Ethics Midterm Guide

Explain Jeremy Bentham's thought experiment regarding a situation in which torture would be justified.

"Suppose an occasion to arise in which a suspicion is entertained, as strong as that which would be received as a sufficient ground for arrest and commitment as for felony, a suspicion that at this very time a considerable number of individuals are actually suffering, by illegal violence inflictions equal in intensity to those which, if inflicted by the hand of justice, would univerally be spoken of under the name of torture. For the purpose of rescuing from torture these hundred innocents, should any scruple be made of applying equal or superior torture to extract the requisite information from the mouth of one criminal, who having it in his power to make known the place where at this time the enormity was practicing or about to be practiced, should refuse to do so? To say nothing of wisdom, could any pretense be made so much as to the praise of blind and vulgar humanity, by the man who to save one criminal, should determine to abandon one hundred innocent persons to the same fate?" Here, Bentham gives a case that one cannot say no to. It is under EXTREMELY specific circumstances. Obviously, the choice would be to torture the criminal to save lives. However, would this even be plausible as a real world situation?

How does she connect the principle 'you may not do evil that good may come' with the Doctrine of Double Effect? (hint: she does not use the phrase 'doctrine of double effect', but she articulates very well what it is).

'Choosing to kill the innocent as a means to your ends is always murder ... [Now], killing the innocent, even if you know as a matter of statistical certainty that the things you do involve it, is not necessarily murder. I mean that if you attack a lot of military targets, such as munitions factories and naval dockyards, as carefully as you can, you will be certain to kill a number of innocent people; but that is not murder. On the other hand, unscrupulousness in considering the possibilities turns it into murder.' (Anscombe, p. 66). Here, Anscombe means that you cannot intentionally kill (murder) innocent people in order to complete your purpose. You can kill aggressors, however.

Throughout the article, Anscombe articulates variations of the principle, 'You may not do evil that good may come'. What are some of these articulations?

'For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder, and murder is one of the worse human actions. So the prohibition on deliberately killing prisoners of war or the civilian population is not like the Queensbury Rules: its force does not depend on its promulgation as part of positive law, written down, agreed upon, and adhered to by the parties concerned.' (Anscombe, p. 64). 'We can now reformulate the principle of doing evil that good may come: every fool can be as much of a knave as suits him.' (Anscombe, p. 65). ' ... with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are not confronted with a borderline case. In the bombing of these cities it was certainly decided to kill the innocent as a means to an end. And a very large number of them, all at once, without warning, without interstices of escape or the chance to take shelter, which existed even in the 'area bombings' of the German cities.' (Anscombe, p. 64).

Explain the essential elements of the 'ticking time-bomb' scenario.

'In thinking about the moral status of interrogational torture, we are commonly asked to imagine exceptional cases wherein such torture is necessary to save some significant number of lives. These cases are generally referred to as ticking time-bomb cases and invite us think of the relationship they bear to terrorism: some terrorist has planted a bomb in a crowded metropolitan center that will kill many noncombatants unless the terrorist is tortured.' (Allhoff, p. 247). There exists a terrorist, a time limit, a known detonation time, we are sure the terrorist knows this information, we are sure torture will work at getting this information, we are sure that many will die without this information.

Reproduce the three premise syllogism justifying torture from a utilitarian point of view.

1) In all cases - and all else being equal - if we can choose a lesser harm to a greater one, we should choose the lesser harm 2) In ticking time-bomb cases, torture is the lesser harm 3) We should torture in those cases

Intention vs Foresight in regards to DDE

A bad effect should not be intended. In other words, you should not undergo an action intending to bring about a bad result. This is agency that involves only forseeing, not intending, an objectionable outcome. 'The pursuit of good tends to be less acceptable when a resulting harm is intended as a means than where it is merely foreseen.'

Explain the notion of the hypothetical imperative.

A hypothetical imperative declares a possible action to be practically necessary as a means to the attainment of some end that one wills, or that one may will. Essentially, a hypothetical imperative is a subjective end, which pertains to you as the subject. The end is up to you; if, then statement.

Summarize Brecher's arguments regarding why a utilitarian might be against torture (and use Wolfendale to support these arguments).

A utilitarian argument against torture would claim that torture itself is something that can never be adequately constrained in practice, which would lead to more harm than good, or a greater amount of suffering. Thus, it is better to not employ the practice at all rather than cause more suffering than originally intended.

How do these principles (moral absolutism and Doctrine of Double effect) put a certain kind of restraint on how war is waged?

