Philosophy 100 final

Subjectivism

"Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact that you call vice ... You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact: but it is the object of feeling but not of reason." David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) When it comes to morality, there are no "facts" of the matter, and no one is objectively "right" or "wrong". People just feel differently, and that's the end of it. According to Moral Subjectivism, our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. Thus whatever an individual believes about a moral issue is true for that individual and there is no other kind of moral truth. No moral beliefs are objectively true or false, but they are subjectively true or false. It follows from this that no individual can have a false or mistaken moral belief. It is a fact that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual; but it is not a fact that one is good (or right) and the other bad (or wrong). When someone (e.g., Falwell) says that homosexuality is wrong, he is not stating a fact about homosexuality. He is merely saying something about his own feelings toward it. When a person says that something is morally right or wrong, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more. In other words, "X is morally acceptable (right)." simply means: "I (the speaker) approve of X. And "X is morally unacceptable (wrong)." simply means: "I (the speaker) disapprove of X. There is, then, no distinction between: I believe that X is morally right or wrong. And X is morally right or wrong.

Teleological Theories

('telos' means goal) What makes an act moral is not the act itself but the consequence of the act. One example of this approach is Utilitarianism: An action is right if it maximizes pleasure (happiness) for everyone affected by the action. According to this view, The end justifies the means.

Purposes (functions) of morality

-Ethics or (moral philosophy) is concerned with what is not what ought to be -What is the role of morality in human existence? -What is it about humans that requires moral consciousness? -Morality has at least four related functions: 1) To keep society from falling apart 2) To resolve conflicts of interest in just and peaceful ways 3) To reduce human suffering 4) To promote human flourishing

Connections between morality and religion

-There is no necessary connection between morality and religion, but there are historical connections between the two. Can there be social life without morality? The answer seems to be NO. Why? Can there be social life without religion? If by religion we mean belief in some form of supernatural being, then the answer seems to be YES. Why?Even though morality does not depend on religion, morality and religion often do influence each other. Religions have had historical influence on the development of morality as well as on politics and law. -Morality and religion also interact at the personal level. a) In the U. S., many of the important leaders of the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were religious leaders. But the relationship is not one-sided: Morality has also influenced religion. The debates within the Catholic Church about divorce, the role of women, abortion, and the gay and lesbian rights show that religion can be influenced by morality. b) At the personal level, people's understanding of religious texts is often shaped by morality: people often bring their moral judgment to the task of religious interpretation. -One view about the connection between the two is that religion grounds morality in such a way that without religion there is no morality. The Russian novelist, Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) wrote: "If there is no God, then everything is permitted." In other words, if you do not believe in God, then you will be faced with moral chaos. This view has a problem facing the fact that many atheists are best examples of moral persons. And of course many religious people have acted very immorally. Another problem with this view is that it can be used to justify different and perhaps even incompatible religious views.

Essay...Explain the four purposes (functions) of morality

1) To keep society from falling apart Morality, first of all, keeps society from sinking to a state of chaos in which everyone is the enemy of everyone else and fear and insecurity dominate the mind and prevent peace and happiness. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) described this kind of moral chaos as a "state of nature" in which there is a perpetual war of all against all and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." 2) To resolve conflicts of interest in just and peaceful ways Keeping law and order is necessary but not sufficient for a desirable social life. Morality must also have rules of justice to resolve conflicts of interest that are mutually agreed upon and are just. There are scarce resources in terms of power, wealth, jobs, land, property, and so on. And we need rules to adjudicate conflicting claims about these goods. Unless we can resolve these conflicts of interest in a just manner, we will not be able to reach any other goal. 3) To reduce human suffering The third and related function of morality is to prevent unnecessary and unjust suffering. Morality includes norms that are the foundations of social institutions and conventions that can help victims of disease, famine, and violence. 4) To Promote human flourishing The purpose of morality is not simply negative - to prevent chaos and unjust suffering. Moral rules also play a positive role in promoting human flourishing. Moral rules enable people to pursue their goals in peace and freedom, encouraging them to friendship and cooperation, challenging them to a good life. Deep morality creates a good life for its participants and turns a potential hell into something that can approximate "a heaven on Earth."

classical utilitarianism and 3 basic features

1. Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. A person's motive doesn't matter. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist or teleological theory of ethics. The rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the consequences of the action. It is the end, not the means, that counts; the end justifies the means. In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness (pleasure, well being), or unhappiness (pain, suffering) that is caused. Thus right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness (pleasure over pain). Thus, classical utilitarianism, specially Bentham's version of it, is hedonistic. 2. In calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one's happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else's. Each person's welfare is equally important. 3.We should consider not only how much pleasure and pain the act causes, but also how much pleasure and pain would have been produced by the other acts the agent could have done instead. Each action must be compared with alternative actions available to the agent.

