Ethics round 3 - Mill, Rawls, Sunstein, Friedman, Goodpastor

Sunstein claims that Sarah Conly would override people's desires if several conditions are met. What is true of those conditions?

-It would help us achieve our goals-It would be effective-It would have fewer negative consequences than other actions-It would benefit us

Goodpaster and Matthews main arguments

-argue that coporations can make rational decisions-argue that corporations can follow rules-argue that corporations can be moral agents-argue that corporations can cause things to happen

Suppose that your former roommate, Orville Potts, and your current roommate, Sidney Gilcrest Peckingham, are out behind the student center waiting for a Tiger Transit bus. Orville then turns to S.G and says, "Ok, smoking is bad for my health. But, no one has the right to prevent me from smoking!" If S.G has been reading our texts carefully, how would he (or she) respond?

According to several scientific studies, smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but also to the people around them in the form of secondhand smoke. If this is true, then according to Mill's harm principle, which states that the government has the right to prevent a person's actions only if the actions cause harm to others, Auburn has every right to ban smoking.

What is the assumption about human nature which Rawls builds into his ideal of choice situation?

All humans value security more than maximum benefits

If there is NO safe upper limit of exposure to cigarette smoke, which ONE of the following is TRUE?

Auburn's policy is supported

Suppose that the managers of Bison Gear & Sprocket, Inc. REQUIRED its employees to join a health club. Which one of the following would be TRUE?

Bison gear & sprocket would violate Mill's harm principle

What do Good Pastor and Mathews claim?

Corporations can be moral persons

T/F Mill claims that pleasure is pleasure, and all pleasure are equally valuable.

False

T/F Rawls believes that civil liberties must be distributed unequally

False

Sunstein on why we are optimistic about our futures

Finally, Sunstein says we tend to be unduly optimistic about our own futures. Consider the following: Years before your hapless instructor arrived at Auburn, there was a faculty member who taught medical ethics. She understood a great deal about science. She also smoked heavily. Though she knew the facts about smoking, she was convinced that it would not harm her since her mother was a heavy smoker and lived into her 90s's. As you might imagine, she got lung cancer and died. Or, consider people who buy tickets to the Georgia Lottery on a regular basis. The odds that any given ticket will be a winner are nearly zero. Nonetheless, people buy those tickets routinely. You might ask why anyone would pay money for a ticket that was highly unlikely to pay anything. The likely answer is that people have the idea that odds for them are different than for anyone else. That's what makes lotteries of the Alabama dog track in business.

Friedman on coercion and his conclusion

Friedman also notes that governments function in different fashion. They don't make people want to pay taxes. They simply coerce people to do so. Even in the case of social programs intended to benefit people, governments tend to rely on coercion. If the above is correct, Friedman concludes that pursuing programs of "social responsibility" without the free agreement of all who will suffer financially from them is expanding the scope of something like governmental control. But, as noted above, we will see on Friday whether the effort to seek maximal profits genuinely is in conflict with the effort to seek social goals.

Which one of the following is TRUE? (Goodpaster/Matthews)

Goodpaster and Matthews argue corporations can make rational decisions

How does Mill support his claim that everyone can be happy?

Happiness equals pleasure over pain. You are happy if you have more pleasure than pain, by means of experience we can change what is pleasurable for us.

Mill basics

Happiness is the only thing desirable and the ultimate end Outcome is the only thing that matters Action only good if it benefits the majority Ok to regulate if the action is better for society

Who says that laws provided to help the poor should be eliminated?

Hardin

Friedman also believes the single-minded pursuit of profits has important benefits for societies as a whole. What are these benefits?

If the business is very profitable, then it will bring business to that community, and provide jobs for people in that community, which will also spike the competition between businesses and raise the salary levels.

"I've head pigs are really happy rolling around in straw. Why can't people be happy doing the same thing?" What is true of this statement?

Mill would say people should seek higher pleasures

Sunstein basic theory

People Know what is better fr them and what they like

Suppose that Orville Potts finds John Rawls sprawled in a hammock in front of Samford Hall, and says "So you think social goods can sometimes be distributed unequally? How can that be justified?" What is Rawls apt to say in response

Rawls believes that social goods can be distributed unequally if society agrees that it would benefit everyone. An example of this would be cancer surgeons, who are given more social goods than others in exchange for spending a large portion of their lives learning how to treat people with cancer. Since this benefits society as a whole, Rawls believes this is justified.

What is Rawls' concept of fairness, and why is it important for him?