Absolutist restrictions on warfare are of 2 types: Restrictions on the class of persons at whom aggression or violence may be directed. Restrictions on the manner of attack, given that the object falls within that class. Hostile treatment of a person is agent relative. It must be justified in terms of something about that person which makes the treatment appropriate. Hostility or aggression should be directed at its TRUE object; the person who is provoking you and what is provocative about them should be attacked. Make sure you are not committing MEANS WITH A VENGEANCE Killing someone's wife and children to stop him from attacking you is not attack what is provocative, it is a means with a vengeance.

Explain the Acts and Omissions Doctrine

Acts and Omissions Doctrine: FAILURE TO PERFORM AN ACT, WITH CERTAIN FORESEEN BAD CONSEQUENCES OF THAT FAILURE, IS MORALLY LESS BAD THAN TO PERFORM A DIFFERENT ACT WHICH HAS THE IDENTICAL FORESEEN BAD CONSEQUENCES.

Why has utilitarianism been described as a theory which emphasizes agent-neutrality over agent-relativity? (and indeed, you should DEFINITELY be able to explain the difference between the agent-neutrality of utilitarianism and the agent-relativity of deontology).

Agent-neutrality aspect of Utilitarianism: Every individual has equal value, and we view things in terms of the majority. It doesn't matter who your actions affect or who is doing the action, only that net happiness or pleasure is achieved. The good of the group trumps the good of individuals; impartial. WHO THE CONSEQUENCE OR BENEFIT AFFECTS DOESN'T MATTER. It makes no difference who brings about a good state of affairs. For deontology, they follow agent-relativity. This means that the actions a person does and the things that happen to a person MATTER. We have special connections and relations to others, as well. Ultimately, if one person is being used as a mere means, it is a problem. Each of us is responsible for what we do.

Compare and contrast Allhoff's deontological pro-torture position and Shue's deontological anti-torture position.

Allhoff brings up two strategies that can be used to justify torture from the deontological viewpoint, the forfeiture strategy and the justified infringement strategy. In both cases, the rights of the individual are not considered absolute, and can in fact be infringed upon to protect the rights of many other individuals (as in the "ticking time bomb" case). Meanwhile, Shue considers torture to be an "assault upon the defenseless," placing a greater priority of the rights of the individual terrorist than Allhoff does. For Shue, there is no feasible escape from torture, which means that the victim is rarely able to have any sense of control over what is happening to them, leaving them vulnerable. Additionally, according to Shue, there are three types of people that could be tortured, passive people, who would readily give up information, uninvolved people, who may not have any relevant information to give up, or deeply ingrained people, who would not give up the information regardless of what is done to them. For the first two, torture would not be needed/justified to extract whatever information is desired, and for the third, torture might not even work at all.

Explain Aristotle's notion of human flourishing.

Being good at being rational = being good at being human = reaching human telos/end = actualizing human form = flourishing as a human To be good at being rational, one must be able to control and suppress their lower desires, like hunger, sex, general pleasure, etc.

Why does deontology lend itself to the notion of non-combatant immunity?

Deontology follows this notion because you are not using another person as a mere means. Killing the innocent as a means to your end is ALWAYS murder, and murder is horrible. However, if someone is attacking you, and you attack what is provocative about them, then you are allowed to attack. The innocent in the war are, then, those that are not being provocative. For example, if Hitler stopped killing Jews, there would be no need to attack him. Only attack when another is aggressive.

Explain how the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) follows directly from moral absolutism, and indeed explain the DDE itself

Doctrine of Double Effect: The question is: 'Is it ever morally permitted to do or bring about what is bad or evil in order to bring about something good?' 'Situations in which good can be secured for some people only if others suffer harm are of great significance to moral theory. Consequentialists typically hold that the right thing to do in such cases is to maximize overall welfare. But non-consequentialists think that many other factors matter.' (Quinn, pg. 194). WHEN SOMEONE IS BEING USED AS A MEANS TO A GREATER PURPOSE, THEY NEED TO CONSENT TO IT

Discuss what some ethical implications of the acts and omissions doctrine might be (does it impact on famine relief? War ethics? Even torture? Refer to Glover to refresh your memory on this, but remember that Glover is ultimately against this doctrine since he is a utilitarian).