Arguments against ethical egoism

1. Egoism tends toward the exclusion of some of the deepest human values such as love and deep friendship. 2. Egoism violates the principle of fairness 3. Egoism entails an absolute prohibition on altruistic behavior, which we intuitively sense as morally required. 4. Egoism cannot consistently publicize itself 5. Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine:

3 revolutionary implications of utilitarianism

1. Punishment: Utilitarianism is not only a principle of action for the individual, it is also a principle for laws and public policies. Unlike the traditional approach to punishment, which believed in retribution and was backward looking (an eye for an eye approach), utilitarianism is a forward looking approach to punishment. The guilty should be punished if the punishment would serve some deterrent purpose. Rather than punishing the person in exact proportion to the act, we ought to find the right punishment that will serve as the optimum deterrent. Like any action, a punishment is justified only if it maximizes pleasure or happiness and minimizes pain and suffering in the world. 2. Moral Community:2) Moral Community: The traditional view considered moral community to be limited to human beings. People and animals are in separate moral categories. Animals are not rational beings and have no souls. Thus we can treat them in any way we please. For utilitarians, what is important is not whether an individual has a soul, or is rational, but whether it is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. If an animal is capable of suffering, then we have a duty to take that into account when we are deciding what to do. Bentham: whether the individual is human or nonhuman is just as irrelevant as whether he is black or white. Utilitarianism challenges the view that only human beings are worthy of moral consideration. Utilitarianism: the moral community must be expanded to include not only human beings but all sentient beings.

2nd argument for psychological egoism

1. When we act for the sake of others, we get a feeling of pleasure. C. When we act for the sake of others, our goal is to get pleasure. Objections: a) It is not always the case that we feel pleasure when we act for the sake of others. Acting for the sake others does not guarantee the feeling of pleasure for the agent. Often altruistic actions come with mixed feelings or even bad feelings. b) Even if we did always experience pleasure, it would not mean that the goal of each and every altruistic action is to get pleasure. The purpose of a charitable act is to help someone else, even though the agent might feel pleasure from doing so. The fallacy: From the fact that our altruistic actions are accompanied by pleasure, it does not follow that we perform the actions in order to feel pleasure.

Arguments for psychological egoism

All actions regardless of how unselfish they may appear to be are what the actor wants to do. The action is motivated by the desire of the actor, and hence it is a selfish act. Outline: 1. We always do what we want (or desire) to do. Therefore, all of our actions are selfish. Is the argument sound? Is the premise true? Does the conclusion follow from the premise?1. We always do what we want (or desire) to do. All of our actions are motivated by selfish desires. Is it true that we always do what we want to do? a) The premise claims that people never do what they don't want to do. There are things that we do, not because we want to do, but because we feel that it is our duty to do them. Even if we assume that the premise is true, still the argument is unsound, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because an action is motivated does not mean it is selfishly motivated. What makes it egoistic is not whether it stems from your desire, but whether it stems from a particular kind of desire you have. What matters is the content of the desire, what it aims at (yourself or others).

Egoism vs. Altruism

All apparently altruistic acts are merely disguised acts of selfishness. In fact, we have no choice but to be selfish. I always try to promote my self-interest and you always try to promote your self-interest. Egoists appeal to the principle that: "Ought" implies "can". This means we can never be under an obligation to do what is impossible. Therefore, we cannot do anything but act on our own interest.

Egoism

An Important Distinction: Psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism 1) Psychological Egoism is the doctrine that we always do what is in our own best self-interest. Human nature is basically egoistic, so that it makes no sense to ask people to act in favor of the interests of others. Psychological egoism is a theory of human nature. It claims that self-love is the only human motivation. (Can it be tested?). Altruism: We can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests

The "doctrine of swine" objection

Because of the emphasis on maximizing pleasure, some critics of have argued that utilitarianism is a philosophy only fit for pigs. There are more noble desires and higher ends in human life than pleasure. Here is the argument: 1. If Utilitarianism is true, then the only morally relevant consideration would be the amounts (quantity) of physical pleasure generated by the act. 2. It is not the case that the only morally relevant consideration is the amounts (quantity) of physical pleasure generated by the act. C. Therefore utilitarian philosophy is not acceptable. Is this argument sound? The argument is valid. Are the premises true? Mill's response to this argument is that the first premise of the argument is false. Bentham's response is that the second premise is false.

