cannot turn back time.

A well known philosophical advocate of psychological egoism is Thomas Hobbes, who writes:

No man giveth but with the intention of good to himself, because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts, the object is to every man his own good; of which, if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of benevolence or trust, nor consequently of mutual help. (Leviathan, chapter 15, 1651.)

Ethical Egoism is a ___________ Theory

Normative; as it tells us what we should or should not do

--CP is 'cruel and unusual' punishment, and it is therefore unconstitutional.

Note that advocates of this position contend that lethal injection and the gas chamber are far from painless, and these are cruel and unusual just as all other techniques used for execution.

--A practical argument on how CP is outdated:

Once upon a time, societies did not have secure prisons, i.e. prisoners could escape. Now, we have incarceration refined to the point where prisons are virtually escape proof. Convicted and incarcerated, very bad criminals are no longer a threat to society. Therefore, society can no longer make the case that executing dangerous convicts is necessary to protect the public.

Arguments for legalization

One ethical controversy to focus on is the debate on the legalization of recreational drugs. For the purposes of this lecture, I will not make a distinction between drugs in general and a particular drug such as marijuana. Supporters of legalization are philosophers Michael Huemer and Thomas Szasz, and staunch conservatives such as the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley.

Accidents will happen:

People are stupid and irresponsible. While some people who enjoy the recreational use of illegal drugs are able to do so without causing severe harm to themselves and others, many users are irresponsible. In most cases, it's the wrong people using the wrong drugs for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong crowd. Operating machinery while intoxicated is a major cause of accidents. So for example, the problem is not simply one of people using marijuana in the privacy of their homes. The problem is that people often use marijuana and consequently get the munchies so they get in their cars to get their favorite foods. Further, many like to use cannabis and alcohol which makes driving far more dangerous to not only the users, but also innocent people who happen to be driving or out in public.

Anti-paternalists usually base their view on their strong commitment to freedom and autonomy.

People must take responsibility for their own actions. If informed adults still wish to participate in risky behavior, that is their choice. John Stuart Mill supported this view.

We (in the liberal societies) believe in freedom of choice

People need freedom for a number of good reasons. Objective, absolute values limit our choices and autonomy.

Bentham's followers were known as the

Philosophic Radicals, and they were dedicated to reforming the entire gamut of British institutions. They sought dramatic changes in the legal, religious, economic, educational, penal, political, and moral institutions. They were products of the "Enlightenment," who saw better ways to arrange social institutions, along secular, rational, objective, and scientific lines.

Criticisms: Hubris

Playing God

Ethics was conceived as what?

Practical knowledge about how we ought to live.

In The Virtue of Selfishness

Rand denounced altruism as enervating and for devaluing the self. She embraced Capitalism's assumption that we are all self-interested agents and that we are all better off when we each pursue our own interests as an end. This means that the more I work hard and consume smartly, the better, more productive, and more efficient our economy will be.

--CP does not accomplish anything—the victims don't come back to life.

Remember, there is no such thing as "perfect justice." It is plain wrong to claim that "justice is served" by compounding the killing (i.e., carrying out an execution).

Some philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and Thomas Scanlon, use the

SC as a criterion for determining whether a law or act of government is just or unjust, by reflecting on if we can assume the consent of the governed.

Applied ethics:

Since the 1960's, the study of ethics as 'ethical theory' has expanded to include applying ethical analysis into matters of professional ethics (e.g., how lawyers, doctors, journalists, military personnel do their jobs) and practical matters (e.g., environmental ethics, animal warfare, technology, social policy). Focus of applied ethics is how moral thinking sheds light on our actual practical problems.

--It is society's way of declaring murder (and other crimes perhaps, such as treason) as beyond the pale or evil.

So terrible is premeditated, violent murder, that it violates all civilized morality. It is an offence not just to victims and their loved ones, but to society as a whole. It violates the social contract.

Stemming from ethics are:

Social & political philosophy and jurisprudence (philosophy of law)

Ethical Skepticism

Some people are skeptical about ethics altogether and doubt that there is a truly universal moral system and that moral claims can be true when they amount to matters of opinion or taste. Moral judgments are likened to aesthetic judgments—where personal opinions or cultural conditioning preclude universal facts about rightness or wrongness; wisdom or foolishness, etc. Descriptive [factual] claims can be claimed as 'true,' whereas normative [value judgment] claims cannot.

NLT remains popular in Catholic theology, particularly the versions espoused by

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

A.J. Ayers & Bertrand Russell

Supporters of Ethical relativism in 20th century

Some Arguments For AA:

The benefits of AA policies include providing opportunity to those who lack it. Whereas many young people can benefit from the high socio-economic status (SES) of their parents, those who come from low SES backgrounds are at a disadvantage. Moreover, they also lack access to the 'old boys network' (i.e. benefiting from connections) to help them get 'their foot in the door.' AA provides young people with role models and hope, which can motivate them to aim high to achieve their goals. AA helps enrich an educational or work environment by facilitating diversity. We can all gain from our encounter with different perspectives and ideas. An argument for AA contends that it will lead to positive consequences when minority professionals can return to serve their respective communities (e.g., Compton and the South Bronx need doctors and lawyers, whereas Beverly Hills does not). There is no disputing the fact that a significant consequence is the dramatic rise of an African American middle class. Similarly, it is in society's interest to do what it can to provide opportunities that will reduce the numbers of people who are unemployed, on welfare, incarcerated, etc. It is far wiser and economical to invest in human capital rather than pay for those who are unsuccessful. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a moral dimension to AA. It is a case of both compensatory and distributive justice. It is right that society and the government take steps to acknowledge past wrongs. AA is a necessary step in the direction of a better, fairer society. To put this perspective more strongly, AA is a minimal step that society can take to help new generations overcome our unfortunate past.

two variations of normative relativism

The first justifies adherence to local standards. What is right is relative to the group. We ought to do what is right. Therefore, "when if Rome, do as the Romans do." The other variation is more individual centered. Recognizing there are no moral absolutes, that it's all subjective, one should follow one's own lights. As Flannery O'Connor (the great writer from Milledgeville, GA) said: "When in Rome, do as they do in Milledgeville. In other words, 'to thine own self be true.' Note that this variation would justify both an individual's moral sense of modesty to keep bathing suit on when in Germany, and a French woman's decision to go topless at Wrightsville Beach.