For issues such as famine relief, per the acts and omissions doctrine, it would be considered worse to intentionally starve someone by withholding food, rather than simply refraining from donating to a famine-relief fund and having the same result occur. In the utilitarian view, killing is not intrinsically wrong, it is wrong because of its implications for happiness and misery. Utilitarianism believes that each human is a receptacle for happiness, killing would remove that potential for happiness, and thus would be seen as wrong.

Propinquity

How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain?

Intensity

How intense is the pleasure or pain?

Duration

How long does the pleasure or pain last?

Extent

How many persons are affected by the pleasure?

Explain Kant's notion of the categorical imperative and how it contrasts with the hypothetical imperative.

Hypothetical imperatives hold only if you want to achieve a certain end. Categorical imperatives hold for all rational beings in every situation. Desire is hypothetical, while objective (categorical) only cares about being right.

In what ways does Anscombe contrast utilitarian thinking with the principle 'you may not do evil that good may come'? (hint: she does not use the word 'utilitarian').

I must be saying "You may not do evil that good may come", which is a disagreeably high-minded doctrine. The action was necessary ... it probably saved more lives than it sacrificed; it had a good result, it ended the war. Come now: if you had to choose between boiling one baby and letting some frightful disaster befall a thousand people - or a million people, if a thousand is not enough - what would you do? Are you going to strike an attitude and say "You may not do evil that good may come?" (Anscombe, p. 65). Utilitarians view that, if an action will produce a good result, then the action is correct. That IS the moral action.

At one point, Anscombe discusses a British bombing the Netherlands. What were the British trying to accomplish with that bombing? Why does Anscombe think this bombing was morally wrong?

In World War II, the British bombed the Netherlands, killing many innocent civilian allies in the process, in order to trap just some of the fleeing German military from this region. Anscombe claims this is morally wrong because these citizens were murdered as a means to the British ends, and murder is always wrong.

Explain Allhoff's position on how a deontologist could be in favor of torture, specifically from the point of view of rights.

In deontology, the rights of the individual are placed in the highest regard, and traditionally, a deontologist would consider torture an infringement on those rights. However, despite this view, there are two deontological strategies that can be used to justify torture: forfeiture and justified infringement

Certainty

It is certain that the detainee is a terrorist, It is certain that he has information regarding the location of the bomb, It is certain that the torture will produce the information, It is certain that the information will lead to the timely deactivation of the bomb.

Forfeiture Strategy

It is possible for someone to forfeit their rights to something through their own behavior, such as a murderer forfeiting their right to freedom. From this idea, it can follow that someone who engages in activities that threaten the state (like a terrorist) would forfeit their right not to be tortured.

Justified Infringement Strategy

It is possible for the state to infringe upon the rights of the victim if they believe that his actions warrant intervention, especially if it relates to the protection of the state and its citizens.

Jus in bello

Justified conduct in war. Do we have a right to go to war? Do we have rights in war?

Identify and explain the four basic human goods of Thomist natural law theory

Life: Disposition and inclination towards living, to continue in ecistence, to seek growth and nutrition. Procreation: Disposition and inclination towards sensory apprehensions; to have a sense experience, to care for offspring (reproduction). Knowledge: Disposition towards towards rational cognitivity, to understand; rational curiosity. Sociability: Disposition and inclination to live together in social communities.

Explain the principle of moral absolutism, which is connected with Thomist natural law theory

Moral Absolutism: Gives primacy to a concern with what one is doing. This does not require one to ignore consequences; you can bring about good as long as you aren't breaking moral laws. Ends are worth pursuing, only in certain ways. We cannot do evil things in order to bring about good consequences. We have to achieve good ends by good means. We must forgo measures that harm non-combatants.

In what ways does Anscombe address the issue of non-combatant immunity?

She states that those who aren't fighting are the innocent. When a soldier surrenders, they also become innocent. Unscrupulousness in considering the possibilities turns into murder. You must consider all possibilities and all consequences.

She refers to the 'great change'. What was that change? Why does Anscombe think it was morally significant?

The "great change" refers to the adoption of "area bombing" rather than "target bombing," which differed from big raids on cities, in the way that it as far more extensive and devastating and much less random, a whole city would be systematically plotted out and plotted with bombs, leading to almost total destruction. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were targets of area bombing, many innocent people were killed as a means to an end, which, in her view, is always murder. This is the moral problem Anscombe points out.

Non-combatant immunity

The fighting of a war is justifiable only if attacks are made ONLY upon correct targets. Non-combatants are morally immune from intentional harm, meaning civilians are LEGALLY safe.