Utilitarianism

Bentham and Mill were not just academic philosophers. They were also social reformers (progressive thinkers). They thought society should be run according to utilitarian principles. Both Bentham and Mill were politically active and pursuing social issues: Prison reforms Women's rights Homosexual right Modernizing penal codes and human rights in general A hedonistic utilitarian views pleasure as the only good and pain as the only evil. Bentham: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as what we shall do." Mill agrees: "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure."

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics is an empirical study of moral beliefs of people living in different societies or in different historical periods. This kind of inquiry is done by anthropologists, historians, and sociologists. The goal is to describe or explain the phenomenon of morality. From this point of view no moral belief system is preferable to any other. This approach does not raise the question of justification of moral beliefs.

Argument for ethical egoism

Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual desires and needs. Moreover, each of us is in a unique position to pursue our desires and needs effectively. Since we don't have perfect knowledge of the desires and needs of other people, we are not in the best position to pursue them. Therefore, most likely, if we try to "look out for others," we would end up doing more harm than good. Making other people the object of one's "charity" is degrading to them. It deprives them of their individual dignity and self-respect. Charitable acts are typically offensive intrusion into other people's privacy. Thus, the policy of "looking out for others" is self-defeating. If we want to do what is best for people, we should not adopt altruistic policies.

Emotivism

Emotivism begins with the observation that language has different functions: One function of the language is to make statements about facts or what we believe to be facts. For example, - Gas prices are rising. Factual statements are either true or false. But language has other functions: Asking questions Giving commands Expressing feelings and emotions Typically, commands, questions and exclamations are not intended to describe things, and hence they are not true or false. According to Emotivism, moral language is not fact-stating language. Therefore, moral judgments are neither true nor false. There is no such a thing as moral knowledge. There is no cognition in ethics.

The difference between subjectivism and emotivism

Emotivism: moral claims & judgments are neither true nor false. Subjectivism: moral judgments are statements of facts and are truth claims. In fact, they are always true for the person who is making them. One objection against MS was that it has this unacceptable consequence that we are always right in our moral judgments. Emotivism can avoid this objection.

Hedonism (the pleasure principle)

Hedonism (from the Greek hedon for "pleasure) is the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life. Something is called an intrinsic good when it is valued for its own sake. It is not a means to an end. On the other hand, extrinsic goods are those things we value because they are useful for getting other things that we value. Money is an example of an extrinsic good (instrumental good). Ethical hedonists believe that a right action is one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. There are two kinds of ethical hedonism: Egoistic hedonism Non-egoistic hedonism Utilitarianism is a non-egoistic form of hedonism. However, Not all utilitarians are hedonists, just as not all egoists are utilitarians.

Three Egoist Philosophers

Hobbes, Nietzche, Rand

Are all objectivist moral views ethnocentric

Is Universalism Necessarily Ethnocentric? Answer: No. Here is the reason: A person might believe in a universal principle that is not accepted by his or her own culture. In fact, one can use a universal principle to criticize one's own culture. A person with an ethnocentric attitude, on the other hand, would never be critical of his or her own culture.

Fallibillism

Is there an alternative to the dichotomy between relativism and absolutism? Are we facing a dilemma with no way out? Or, can we go beyond relativism and absolutism? Yes, relativism and absolutism are not the only possible positions with regard to truth of beliefs and rightness of actions. Fallibilism is a third alternative. Fallibilism incorporates insights both from relativism and absolutism. Fallibilists agree with relativists that attaining final (ultimate) moral truth is not possible. But unlike relativists, fallibilists believe that there are right and wrong answers to at least some moral questions. From relativism, fallibilism retains the sensitivity to the cultural context of our moral beliefs. From absolutism, it retains the commitment to the use of reason in resolving moral disagreements and conflicts and the belief that some moral positions are better than other. Fallibilism is the view that no matter how strong our beliefs are, we might be mistaken. So it is always possible that we may have to reconsider and revise our beliefs. Open mindedness is the corollary of Fallibilism. Fallibilism regards diversity and disagreement as sources of richness in our moral lives and it suggests ways in which we can live together in the face of such disagreements. Fallibilism does not exclude deep and passionate commitments to moral convictions. While fallibilists may be passionate about their beliefs, they are not dogmatic. Their passion is for finding the truth, for uncovering the morally most enlightening way of understanding a given situation or problem. A fallibilists is not devoted to a moral belief because it is his belief, but rather because he is convinced that it is the best belief available. He is open to the possibility that if someone can offer good reasons for revising the belief, it should then be revised. Thus fallibilists walk on a narrow line between open-mindedness and commitment, managing to combine the best elements of both.