--Governments and gangs and the social groupings in between (i.e., tribes, kings, aristocrats, generals, the masses) have historically abused CP to eliminate political opponents, petty criminals and all manner of people who do not deserve such a severe punishment.

The power to execute is often abused. This is all the more reason for the U.S. to get on board with the other liberal democracies. We should set the example, that it is better to do away with CP, than to support an institution that is so easily abused by the powerful all over the world and throughout history.

Criticism

The principles developed by Kant are not without problems. One of the biggest problems comes directly from Kant, who argues that we should never lie. As a general rule, not lying is a perfectly ethical principle. We depend on trust in our relationships, education, purchases, business transactions, etc. However, what if saving someone's life requires lying? Whereas I would be prepared rationally to universalize lying in order to save an innocent person's life, Kant does not see it this way. This is widely discussed, so I won't dwell on this here. Note that Kant is obsessed with doing the right thing for the right reason. If you act from proper motives, then you ought not to be concerned with the consequences. It is as if the consequences in the phenomenal world are not as important as doing your duty, i.e., doing the right thing for the right reason. Another problem stems from the simple fact that people will not necessarily understand or frame the moral issues involved the same way. For example, if I own a company and I have a job opening, I might decide to hire my cousin. If asked what maxim I am willing to universalize, I tell you: love of family, take care of your own, charity (and favors) begin at home. Besides, as the 'boss,' I prefer to hire my cousin because I trust her. However, some will argue that the maxim in play here should be merit, and point out that the right thing to do would be to hire the most qualified person, rather than irrationally, selfishly sanctioning nepotism. Does a general principle of impartiality make favoritism unfair in such a case? Similarly, some will argue that the right thing to do would be to consider diversity in the hiring process. A vision of 'social justice' might call for considering gender or ethnicity as most relevant in the hiring process. I bring up these examples to illustrate that reason might not be the same for us all. We do not weigh the various factors the same way, or agree what consistency, universalizability and reason all require. There might not be only one right answer. (Most Kantians will dig in and insist that only one maxim is correct, and the others are mistaken.)

Natural Law Theory

The problems of DCT have led some thinkers to embrace another approach to religious based ethics. NLT regards morality to be grounded in reason. It is objective and universal, unchanging and eternal, and discoverable through the proper use of human reason. Instead of actions being morally right simply because God commands them, Natural Law Theory holds that God commands actions because they are morally right beforehand and independently. (Please note that some religious thinkers embrace both DCT and NLT. They contend that God's will is of course compatible with universal reason.)

--There is ample evidence showing the applications of CP are unfair, in that poor people are disproportionately executed in greater numbers than those who can afford good lawyers.

The rich are able to benefit immeasurably from good legal representation (e.g., Leopold & Loeb, O.J. Simpson). Even the 6th Amendment 'right to an attorney,' established in the 1962 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright falls far short of fair legal representation. An overworked public defender is usually no match for a high priced criminal defense lawyer.

Deontology

The term comes from the Greek deon meaning "one must," i.e., duty, or the obligatory. Deontology stresses that we do what is 'right.' It is an ethics based on duty, as opposed to ethical systems based on the idea of achieving some good state of affairs (i.e., consequentialism) or the qualities of character necessary to live well (i.e., virtue ethics).

--The abolitionists' claim that CP is 'state sponsored murder' is offensive. It blurs the distinction between 'murder' and 'homicide.'

There is no moral equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim. If CP is 'state sponsored murder,' then, by the same token, imprisonment can be considered to be 'state sponsored kidnapping.'

moral absolutism

There is one right answer, and with the careful use of reason, we are equipped to find it.

1. Nature is entirely impersonal and nonmoral

Therefore, we must look for the realm of morals outside of nature. As beautiful and inspiring as nature is, it is also violent and cruel. It is not a model for ethical guidance. The ocean, the weather, the mountains, the dessert, the wildlife do not care one whit if you are a good person, if you've said your prayers, if you're famous, or if you are evil.

Both Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have been profoundly influential.

They are still endlessly discussed, criticized, defended, refined, and applied in not only the ethics literature, but also the other branches of philosophy, as well as politics, economics, medicine, law, sociology, criminal justice, psychology, etc. Interestingly, despite their profound influence and importance, there are actually very few adherents to these systems

The Categorical Imperative

This is in contrast to a hypothetical imperative, where an action is valued as a means to some other end. Categorical duties exist under all possible circumstances whereas hypothetical duties exist merely under certain specifiable conditions, when a certain hypothesis is true. E.g., if you want to do well on the midterm, then you should study; if you want to visit the UNCW campus, then travel to Wilmington. The most famous formulation of the Categorical Imperative is: "Act only according to that maxim, by which, you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

--Moreover, there are numerous cases where mistakes were made and innocent people were executed.

This powerful argument is buttressed by the addition of DNA evidence into criminology in 1989. Over 350 people were exonerated thanks to this relatively new technology—and 20 of them were on death row.

The operative principle here is: ought implies can

This principle suggests that if we set the moral bar too high, beyond the limits of human nature, then we are setting people up for moral failure.