Rawls' theory of fairness is that of a just liberal society (justice). Rawls envisions a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an egalitarian economic system. It comprises two main principles: liberty and equality. This theory was important to him because Rawls was a very highly regarded figure in moral and political philosophy and Utilitarianism was the predominant principle in Anglo-American philosophy until Rawls' time.

What is the punishment that Hardin claims is the result of people who have children they can not afford to feed?

Starvation

What does Rawls have to say about the relations between utilitarianism and his own position?

The difference between the two conceptions is whether justice is a fundamental moral concept arising directly from the reciprocal relations of persons engaging in common practices , and its principles those which persons similarly circumstanced could mutually acknowledge; or whether justice is derivative from a kind of higher order executive decision as to the most efficient design of institutions conceived as general devices for distributing benefits to individuals the worth of whose interest is defined independently of their relations to each other.

Friedmans main argument regarding corporations

The only social responsibility corporations possess is to seek maximum profits.Suppose the leaders of a corporation devote corporate resources to protecting the environment. So, instead of dumping waste in nearby streams, they pay to have it processed and disposed of properly. That will cost money and divert corporate resources from, say, product development or marketing. Other corporations will not have similar drains on their resources and will therefore be able to improve their products or lower prices. The ultimate result will be that the environmentally conscious corporation will eventually be driven out of business because of its higher costs.

Harden basics

The world is better off if we don't help the poor lifeboatworld food bank would create overpopulation

Hardin says that there is a certain amount of accommodations for a certain number of people, if you try to over populate, it will fail.

True

If Friedman is correct, corporations benefit societies only when they seek maximal profits

True

Mill disagrees with Aristotle's view that only a few can achieve happiness

True

Milton Friedman assumes that corporations cannot be moral agents

True

Rawls argues that social goods need not be distributed equally to all

True

Sunstein claims that people are over-optimistic about their own future.

True

Sunstein disagrees with Mill's view that we are the best judges of what will benefit us

True

T/F Kant claims relying on instincts can make us happy

True

T/F Sunstein claims we are sometimes bad judges of what is best for us

True

Singer basics

We are morally obligated to act if we are able to prevent something badAmerica has excessive resources and wealth

Which ONE of these IS an implication of Rawls' position?

all human beings have the same moral nature

Veil of Ignorance

if no one could know what place he or she would occupy in the society being formed, what arrangements of the society would a rational person choose? (John Rawls)

Mill's Harm Principle

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Hardin's assumptions about the lifeboat theory

First, and most importantly, he believes human beings are organisms that transform food into babies. That is why he believes providing the starving people of the world with food will make the problem worse. However, there are several factors to consider: Hardin was writing during a period when the global fertility rate was at its highest. The world's fertility rate has fallen steadily since that time and is now under 3 per woman. (That matters because the fertility rate required to maintain a stable population is 2.1. That is, two to replace the parents, and 0.1 to account for children who die before the age of reproduction.) But, it is also the case that human beings have always possessed ways of making choices about reproduction. At the present time, they have additional means to control reproduction, but they have always sought ways to do so. He believed at the time when he wrote (1972) the world had reached the limit of its ability to support human beings. At that time, the world's population had about 4 billion people. At the present time, it has a population of nearly 8 billion people. Nonetheless, there is no indication that human beings are suffering or on the edge of collapse. Life expectancy across the world is increasing. Absolute poverty (defined as an income of $2 per day) is declining=dramatically. (That is largely due to the expanding prosperity of India and China, both with populations of more than a billion.) Experts also claim that more than half the world's population is now a member of the middle class. (You may ask whether there is something fishy here. The economists rely on a special definition of being a member of the middle class. They say any one with 1/3 of their income left over after buying necessities is a member of the middle class. That extra resource can be put to use in many ways.) Furthermore, there are now more obese people than underweight people in the world. By all those measures, human life is improving for most of the people of the world. That is not the outcome we would expect if the world had reached the limit of its ability to support human life nearly 50 years ago. We will examine this further when reading Peter Singer's article on Friday.

Argument about the right to smoke

Dr. Shannon Cason asserts that there is no right to smoke. In a way, that is correct. However, dating back to the Supreme Court decision in the Griswold v. Connecticut case of 1965, the US legal system has a right to privacy, that is, a right to act as we please in matters that concern us alone. That is in agreement with Mill's Harm Principle. The difficulty here is the effect of second-hand smoke, which does entail harm for others from smoking. Second hand smoke would seem to bring Auburn's smoking ban into alignment with Mill's Harm Principle. But, it not yet clear that there is no safe limit of exposure to cigarette smoke. Recall that if that claim is correct, you could be harmed if you are standing on the Concourse and a smoker passes by close enough so that you can smell the smoke. It seems this issue has not been fully addressed. If it has not, the smoking ban could fall afoul of Mill's Harm Principle.