Deontological Theories (Kant)

It is not the consequences that determines the rightness or wrongness of an act but the motive behind the action or the reasons for the action. Utilitarianism is consequentialist, whereas Kant's moral philosophy is deontological. "Deontological" comes from the Greek word deon, which means duty. There are certain moral duties obligations that are absolute and have no exceptions. According to Kant, We should never treat a human being merely as a means toward our goals. There are certain human rights that should never be violated.

Kants distinction between acts done in accordance vs. acts done for the sake of duty

Kant makes an important distinction between acting in accordance with duty, and acts done for the sake of duty. The distinction does not regard the action itself, but instead the motivation for the act (will). In both the duty remains the same Thus in acting for the sake of duty. A person acts solely because it is their duty. Not necessarily because it is in their best interests. Or because they're inclined to do so. In comparison, when a person acts in accordance with duty they're not doing so because it is their duty. Rather they do it because it is in their self-interests or because they were inclined to do so.

Ethics and Etiquette

Like morality, etiquette involves social norms and rules of social behavior. Etiquette, however, is not about vitally important issues of social life. Examples: Eating in public with fingers is definitely against etiquette but it is not immoral. Dressing up informally in a very formal occasion is not immoral but is against etiquette. However, some times the question whether a certain social norm is a matter of etiquette or a moral issue itself is a moral question. For example, the Islamic dress code for women. Arguably, it violates the principle of equal treatment of men and women. The most important difference between the two is that: Etiquette is nothing but social convention, but morality is not merely social convention.

Moral (Ethical) Relativism

MR is the doctrine that when it comes to the claims about morality and justice, there is no fact of the matter. What is right or wrong is just what members of a society or culture regard to be right or wrong

Relationship between morality and law

Morality is closely related to law. The aim of both is to regulate social relations and bring about social harmony. Law, like morality, can promote well being and social harmony and can resolve conflicts of interest. Yet there are crucial differences. Arguably, morality functions as an internal control on behavior, whereas law is an externally imposed power on the individual. Laws are enforced by physical force whereas morality is only enforced by the sanctions of conscience and reputation. Laws can be immoral. (laws permitting slavery) Some moral rules are not covered by law: There are no general laws against lying or promise breaking. Helping one's friend is not required by law. The limitation of law is that there can't be laws against every social evil, nor can we have laws enforcing every desirable rule. We cannot "legislate" morality.

Main problems with psychological egoism

Not that psychological egoism is entirely false. PE even captures at least one very important aspect of moral behavior. However, in the final analysis, it is not an adequate approach to ethics. And here are my main reasons: PE does not have a distinction between selfish acts and acts that are motivated by self-interest. PE does not allow a distinction between a self-interest that is tied to general interest (e.g., my interest in preserving the environment), and a self-interest that is against the general interest (e.g. my interest in profiting from businesses that harm the environment). PE cannot give an account of self-destructive actions. PE denies even the possibility of actions that are primarily motivated by concern for other and possibly involve self-sacrifice.

Psychological egoism

People are only capable of acting in their own self-interest, or that people always act from selfish motives. While people do sometimes desire the happiness of others, it is only as means to their own interests. The only thing people desire as an end in itself is their own happiness. To act morally, you have to consider the interests of others. Psychological egoism denies that we are capable of acting on the interests of anyone besides ourselves.

Utilitarian philosophers

Two major 19th century British Utilitarian philosophers: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The argument for Moral (Ethical) Relativism

Premise 1: (The Diversity Thesis) Moral beliefs are different from society to society, from culture to culture, and from one historical period to another. Premise 2: (The Dependency Thesis) Moral beliefs derive their truth from cultural acceptance. Moral right and wrong are culturally and conventionally defined. Conclusion: (Moral Relativism) There are no universally justifiable moral principles that can be used for evaluating different moral norms accepted in different cultures

Does Morality or Law have the upper hand

Priority of morality over legality: On the one hand, there is a sense in which legality has priority over morality, and, on the other hand, there is a deeper sense in which morality has priority over legality. The priority of legality over morality is more a matter of prudence, whereas the priority of morality over legality has to do with the justification of laws. Each legal system, it can be argued, is based on some moral principles, but the reverse is not the case. For example, modern constitutional democracies presuppose the rights of the individual and also freedom and responsibility of the individual.