In the 18th century, philosophers

Thomas Jefferson and Immanuel Kant also appeal to their own versions of NLT.

Foundations of Ethics—What are the sources of Authority?

To explain this, I draw a helpful distinction between traditional, religion based, theistic foundations, and secular, human designed sources of authority. In Theistic ethics (which form the basis of ethics for the vast majority of people) some sources of authority might be clergy, scripture, prophets, or God. Ethical directives coming from such sources often claim to rest on a rock solid foundation, and are usually absolute, crystal clear, and leave little room for argument. (For philosophers, this is bad for business!) Theistic ethics has a ready answer for the key question of Why should I obey? When we argue with God, guess who wins every time? (From the secular point of view, there are good reasons to challenge religious claims to authority.) In Secular ethics (which is the dominant approach in the academic world) the sources can be anything ranging from whatever has the best reasons, common sense, experience, expedience, law and precedents, government policy, public opinion, the wisdom of the elders, our own conscience or emotions, etc. (Needless to say, some of these sources are problematic.) Secular ethics has an advantage when it comes to making changes and updates. After all, if the rules are of human origin, we humans can reconsider what previous generations decided upon.

. Bentham's Utilitarianism also incorporates

Universalism

Man, Superman, and Spiderman:

Unlike comic book hero Superman, Spiderman, or Neo and Morpheus of "The Matrix" allow us to imagine enhancement possibilities that actually exist. We all want to be experts at things, especially if we don't have to do all the work it entails! Downloading the skill set sure beats years of hard work and practice. The pure good of prosthesis, artificial limbs, robotic parts, bionics: great strides have been made in rehabilitating people who have lost limbs, hearing, etc.

Regarding the first formulation, the general idea is that you must always act as if you are the moral exemplar, setting the example, establishing the standard that any rational being would also do in the same situation. In other words, as a being of infinite worth and dignity, you must hold yourself as such.

Use your reason to understand the moral issues in play, and follow your reason by establishing the maxim (i.e., the general rule or fundamental principle) that all should emulate.

Neuro-scientist study

Using brain scanning tech, some report our emotional reactions come before assessment of a moral decision, pointing to subjectivism.

Normative statements are arguments that express what?

Value Judgments

We live in an age of intellectual uncertainty.

Values are not science, and even scientific beliefs are proven false. (I remember when Pluto was a planet, sunshine was good for you, and among the healthiest foods were milk, cheese, eggs, and red meat. I also remember when coffee was an addictive drug and I now celebrate the latest scientific research which finds that coffee is super rich in anti-oxidants and therefore healthy.) The ramification of human fallibility is that it is wiser to be humble rather than cocksure.

Some variants of euthanasia:

Voluntary active: the doctor deliberately acts to cause death at the patient's request (e.g. Dr. Kevorkian). (This would also apply to the badly wounded soldier, who begs for the coup de grace.) Voluntary passive: the doctor, at the patient's request, suspends treatment, which hastens the patient's death. Involuntary active: death is caused by actions taken without reference to the patient's wishes. Involuntary passive: death is caused by omissions or withholding of treatment carried out without reference to the patient's wishes. In the last two cases, the defensive argument may be made that such action was taken in the patient's interest or to reduce the patient's suffering. Arguments for and against often parallel the debate over the ethics of suicide.

--Rights Forfeiture:

We all have a right to life (as opponents of capital punishment and abortion point out), and this is the most basic of human rights. However, those who violate this most basic human right of their victims—who break this most basic premise of the social contract by committing premeditated murder—forfeit their own right to life. Although the forfeiture argument has come under attack, some advocates make a strong case for it.

one good argument for relativism is the lack of a plausible alternative.

We clearly lack a set of moral values that everyone accepts, or that everyone (if they were indeed rational and appreciated our own culture) could plausibly accept. Even within our own culture, and even among ethicists there is little agreement on fundamental moral values. Ethics lacks consensus (unlike science and medicine), and there is none that we can expect for the foreseeable future.

3. Some Criticisms (deontology)

We don't reason the same. Even if there is one right way to assess a given moral evaluation, we don't know which version is the one. People will not necessarily understand or frame the moral issues involved the same way. For example, if I own a company and I have a job opening, I might decide to hire my cousin. If asked what maxim I am willing to universalize, I tell you: love of family, take care of your own, charity (and favors) begin at home. You, on the other hand, might point out that the right thing to do would be to hire the most qualified person, rather than irrationally sanctioning nepotism. Does a general principle of impartiality make favoritism or love of family unfair in such a case? Does the size of my company matter? It is not clear that reason is the same for us all. We do not weigh the various factors the same way, or agree what consistency requires. There might not be only one right answer.

A deontologist would tell us not to emphasize happiness and certainly not to emphasize consequences. Instead, we must emphasize duty, i.e. doing what we define as 'right.'

We need to do our duty for the sake of duty: to do the right thing for the right reason. This calls for taking into account the motives or intentions of the agent.

Kant gives us 3 versions. Interestingly, your Onora O'Neill reading goes into the 2nd formulation: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

We need to respect ourselves as well as other persons. As rational beings of infinite worth and dignity, humans have a special moral status and standing. It is wrong to exploit them and often implies rational consent to your actions from those affected by it. Rational consent requires good information, so we must be honest with others.

Reproductive technology and Cloning:

Well established and achieved some notable headlines: 1978, embryologists Robert Edwards and surgeon Patrick Steptoe enable a fertilized human egg outside a body. Louise Brown, the first 'test-tube baby.' When this technology was first announced is was received by some with alarm and panic. (Would baby Louise have a soul? Is she a full fledged human?) Now in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and related reproductive/fertility technologies have enabled infertile couples to have children. Technology enables men with low sperm counts to father children via ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection); enables aging women to gestate an embryo by using a young donor's oocyte. The number of twins born in the US since1980 increased by over 75%. The numbers of triplets, quadruplets are also way up.