Which one of these is one of the assumptions about human nature which Rawls builds into his ideal choice situation?

Everyone will employ practical reason

T/F Mill claims happiness results only from the use of theoretical reason

False

T/F Mill claims it is impossible for everyone to be happy

False

T/F Mill claims that we cannot be happy if we ever experience pain.

False

T/F Rawls argues that social goods are more important than civil liberties

False

T/F Sunstein claims that only people who buy lottery tickets are too optimistic about their future.

False

T/F if Friedman is correct, corporate executives should try to improve their societies

False

Rawls additional standards must be met for this unequal distribution to be morally justified

First, it must be the case that the unequal distribution benefits all. Second, the reasons for the inequality must be publicly known and acceptable to all (in the original position, of course). Third, the positions with extra benefits are open to all in free competition.

Kant vs Mill on ethics

Kant claimed that intentions matter since we can control them completely, and consequences don't matter for moral evaluation since we cannot control them. Mill, on the other hand, wanted to make the world a better place. Hence, he valued consequences most highly. Intentions matter only insofar as they are likely to result in better consequences. But, for most of that period in British/American philosophy at least, Mill's view was predominant.

According to Sunstein, how does Sarah Conly justify governmental paternalism?

Sunstein argues that is Conly's theory of mean and ends (people may be aware of their ends but are sometimes mistaken regarding the best means with which to pursue them and might could benefit from nudges, taxes, or bans, etc.) is likely to throw freedom of choice out entirely.

Which of the following is a claim a claim Sarah Conly makes?

We don't always choose the best means to achieve our goals

What are Objections 1 & 2 to their positions, and what are their replies?

a. 1. Corporations are not people. We cannot hold a corporation responsible we can only hold people responsible.i. Reply: We are not saying the corporation is a person, but it is made up of people, so it should be held to the same types of responsibilities.b. 2. A corporation cannot be held responsible at the sacrifice of profits.i. Reply: If all you worry about is making profits, then you're not looking at what is best for your employees. (not survival of the fittest, but survival of the whole corporation.)

What arguments are made by those who oppose the smoking ban?

a. A smoking ban takes away rights.b. The smoking ban is unfair because there are other unhealthy behaviors that are not being acknowledged.c. 25 foot rule is more effective than a smoking ban,d. Smoking is not an illegal activity and consequences are not immediate.

Goodpaster and Matthews find similarities between the responsibilities of corporations and those of human individuals. What are these simiarities?

a. People are held accountable for the decisions they make. (make things happen)b. Responsibilities to others are based on their relationships to each other (follow the rules)c. Making decisions - consider courses of action, evaluate, then determine which is the better choice (be rational)

What arguments are made by those who favor the smoking ban?

a. There has never been a right to smoke.b. The existence of other behaviors should not have anything to do with the ban on smoking.c. There is proof that second hand smoke is bad for you.d. There is no safe zone for exposure to tobacco smoke.

What claims of matters of fact are relevant to the question of whether Auburn's smoking ban is justified?

a. They hope it will assist others to quit smoking.b. It will reduce second hand smoke. i. Second hand smoke has immediate adverse effects.ii. 41,000 people die every year from second hand smoke.iii. There is no safe level of exposure to smoke. iv. Smoking harms others that do not smoke.

What are 3 main provisions of the the smoking policy that took effect at the beginning of the fall 2013 semester?

a. You cannot smoke on campus. Smoking is prohibited within all university buildings, facilities, grounds, and university vehicles. b. You cannot litter tobacco products on campus.c. The University will provide assistance for anyone seeking to quit smoking

Distributive justice

the principles that should govern the allocation of the goods that society produces to individual people. (This should be distinguished from retributive justice, or the principles that govern punishment.)

reasons mill gives to support that it's possible for everyone to achieve happiness?

unhappiness= selfishness and lack of "mental cultivation" so everyone has the option to choose happiness. He also mentions evils of the world like poverty and disease can become less severe with a wise, postitive, energetic society