She states that she has been accused of being 'high-minded' for saying 'you may not do evil that good may come'. She then states the opposite of the principle, saying that if we can do 'evil that good may come', then 'every fool can be as much of a knave as suits him'. What strikes you about this opposite principle? Why does she connect it to 'fools' and 'knaves'? Do you think she is right to make the connection?

This opposite principle states that you can, following the utilitarian line of thinking, be as much of a criminal as you desire, as long as you think you are bringing about good results in the long run. She connects this to fools and knaves because you must be foolish to think that criminal behavior leads to eventual good results. She makes a right connection here because it illustrates how difficult it is to reconcile the idea of doing bad to bring about good. Can that truly be the case if you are harming people along the way?

How to value hedonism and value perfectionism yield their moral theories?

This shows that the utilitarians value acting in order to achieve maximum pleasure alone. Because of this, the moral qualification of an action depends on the results or consequences it produces. From a Aristotelian point of view, happiness is essentially connected to realizing our human nature. In order to do this, we must be good at acting rationally, and the good will come from rational and correct, or excellent, behavior. Pleasure will come from doing noble actions. The right action is a combination of true reason and good desire.

Explain Shue's deontological opposition to torture, including the idea of torture as an 'assault upon the defenseless'. What are some reasons why Shue thinks that torture can be thought of as such an assault, even when the tortured has the 'apparent possibility of escape through compliance'?

Traditionally, forms of interrogational torture are thought to have an easy escape, the victim need only provide the information that is asked of him, and then the torturing can stop. However, Shue doesn't see this "escape" as very feasible in real practice. Focusing specifically on the rights of the terrorist, Shue articulates the idea that revealing the desired information would likely involve a deep betrayal to the victim's ideals/comrades, and so it shouldn't be regarded as an easy "escape" at all. Additionally, Shue also points out that the torturer may not even know when the desired information has been revealed, or if the victim even has the information at all. This is why that the person being tortured will more often than not have their rights violated, despite those who might say the torturing can easily end. In reality, it's never that simple.

Purity

What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains?

Explain how a utilitarian can justify torture in the ticking time-bomb scenario, including how this scenario fits in nicely with the utilitarian felicific (or hedonist) calculus

Utilitarian justification for ticking time-bomb cases: in all cases - and all else being equal - if we can choose a lesser harm to a greater one, we should. Since torture in the ticking time bomb cases would produce the least amount of harm (and overall suffering) - torture would be justified in this viewpoint. Many factors would help to determine whether torture would be justified by examining the levels of pain/pleasure that results from it, provides a formula for determining whether the action is warranted or not.

Fecundity

What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures?

Explain the basic theoretical assumptions of utilitarianism.

Utility = episodes of pleasure and pain. The greatest happiness principle is followed, meaning that actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness, or pain. You can measure the utility of an action by its intensity and its duration. This is a value based ethical theory. Considerations of value are prior to considerations of right and are the basis for the theory of right conduct. It also follows value hedonism, where experiences of pleasure alone are intrinsically good, and experiences of pain alone are intrinsically bad. Overall, you want to have a net gain of pleasure on the felicific calculus. The utility of an action is the overall balance of pleasure and pain.

Explain the difference between the 'value hedonism' of utilitarianism and the 'value perfectionism' of Aristotelianism/Thomist natural law theory

Value Hedonism: Experiences of pleasure alone are intrinsically good, and experiences of pain alone are intrinsically bad. Things that are good only as a means to promoting pleasure are extrinsic goods, or intrinsically neutral. Value Perfectionism: The view that goodness in relation to something is a matter of its fully developing those capacities that are essential to it. Acting in the right way is intrinsically good, and acting in the wrong way is intrinsically bad. There are certain actions that are ALWAYS morally wrong to do.

How do the categorical imperative, formula of ends in themselves, and autonomy work together to emphasize the dignity of human beings?

We can show respect to one another by obeying moral laws that we are willing to universalize on ourselves and others. Additionally, we are not treating other humans as mere means.

Explain Kant's notion of the categorical imperative.

You shouldn't behave in a way that you wouldn't want everyone else to behave; you should be okay with your behavior becoming a universal law of conduct. The categorical imperative is a universal command which holds for all rational beings. Essentially, a categorical imperative is an objective end, which pertains to ALL rational beings. These are objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end.

Autonomy

a capacity in all rational agents to act freely on the basis of reason and independently of our inclinations/desires.

Means and ends in regards to DDE

the effect of the action should not be the means. In other words, you should not be doing the action to achieve your own means.