In Virtue Ethics the key question to attend to is:

What kind of person should I be? This is in contrast to the traditional normative question of What ought I to do? The focus is on Character, rather than action.

Bentham develops his felicific calculus or hedonic calculus.

When faced with a decision, an individual or legislator can estimate the associated pains and pleasures involved using Bentham's 7 part scale. For Bentham pleasures amount to the same thing—they do not differ in quality. Thus, the pleasure one gets from reading philosophy is comparable to the pleasure of a good massage. Where they differ is captured by his hedonic calculus.

Example of Prohibition:

When the Federal Government enacted the 18th amendment to ban the sale and use of alcohol, it was an unmitigated disaster. It undermined the rule of law and brought in the heyday of organized crime. Just as prohibition not only failed and made matters much worse, the 'war on drugs' is a dismal failure.

The status quo is acceptable:

While illegal drugs are a problem, it is a problem that is (somewhat) under control—there is no need to surrender in the war on drugs. Two weak (and misinformed) arguments that stem from this position are that crime and addiction are problems of the underclass. In other words, some regard the problems to be on the margins of society and not in the mainstream. They do not recognize the extent of the problem. Another argument for the status quo—which parallels the anti-paternalist argument is that if drug users overdose, get sick, drop out, or otherwise fail, then that is their problem. From a moral point of view, one can certainly criticize this argument as callous. This also applies to past policies of spraying cannabis plants in Mexico with paraquat week killer. This resulted in marijuana users having severe lung damage from smoking or ingesting poisonous pot.

--The argument that CP constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is a giant stretch.

Without question, the founding fathers who used this phrase in the 8th Amendment did not regard CP as cruel or unusual—the Constitution allowed the death penalty. Moreover, such techniques as lethal injection or lethal gas are quite far removed from tortuous, protracted, pain-maximizing techniques.

The Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle demands that:

You should always choose the course of action that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Traditionally philosophers approached the study of ethics from what point of view?

a normative point of view

Carol Gilligan

a student of Kohlberg at Harvard's Graduate School of Education came upon a surprising discovery when she analyzed her own data generated from using Kohlberg's 6 stage model in her research. She recognized that, in general, girls assess ethical dilemmas differently from boys; and, she was prepared to argue that the feminine approach was not adequately evaluated on Kohlberg's scale. Whereas men emphasize impartial, objective rule following, the feminine approach emphasizes relationships, community, caring, and bonding with family, friends, and others from their communities.

Lawrence Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, and Sigmund Freud

achieved fame and prominence with his theory of six stages of moral development. (This is already explained in Rachel's Elements of Moral Philosophy, and Hinman's Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach.) He followed in the footsteps of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget's four stages of childhood cognitive development (sensory motor; preoperational, concrete operations, and formal operations). Piaget followed in the footsteps of the highly influential (but very unscientific and outdated) Sigmund Freud's stages of psychosexual development (oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital).

Benevolence

all of our ethical obligations presuppose a principle of benevolence. That is, we have an obligation to do good and prevent harm. If not our particular actions, then at least our rules must have some bearing on increasing good and decreasing evil.

I'll define "Affirmative Action" as:

an active effort to improve the educational, training, financial aid, and employment opportunities of members of minority groups (although in some cases majority groups) and women. Among other terms used to describe AA, are 'reverse discrimination' and 'preferential treatment.'

Normative Ethics:

an approach to ethical theory focused on identifying which kinds of actions are good or bad, right or wrong, examining the plausibility of various moral rules, and determining which character traits qualify as virtues or vices.

Divine command theory

an ethical theory that contends that morality depends upon the will of God as promulgated by divine commands. Hence, it holds that which is 'morally right' is a matter of being commanded by God and 'morally wrong' is a matter of being forbidden by God. In other words, whatever is commanded is morally obligatory, and whatever is forbidden is morally wrong.

-- It is certainly true, that historically CP has been used to eliminate opposition, dissent, petty criminals, and innocents--

and that this is commonplace in dictatorships to this day. However, the relevant debate pertains to the U.S. (and NC) legal systems.

Early modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

appeal to NLT to support their views

Natural rights

are a class of moral rights that originate in nature; that is to say, they are not of human origin. Historically, its advocates believed that natural rights stem from God, which contributes to its supernatural-like power to trump other claims. Many contemporary advocates of natural rights and/or human rights base it on their understanding of human nature. These rights are not contingent on laws, social customs, or privileged status. Proponents of natural rights usually invoke reason as the means by which we discover our true nature. They assume that reason (like God's Will, mathematics, the laws of physics), is objective, universal, and absolute.

Moral rights

are derived from moral rules and principles. They stem from the accepted values of a particular community or culture. More generally, they stem from moral reasons—from justified or shared norms. They can pertain to anyone in a particular situation or to everyone everywhere.

Legal rights

are derived from the constitution, laws, or legislative authority of a given state or sovereign, which acknowledge their responsibility as rights providers. Generally, legal rights are limited to those in a particular jurisdiction. A corollary of this is that such rights are not universal.

Virtues

are those strengths or excellences of character that promote human flourishing.

Vices

are those weaknesses of character that impede flourishing.

John L. Mackie

argues it is erroneous to think that there are objective moral facts, but there are good reasons to take ethics seriously. Ethics can supplement and compliment our limited sense of sympathy for others. Increases in sympathy leads to a better society.