Conly on paternalism

. In brief, she argues that paternalistic intervention by others is sometimes justified. The foundation of her argument is a distinction between means and ends. She believes each of us should be absolutely free to choose our ultimate ends. However, she also assumes that the ultimate ends each of us desires are pretty much all the same, such as, good health, long life, and satisfying activity. My guess is that those ends seem plausible enough. But, Conly notes that we commonly chose means that are opposed to our ultimate ends. We can imagine that everyone wants a long healthy life. But, then what if we eat greasy hamburgers, french fries and large sodas three times a day? In that circumstance, the means (since food is a necessary means to sustain life) we chose are likely to conflict with our ultimate ends. If so, Conly believes it is reasonable for others to act to restrict our choices so that we are more likely to achieve our ultimate ends in life. However, she says intervention is only justified if it meets several conditions: 1) the activity must genuinely interfere with our ultimate ends, 2) the intervention must be effective, 3) the intervention must be have fewer costs than benefits, and 4) intervention must be less intrusive than other interventions. If the above conditions are met, she believes that coercive intervention is justified. As we may note, if autonomy amounts basically to choice, then choices may be outweighed by other considerations. Hence, she concludes that restricting choices is sometimes justified (assuming the above criteria are met).

What are objections 1 + 2 to the positions and what are their replies? (Goodpaster and Matthews)

1. Corporations are not people. We cant hold a corporation responsible we can only hold people responsible.Reply: We arent saying the corporation is a person, but it is made up of people, so it should be held to the same types of responsibilities. 2. A corportation cant be help responsible at the sacrifice of profits.Reply: If all you worry about is making profits, then your not looking at what is best for your employees. (not survival of the fittest, but survival of the whole corporation.)

Under what conditions does Rawls say that inequalityin the distribution of social goods may be justified?

1. Inequalities are just only when conditions of equal opportunity obtains. 2. Conditions of equal opportunity obtain only when a person's fate is not determined by morally irrelevant factors. 3. One's fate is not determined by morally irrelevant factors only when it is determined by one's choices and efforts. 4. One's fate is determined by one's choices and efforts only if it is not determined by social circumstances. 5. Therefore, inequalities are just only when not determined by social circumstances.

What are the similarities Goodpaster and Matthews find between the responsibility of corporations and those of human individuals?

1. People are held accountable for the decisions they make.2. Responsibilities to others based on their relationships to eachother. (rule following)3. Making decisions.-with all of these respect and rationality goes hand in hand.

What are the features of individual choices that Sunstein believes may count against Mill's Harm Principle?

1. Research is showing that people are making bad decisions and those mistakes are damaging to themselves. (ex. people focus on just today, and do not look ahead to tomorow.)2. People also have a lot of trouble dealing with probability. 3. People are usually unrealistically optimistic.

Under what conditions does Rawls say that inequality the distribution of social goods may be justified?

1. inequalities are only just when there's equal opportunity2. equal opportunity is only when a persons fate is not determined by morally irrelevant factors3. fate is not determined by morally irrelevant factors only when its by ones choices and efforts4. fate is determined by one's choices and efforts only if it is not determined by social circumstances5. inequalities are just only when not determined by social circumstances

Friedman on corporate managers and leaders

Also, Friedman points out, corporate managers have expertise and experience in various aspects of business activity, such as finance, advertising, manufacturing, etc. They are not similarly equipped to pursue social goals. Nonetheless corporate leaders commonly confuse the matter by claiming to support social goals in order to create good will. Friedman claims people should not be deceived by this practice. The only obligation corporate leaders possess is to make money for their shareholders.

Mill vs Aristotle and other philosophers on happiness

At first glance, Mill and Aristotle have completely opposed views of human happiness. Recall that Aristotle believes that seeking pleasure is an inferior way of life and that genuine happiness (that is, the most excellent life) can be achieved only by a few exceptional people. Mill's quick response is, of course, that it depends on what sort of pleasure is sought. He would agree that the lower pleasures are fit mainly for beasts, but the higher sort of pleasures are well suited for the best sort of human life. Furthermore, Mill would emphatically agree with Aristotle's view that the life which is intrinsically most valuable is the life of the well-cultivated intellect. However, Mill would also say this is the most pleasant sort of life. Another important difference, as seen below, is that Mill insisted that all can be happy.Mill believed that we can change the things that give us pleasure or pain. As seen below, he believed this can be accomplished by means of education. He was much committed to the value of education and founded a school to put his ideas into concrete form. Hence, he also believed that those human beings devoted to the lower pleasures can be conditioned to appreciate the higher sorts. Recall he believes all can be happy. He claims that a happy life is composed of alternating states of tranquility and excitement—and that it is not particularly difficult for us to achieve this. Consider the old, cheesy cowboy movies that appear on late night TV. They begin with the hero and his buddy lazing around in a state of tranquility. An hour and a half of that sort of thing would bore you to tears. So, what has to happen next is the bad guys show up. Much of the rest of the video is devoted to contending with the bad guys. Once they have been dealt with, the hero and his pal return to their previous state of tranquility. There is no reason to believe that the people who made those movies had been reading Mill, but they somehow sensed that this is a particularly satisfying way to construct a movie.