Psychological vs. ethical egoism

Psychological Egoism (PE) is a descriptive, not a normative, thesis. It describes how people actually act. Ethical Egoism (EE) is the view that people should act in their own self-interest. Psychological Egoism is descriptive whereas Ethical Egoism is normative. PE says what we are and what we actually do, whereas EE says what we ought to do.

Ethical egoism

Psychological Egoism is a theory of human nature concerned with how people do behave. By contrast, ethical egoism is a normative theory - that is a theory about how we ought to behave. It says that our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. Everyone ought to do what will best serve his or her own self-interest, even when it conflicts with the interests of others. According to Ethical Egoism, self-interest is the ultimate principle of conduct. However, Ethical Egoism does not forbid us from helping others. If helping others is the best means for promoting my own self-interest, then I should help others. Finally, Ethical Egoism does not imply that one should always do what one wants to do, or what gives one the most pleasure in the short run.A sophisticated egoist makes a distinction between: Short-term interests Long-term interests We should refrain from immediate gratification of our senses. However, when it is in our overall self-interest, it is quite rational and hence moral to cheat or harm others as long as two conditions obtain: 1. You can get away with it. 2. Your act does not seriously threaten the social system as a whole sending you back to the "state of nature."

Religion guides morality?

Some argue that moral issues are immensely complex and difficult and hence without religious guidance we cannot ever know what is right and what is wrong. Response: a) The argument presupposes knowledge and certainty about God which is even more difficult to attain than knowledge about morality. b) To use religion as a rational ground for morality, one would have to know which of the many religions is true. But how can I be sure that my religion is the right one? c) The Hermeneutic Argument: Even if we assume that a particular religion, let's say Christianity, is the right one, we still need to decide which of the many possible interpretations of that religion is correct. d) Even after we interpret the religious text, we need to apply the moral insight of the text to our current situation and deal with issues that were not addressed in the text. This application itself involves a complex reasoning process.

Ethnocentrism

The attitude that one's own culture is superior to other cultures: My beliefs and values are superior, because they come from my culture. Ethnocentric: evaluating other cultures by criteria specific to one's own. evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture. when you take what your group or nation believes to be right Not all objectivist views are necessarily ethnocentric however many objective moral views are ethnocentric

Aryn Rand's argument + objections

The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as something one must be ready to sacrifice for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of the human individual. By contrast, Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value, does take the human individual seriously - in fact, it is the only philosophy that does that. So we ought to accept Ethical Egoism. Objection: The argument assumes that we have only two options: Either we have to accept an extreme version of altruism, or else we have to accept Ethical Egoism. Since extreme altruism is not acceptable, Ethical Egoism is the only choice left. There is a third alternative that says that one's own interests and the interests of others are both important and must be balanced against one another.

Response to Altruism is self-defeating argument

The fact that we don't have perfect knowledge about the desires and needs of other people, does not mean that whenever we try to help them we will end up doing more harm to them than good. Arguably, we don't even have perfect knowledge of our own real needs and desires, and we make mistakes about them. But that does not mean that we necessarily end up doing more harm than good to ourselves. b) Is it true that when we help poor children we are depriving them of their self-respect?

All altruistic acts are disguised forms of egoist acts

The following actions seem to be counterexamples: Giving money for famine relief Doing volunteer work in a hospital Running into a burning building to rescue a child Sacrificing your life for your comrades or your country According to egoists, a deeper analysis of these actions will reveal egoistic motives behind them. The person may be driven by an inner need to make up for some past misdeed, or perhaps he simply enjoys this work, as other people enjoy playing chess. The person may be motivated by a desire for public recognition. His religion teaches that he will be rewarded in heaven. In general, for every act that appears to be altruistic we can find a motive that is purely egoistic.

Virtue-Based Ethics (Aristotle)

The heart of ethics is in the character of the agent, not in action or duty. For duty-based ethics the question is: What should I do? For virtue ethics the question is: What sort of person should I become? An important question for virtue-based ethics is: what are the social conditions under which moral virtues can be developed? Virtue ethics seeks to produce excellent persons, who act out of spontaneous goodness and serve as examples to inspire others.