Bentham hated the

aristocracy, which had long ago set up British institutions to favor their own interests. Although radical in their day, the agenda of the philosophic radicals seems quite reasonable by today's standards. They opposed the legal and taxation privileges of the aristocracy, packing juries, the established church, colonial conquest, and supported universal suffrage, secret ballot, more humane prisons, usury, a league of nations, and other progressive reforms.

An ethical person's will is

autonomous, self-imposed from within, transcends the phenomenal world.

We all can discover the moral law within; and for this reason it is only appropriate for us to be

autonomous, that is self-ruling.

CD works best when

bad (immoral) laws are violated publicly, not in private (For simply disobeying a law behind closed doors does not stimulate public debate or moral 'soul searching.') CD should be a way of making a public statement that a law is wrong.

Surgical techniques

breakthrough of arthroscopic techniques (far less invasive), in-utero (surgery on a fetus), and now a new generation of arthroscopic techniques with far greater 'articulation' enable the surgeon to operate from the other side of the planet. (i.e., the patient can be in NC and the surgeon can perform the operation in India.) Stem cell research, transplants are also revolutionizing our potential to live much longer with a higher quality of life.

Genetic engineering

can alter life forms via the manipulation of genes. This goes way beyond cross breeding, animal husbandry, and grafting, which humans have been doing to plants and domestic animals for millennia. It allows genes from very different species to be combined. For example, genes from fish can improve tomatoes (so that they can grow in colder weather), genes from plants can improve human skin). The greatest controversies entail applications to human beings.

Eudaimonia

can be translated as human happiness, including flourishing and well being. Flourishing can refer to function—as when something does what it is designed to do. Flourishing can also refer to uniqueness or the exercise of unique properties. Because humans are distinguished by their ability to reason, a good human is someone who reasons well and lives a life of contemplative excellence.

Instead of emphasizing action, virtue ethics emphasizes

character development. Right being is more fundamental than right action. If we can cultivate good moral character, and habituate ourselves to be good people, we will routinely do the right thing. Thus, we should act like a virtuous person would in a given situation. On many interpretations, virtue ethics complements theories of right action.

For ethical statements or principles to be tenable, they must pass the tests of

consistency and generality.

Like Ethical relativism, subjectivism can lead to what?

contradictory persepctives. EX: meat eater from mexico is right to eat beef, but hindus and vegans are right not to.

The basic idea of the social contract is a

covenant

Meta-Ethics

deals primarily with the meaning of ethical terms, the language of morals. It asks semantic questions about the terminology of ethics. It serves as a systematic inquiry which aims to formulate precisely the correct method for justifying normative statements or opinions. Meta-Ethics dominated work of analytical philosophers during 20th century. Rationale behind it is that unless and until we are quite clear on the meaning of our terms, chance for miscommunication is high.

epistemology

deals with evaluating knowledge claims

Metaphysics

deals with questions of being and existence

axiology

deals with questions of value (ethics and aesthetics)

In other words, utilitarianism gives us a

decision procedure for arriving at the right thing to do. This goes much farther than ethical egoism, subjectivism, absolutism, ethical relativism, etc. They make claims on how we should understand the nature of morality, but they don't give us substantive guidance on what we should do as a general rule.

Altruism

defined as genuinely disinterested acts of benevolence. Altruistic actions are performed purely for the sake of others. The term was coined by the 19th century French social theorist Auguste Comte, who saw it as the eradication of self interested desire and as a devotion to others and society.

Meta-ethical relativism

denies that there is always one correct moral evaluation (a negation of absolutism). In the case of basic ethical or value judgments, there is no objectively valid rational way of justifying one against the other. Therefore, two conflicting basic judgments will be equally valid.

Psychological Hedonism

descriptive and holds that humans are constituted by nature to always pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Bentham considers this an iron-clad fact of human nature, a law that determines all of our behavior.

Ayn Rand

did not accept psychological egoism, but was an outspoken advocate of ethical egoism. She thought that the world would be a much better place if people were not guided by altruism, communism, or other misguided ideas. Ayn Rand wrote the book with an exemplary title: The Virtue of Selfishness.

The difference between active and passive corresponds to the

distinction between actually intending and causing the death of the patient vs. pursuing other goals on behalf of the patient, such as relieving pain and suffering with the expectation that the patient will die more quickly.

A deontologist would tell us not to emphasize happiness and certainly not to emphasize consequences. Instead, we must emphasize ____________________

duty, i.e. doing what we define as 'right.'

The vastly influential Aristotle of Stagira (384-322 B.C.E.) is considered the

father of the ethics of virtue as a path toward developing our moral character.

The categorical imperative guides us to

follow the maxim that we can will that it should be a universal law—that we exemplify what everyone should do in such a situation.

SC theorists posit the state of nature

for which we must consider the human condition prior to organized society.

Logic

formal principles of reasoning; science of evaluating arguments

Ethical Nihilism

goes much further than moral skepticism. Nihilism dismisses all moral claims as meaningless. It is likened to moral anarchy. It is similar to skepticism (which doubts universal moral claims) but more severe in that it precludes the possibility that we can ever find a basis for moral claims. It is similar to subjectivism in claiming that ethical beliefs are nothing more than expressions of the subjective feelings, preferences, or choices of the people who endorse them.

An unethical person's will is

heteronomous, determined from external factors. Thus, a religious follower is not ethical, because morality must come from within.

Although science and technology got off to a slow start,

historically speaking, this is no longer the case. The steady, methodical, march has now snowballed into an avalanche.

Cultural relativism

holds that different people do things differently, and thus moral evaluation cannot be separated from the beliefs and practices of a particular culture.

Universalism

holds that everyone's happiness counts equally.

Ethical subjectivism

holds that moral judgments are feeling responses of individuals.

Subjectivism

holds that moral judgments are feeling-responses of individuals. In other words, our moral sense is derived by our feelings. For many philosophers, this feels bad, because we like to think that our moral sense is based on reason. So subjectivist claims sharply contrast with the Objectivist claim that moral judgments can be rationally defensible, true or false, and that ethical values exist independently of the feelings of individuals at particular times.

Ethical objectivism

holds that moral truths are independent of the person making the claim, and the time and place in which he or she makes the claim. One can regard objectivism as the denial of ethical relativism, in that it maintains that there are transcultural standards that have objective validity—that are valid regardless of what individuals, groups, or societies happen to believe. Professional philosophers are often engaged in finding those objective standards. If the extreme versions of ethical relativism are true, then attempting to come up with objective standards is largely irrelevant, if not hopeless.

Ethical Egoism

holds that one ought to pursue self interest (or one's own well being) as an end it itself. It requires us to look after our own interests.

Ethical Absolutism

holds that there is one (and only one) correct moral evaluation for any ethical question. Absolutism contends that some moral rules are binding on everyone, regardless of culture. It negates consequentialism, because it regards certain kinds of actions as always wrong or always obligatory, whatever the consequences. Note that one can be an absolutist and still accept descriptive ethical relativism—which does not require that one take a stand, but only that one recognizes that people differ in their values.

Consequentialist

holds that we evaluate an action by examining its results

"Distributive Justice"

holds when the benefits and burdens of society are distributed fairly among the population. The benefits of living in the U.S. are numerous, but a short list could include free public education, museums, concerts, national parks; freedom to travel and leave the country with your money; the best doctors, universities, the rule of law, civil liberties, and of course, cutting edge popular culture that is so widely embraced internationally that it is resented as a competitive threat by many traditional conservatives (e.g. Islamists and other religious fundamentalists, the French). The burdens are: military service, jury duty, and paying taxes. Are these distributed fairly? Certainly a strong case can be made that the burdens are not distributed fairly.

"Procedural Justice"

holds when the rules are followed and applied fairly. A corresponding principle here is that 'you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.' An example would be if you seek to get your grade changed. If so, you must consult your UNCW Student Handbook which lays out the step by step procedures that you (and your instructor) must follow. If you, your professor, and the administration follow the preexisting procedures, whatever the outcome, we say that justice has been served. A major event where issues of procedural justice were in the spotlight was the 2000 presidential election. The key factor was, What were the procedures for counting ballots, invalidating ballots, conducting recounts, etc. in the state of Florida?

The main focus of normative ethics is

how we should act. Identifying what is the Good, and what we ought to do are key questions that most of what we have studied thus far are addressing.

Quality control:

if drugs were legalized they would be regulated, much like alcohol and tobacco. This would make drugs safer by eliminating bad drugs, tainted drugs, and unknown levels of potency (which are a major cause of fatal overdoses).

The future of technology has a major problem:

in many ways we are opening the door to inevitable, unforeseen consequences. Pandora's box. Inevitably, many new technologies are not driven by the improvement of humanity, enhancing the quality of life (e.g., medical research, communications) but instead will be driven by money, greedy get-rich-quick schemes.

We have equality of need

in that we all need the same things (e.g. food, shelter) for our survival and must fend for ourselves in a world characterized by scarcity and competition. In the attempt to satisfy our self-interested desires, people will inevitably clash.

Analogy of explosives:

invention of gunpowder, to high explosives, to the Atom bomb, to thermonuclear missiles. Admit it, we learned to live with the bomb. Analogy of Cold War (for my students who are too young to remember it): the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" was the status quo. The Soviets had ready to launch nuclear missiles aimed at our cities and strategic sites from the land, sea, and air at all times. We had the USSR in our sights as well. It was as if someone had a loaded-cocked gun pointed at your head, and you have a gun pointed at their head at all times. But life went on.

Civil Disobedience

is defined as nonviolent, passive resistance, conscientious refusal to follow immoral laws. CD is characterized by gratuitous acts undertaken in defiance of Law for the purpose of rendering such Law ineffective. It makes a distinction between that which is legal and that which is moral.

Ethical relativism, or descriptive ethical relativism

is distinct from cultural relativism in that the values or ethical principles of individuals or groups differ and conflict in a fundamental way. This goes beyond saying that the ethical practices of different people are different. (That's just the same as cultural relativism. That people differ in terms of their practices and beliefs is obvious and beyond dispute.) For ethical relativism to hold, the reasons behind the different practices must clash.

Ethical Hedonism

is normative, and holds people should always pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

Hedonism

is the belief that pleasure is the good, and pain is the bad.

Supererogation

is the ethics of exceptional goodness and heroism, i.e., going above and beyond what duty requires.

Psychological egoism

is the view that people are so constituted by their nature that they always pursue self-interest (or well-being) as an end in itself.

Among the chief arguments against euthanasia is the sanctity of life:

it is not for us humans to take over the role of God by taking human life. As intelligent as we might be, we are not qualified to decide when a person is better off dead. Furthermore, as the permissible reasons to use euthanasia expand, the possibilities of abuse and violations expand as well. Many fear the widespread use of euthanasia will lead to situations whereby the elderly are pressured to (and made to feel guilty if they do not) go quickly and quietly rather than hang on and experience the natural process of death. There are also possibilities of misdiagnosis and new possibilities for recovery. At one time, to be HIV positive meant the inevitability of AIDS and death. Now, there are medications that enable people with HIV to continue living active, normal lives. (e.g. Magic Johnson).

Nonviolence is superior to violence because

it takes the moral high ground and places the moral burden on the upholders of the law.