According to Robert G. Olson (the morality of self-interest)

The individual is most likely to contribute to social betterment by rationally pursuing his own best long-range interest." If each person looks after his or her own interest, it is more likely that everyone will be better off. Response: Not necessarily. What if there is a conflict between the individual's perception of his or her self-interest and general or public interest?

objectivism (congnitivism)

The view that some moral beliefs are objectively (really) true and others objectively false. The opposite view is moral non-objectivism. A moral objectivist might say that slavery is wrong, and that those Americans who, prior to the civil war, believed that slavery was right were mistaken & had a false belief. A moral objectivist doesn't have to be closed minded. A moral objectivist can concede that not all of his moral beliefs constitute moral knowledge. He can have a touch of skepticism and humility; he doesn't have to be a dogmatic fanatic. For example, he could say that while he knows that some things are wrong, such as racial discrimination, there are other things he believes to be wrong but doesn't know to be wrong, for example, capital punishment.

Moral non-objectivism

The view that there are no objectively true or false moral beliefs and hence there is no moral knowledge. No moral belief is objectively more reasonable or justified than another. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. There are three non-objectivist theories: Moral Relativism Moral Subjectivism Emotivism (Moral Nihilism)

Morality and Religion

There are both religious and secular ethical systems. These two approaches often generate different moral principles, but they need not do so. Secular, or purely philosophical, ethics is based on reason and common human experience. Religious ethics is based on revelation or divine authority.

Normative Ethics

This approach deals with the question of justification rather than the question of facts. Beyond the question of what the moral beliefs of people are, it deals with the question of whether such beliefs can be justified. This is an attempt to find the most fundamental principles about morally right action. How is normative ethics related to descriptive ethics? Normative ethics is concerned, not with what is, but with what ought to be. What we ought to do must be based on what we can do. Thus normative ethics cannot ignore what anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists say about what human beings are (even though there is no such a thing as fixed human nature).

classical utilitarianism summary

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist (teleological) moral philosophy. In a broad sense, classical utilitarianism is a hedonistic moral philosophy. Utilitarianism is a non-egoistic moral philosophy. Everyone's happiness counts, and counts equally. The sum total of happiness should be maximized. The "sum total" = total happiness produced - total unhappiness produced. In short, according to utilitarianism, an action is right if and only if it produces, compared to all other alternative actions, the greatest sum total of happiness for the greatest number of people.

objections to utilitarianism

Utilitarianism requires making interpersonal calculations of happiness and unhappiness: Utilitarianism implies that the happiness (or unhappiness) in question is quantifiable and hence commensurable. This raises one of the most common objections to utilitarianism: How can we compare the happiness or pleasure of one person doing something with the happiness or pleasure of another person doing something else? According to these critics, there is something subjective about happiness. Happiness is incommensurable. 2) Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding: Suppose I come home from a long day of work and sit down and relax and listen to music. Am I doing anything wrong? According to utilitarian principle, Yes. Because there are things I could be doing that would enhance human happiness much more than sitting at home listening to music. Utilitarianism requires that we always act on very high egalitarian standards. According to Peter Singer, people who live in affluent societies such as the U. S., have a responsibility toward poor people who live in the third world countries. The money that we spend on luxuries can save the lives of many children and poor people. If saving the lives of the poor in Africa and Asia requires changing our lifestyles and giving up our luxuries, then we are morally obligated to do so. Bentham on what constitutes moral community: "The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs [and the hairiness] of the skin ... are also insufficient reasons for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insurmountable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? ... The question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But Can they suffer?" Among contemporary utilitarian philosophers, Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher, is a strong advocate of the "rights of animal" ( Animal Liberation). Singer: just as prejudice against other races (racism) is unjustified, so is prejudice against animals. Since animals can experience pain, it is our obligation not to cause unnecessary pain in them. Singer applies this idea to animal experimentation. 3. Euthanasia: The traditional view considered life as sacred and hence prohibited suicide and euthanasia. According to the Christian view, the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong. Utilitarians argue that a person who is suffering from a painful disease with no hope of recovery may choose to end his misery by ending his own life. And there is nothing immoral about assisting this person to end his life. (voluntary euthanasia) Similarly, it is justified to end the life of someone who, as a result of a brain damage, is incapable of experiencing pleasure and pain and will remain unconscious (in a vegetative state) for the rest of his life. (involuntary euthanasia)

categorical imperative (kant)

act accordingly to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become universal law