Similarly, built into the concept of being ethical are

justice, impartiality, and equality of treatment

Examples of government paternalism are legion:

legislation that you need to wear seatbelts when riding in a car or helmets when riding a motorcycle; courts allowing physicians to give Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusions (against their will); forcing workers to put a percentage of their paychecks into social security (which assumes that workers will not be responsible enough to provide for their retirement); not allowing people to swim without a lifeguard on duty; requiring warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, insecticides, detergents, etc.; and prohibiting the use of recreational drugs.

Criticisms: Infeasibility

many futurist predictions simply don't become reality.

Philosophical supporters of DCT include

medieval Franciscans John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, Ockham's disciples Pierre D'Ailly, Jean de Gerson, and Gabriel Biel; Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin; and British philosophers/theologians John Locke, George Berkeley, and William Paley. In the 19th century, Danish philosopher Sǿren Kierkegaard argued for this theory, as does 20th century philosopher, Robert M. Adams.

--CP is irreversible. Therefore we need to guard against making mistakes. To repeat:

mistakes do happen. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, from 1973 to 2009, 139 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were innocent.

The Social Contract is a

model that some prominent philosophers have used to justify the state and adherence to law and social rules

We need to do our duty for the sake of duty: to do the right thing for the right reason. This calls for taking into account the ____________________________

motives or intentions of the agent.

By "emerging/converging technologies," I mean

nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, information technology, cognitive science, and robotics.

The English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) contends that

none of us want to live in perfect freedom. Even if I can do whatever I please, others can as well, and this makes the state of nature hellacious: characterized by violence, danger, fear, and uncertainty.

Reduce crime:

not only would what constitutes a crime be redefined, addicts would also have much less incentive to steal and commit crimes to get their drugs. Legal drugs are far less expensive to attain than illegal drugs.

Active euthanasia

occurs when a deliberate act such as a lethal injection or a lethal dose of pills results in the patient's death. It requires that someone, preferably the patient herself, takes positive steps to kill. This killing is morally equivalent to assisting suicide (when carried out by another person), and to suicide (when carried out by the patient himself).

Involuntary euthanasia

occurs when death is a result of actions carried out without consent, or is imposed, or where no voluntariness exists, such as with patients in a permanent vegetative state. Non-voluntary euthanasia entails causing death to someone deemed incompetent with the consent of someone else, e.g., adult children, parents, spouses. It is often the case that candidates for mercy killing are in no shape to make decisions for themselves, so the decision would then fall to the next of kin. The distinction between involuntary and non-voluntary is of great significance. In most cases, we trust our next of kin to decide for us. However, there are instances where the next of kin is very anxious to avoid the costs of long term life support and get their inheritance as quickly as possible.

Passive euthanasia

occurs when death results from a deliberate omission of life sustaining measures, e.g., withholding of life-supporting care or treatment, such as antibiotics, nutrition, hydration, or mechanical life-support. Here, the idea is to let nature take its course and to let die.

Voluntary Euthanasia

occurs when the patient freely chooses and may ask a doctor to administer a lethal injection or withhold life support to hasten death. For example, a patient who is suffering from a terminal condition or even someone who anticipates a protracted, degenerative illness that would make her incompetent and dependent on others. For example a person with Alzheimer's might prefer to terminate before she became so senile that she would not recognize her own children or even know who she is; or so infantile that she no longer knew enough to use a toilet. (Voluntary euthanasia could also apply for a mortally wounded comrade on the battlefield, i.e., a coup de grace.) The key ingredient to voluntary euthanasia is the patient's consent.

Emotivism

one can deny moral judgments are true or false at all, arguing instead they disguised commands or expressions of attitude. i.e., ethical judgments are simply expressions of our positive & negative attitudes.

The dynamic tension between technology and ethics (esp. religious ethics) was such that

over time, changes occurred, technologies developed and progress happened. In many cases, technology brought us great improvements (e.g., medicine, the printing press). In some cases, technology brought terrible consequences, foreseen and unforeseen (e.g., explosives, pollution)

Before there was a social collective with rules and authority, humans existed in a state of

perfect, total freedom. All laws, by definition, are restrictions on our liberty. Thus, before there were laws, we were completely free.

A moral component of CD is that

perpetrators must be willing to face the consequences. The penalty for breaking the law publicly can lead to beatings, arrest, and prison time.

Normative ethical relativism

posits a highly contradictory position. It is the doctrine that it is morally wrong to pass judgment on or to interfere with the moral practices of others who have adopted ethical practices different from one's own. It asserts that something is wrong or blameworthy if some person (or group) thinks it is wrong or blameworthy.

Traditionally, philosophers define 'rights' as

protections, forbearances, or entitlements that individuals and groups hold against others (usually the state, community, or majority), who in turn have a corresponding obligation to allow or enable the rights holders to exercise their rights. Real rights are to be respected, and we are supposed to uphold the rights of others.

Hobbes believes that people are driven by self-interest and he also believes in the universality of reason. Thus, he believes in

psychological and ethical egoism as well as natural law.

Bentham believes in both

psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism

consent-based theories

remain popular, and the SC model is the best known among them. [Note that to this day, your actual consent (e.g. signature) is crucial for making an agreement legally binding. For this reason, you should always be very careful and read whatever you sign your name to.]

--It is a simple matter of

retributive justice (i.e., punishment for wrongdoing).

"Compensatory Justice"

seeks to achieve justice via compensation, i.e., payment for wrongdoing (e.g., lawsuits and civil cases).

"Retributive Justice"

sees justice as retribution for wrongdoing (e.g., a person who commits a crime must be punished). Punishment will vary in different cultures, but in the American legal system, criminal courts make offenders serve time in jail. In the most extreme cases there is capital punishment.

Regarding this formulation, the general idea is that you must always act as if you are the moral exemplar

setting the example, establishing the standard that any rational being would also do in the same situation. In other words, as a being of infinite worth and dignity, you must hold yourself as such.

When we examine these histories, here's what we find. Technology used to move

slower than a snail's pace. According to evolutionary theory, humans were hunter-gatherers for some 85,000 years. And before we became human we were primates of some sort for some 2-3 million years.

Criticisms: Eugenics—

social Darwinism, master race theories, and WWII all over again. Post human caste warfare.

Bentham was a

social activist with an ambitious forward looking agenda. He attracted many of the best minds in Britain to his causes

Less users and addicts:

some argue that if drugs were legalized, their mystique and allure would diminish. Pushers would not have the same incentive to bring users into their orbit. [I regard this as a poor argument. If drugs were legalized, they would be cheaper, more readily available, and hence there would likely be more users and more addicts.]

but Utilitarianism is no more

supererogatory than other moral systems

There has always been a dynamic interplay with

technology and ethics.

the founding father of Utilitarianism is

the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

"Racism" is defined as:

the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. It is often taken to mean racial prejudice or discrimination by the dominant group, and usually entails utilizing the institutions of society (e.g., legal, political, educational, cultural) for support.

5. Nothing is intrinsically good except a Good Will, i.e.,

the disposition to do good for the right reason; a will that habitually wills right. Everything else is only relatively good. It has moral worth only so far as it assists the Good Will. Kant tries to show this by taking other alleged intrinsic goods (such as health, wealth, intelligence) to show that they can be worthless or even evil when not combined with the good will. Intelligence or wealth or strength and vigor in the service of someone lacking a good will can be a bad, destructive thing.

Aristotle argues:

the goal of ethics is not knowledgeable but practice

The most important advocate of ethical subjectivism was

the great Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). Hume is widely considered the greatest of the British philosophers. He located the foundation of ethics in our moral sentiments--our feelings of sympathy for others.

Paternalism is defined as:

the interference with a person's liberty for his or her own good.

Eudaimonia can also be understood as

the sort of happiness that one attains from a lifetime of living well. It is a lifelong pursuit.

Welfarism

the view which assigns to the state the function of looking after the well-being or welfare of its people. The general idea is that the government (i.e., the state) is by far the best institution to provide for the general welfare. The poor countries of the world might provide for grade school education and some level of higher education and medical care in some places (e.g. urban centers), but it is the liberal democracies that have built up welfarism as the proper responsibility of government.

Locke does recognize an inconvenience in the state of nature because

there is little to stop the strong from taking the property of the weak. We therefore need a government to protect private property and prevent abuses of power.

Descriptive empirical inquiry:

this approach concerns historical, sociological, anthropological, and psychological explanations of our (or some other groups) system of moral behavior. EX: study of ancient spartan society (how people get along, resolved disputes, dealt with trouble makers, supported the needy, treated animals and the environment). This approach is of little interest to philosophers as it deals with the world as it is (fact).

Criticisms: Inequality/genetic divide—

this will increase the gap between rich and poor, haves and have nots. Re: film "Gattaca"

The purpose of the veil is impartiality—

to get us to think beyond our personal, individualistic self-interest, and instead focus on our collective self interest, i.e., the common good.

Among the chief arguments for euthanasia is mercy:

to relieve pain and suffering. There are many ways to die, and we all hope to die with a minimum of pain and indignity and a maximum of comfort, peace and dignity. Furthermore, none of us wants to be an unbearable burden on our loved ones as we go through the inevitable process of death. Other arguments invoke the values of freedom and autonomy, and the right to choose.

John Rawls (1921-2002)

uses the social contract model in his classic, A Theory of Justice (1971). Instead of the state of nature, Rawls begins with what he terms the "original position," where people are under the "veil of ignorance"—that is, they don't know if they are smart or stupid, energetic or lazy, rich or poor, male or female—and must rationally work out the best, fairest set of social arrangements.

All of these types of rights have contributed to the more recent notion of human rights, which are

vital rights that we hold by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. Those who believe in human rights envision them as fundamental moral rights that all possess. As Amartya Sen puts it, they are "primarily ethical demands" of "special importance." They are "strong ethical pronouncements of what should be done." Human rights are high priority norms that indicate standards for how states may treat people, and they are often invoked to transcend the authority of the state.

With Utilitarianism

we move up to something much more ambitious. Not only do we have a theory of human nature and the nature of morality, we have an entire system that ultimately can give us a procedure for figuring out the right course of action in any situation.

We believe in tolerance

which is a value most of us find desirable. People have a right to their opinions and a right to pursue happiness. If we value freedom, then we must be understanding and tolerant of the choices people make.

Among the phenomena to watch for this century is "Transhumanism,"

which supports the use of emerging technologies to enhance human mental and physical aptitudes and abilities, and lessen the undesirable aspects of the human condition (e.g., disease, handicaps, aging, stupidity, as well as attributes that are social liabilities—obesity, baldness, shortness, body odor, etc.)

Criticisms: Distributive Justice—

who will have access to these technological opportunities? At first, these will likely be available only to the very rich. Some argue for the moral necessity of universal health care and equal access. Will cost and availability/accessibility plummet over time? Will the genetically enhanced become entrenched powers preventing access to maintain their advantages?

The idea of "rights" is

widely used, overused, and largely misunderstood. It is irresponsible to assert rights claims without attending to the details that these claims require.

Are you prepared to universalize your maxim, i.e.,

will reason support everyone in the same situation doing what you did? Are you proud of your actions? (a good sign.) Would you be embarrassed if you were caught on tape and your action was posted on Youtube or reported in the New York Times? (a bad sign.)