If their is a safe upper limit of exposure to cigarette smoke, which one of the following is true?

Auburn's policy is unjustified

What are the two roles fairness plays in Rawls system of thought

Beyond that, fairness plays two roles in Rawls' system of thought. First, the ideal choice situation (what Rawls calls the original position) in which principles of justice are chosen should be described as fair if the participants are situated so that they must deal with one another in accordance with the practices of fairness. That is, once again, that individuals cannot be coerced or taken advantage of by others. Their decisions must be free choices that they believe will genuinely serve their own interests. But, second, Rawls hopes that the principles of distributive justice chosen will be fair in the sense that they treat people fairly after they return to ordinary life. (In this regard Rawls distinguishes between perfect and imperfect procedural justice. In the case of imperfect procedural justice, we can imagine that the result of the process is unjust even though all the rules of the practice are followed. Criminal trials are an example of this since the verdicts can be appealed even if all the proper rules of courtroom procedure are followed. As an example, there was a case in Texas a few years ago in which a person was charged with murder but could not afford an attorney. He was appointed an attorney but found guilty and sentenced to death. In the appeal, he argued that his trial was unfair because his attorney was asleep during the process. Finally the Texas Supreme Court declared there had been no injustice since all the rules of proper procedure had been followed (and there was no rule stating that attorneys needed to be awake during a trial). The second type of procedural justice is perfect procedural justice. Athletic contests are examples of this in the sense that the outcome of the contest is fair so long as all the relevant rules are followed. Consider a football game in which one team is heavily favored and is ahead for most of the game. But the game is tied in the last few minutes. In the final seconds, the favored team attempted a field goal that fell short. The ball was caught by a member of the other team who managed to sprint all the way to the other end zone and score a touchdown. Even though many people were unhappy with that result, it was considered fair since the rules of the game were followed. Rawls hopes that his original position will be an example of perfect procedural justice in the sense that the principles of distributive justice chosen will be fair whatever they turn out to be.) Rawls believes further that the principles of justice chosen in the original position will have authority over people because they were chosen fairly. That is because the participants in the original position participated in a joint venture in which they have restrained themselves and have the right to expect others who have profited from this arrangement to do so as well.

Suppose that the managers of Bison Gear & Sprocket, Inc. decide to require all employees to take driver training courses. Which one of the following would be true?

Bison Gear & Sprocket would not violate Mills Harm principle if it acted to prevent harm to others

Sunstein on statistical information

But, Sunstein is not done yet. He also says we have difficulty dealing with statistical information. How so? You likely know of someone who is frightened of flying in airplanes. You also likely don't know of anyone afraid of driving in automobiles. But, you are many times more likely to die in a car wreck than in a plane crash. Sunstein then mentions the availability heuristic. In this case, suppose your roommate has a serious accident and must be treated in a hospital. It is likely you will then be a more cautious driver for the next few days, even though your chances of having an accident are unchanged. Or, imagine we were having class on 9-12 in 2001. It is likely everyone would be nervous about possible terror attacks even though the odds of being attacked are no different than on 9-10. Actually, they would be less because everyone would be on high alert.

How does Conly justify that our choices are already restricted

Furthermore, she notes that our choices are already restricted in many ways. We have discussed the requirement for center high mounted brake lights, for example. She might also note the array of regulations governing automobile and highway construction. But, there are other restrictions on foods and other consumer goods. Can we genuinely know that a microwave oven does not leak harmful radiation? Or can be we sure that canned tomatoes in the grocery store are not contaminated by other substances. Or can we be sure that the toothpaste we buy does not have harmful substances. As individuals, we have limited or no means to gain information on such matters. In such cases, Conly points out that governmental intervention may actually increase autonomy since it frees us of the burden of seeking information that may be difficult for us to acquire. Consider the requirement that substances sold as medications meet the FDA requirements that they be proven both safe and effective. Do we have means of gaining such information by ourselves? If we attempted to do so, it would require large investments of both time and money. So, Conly would conclude the governmental requirement provides us with the means to make other choices that are important to us. But, according to Conly, restrictions on smoking are justified because its effects on our health are likely to preclude a long life. However, Sunstein notes that she is unsure that restrictions on sodas are justified. She points out that the relation between drinking sodas and health is unproven and that many people genuinely enjoy drinking sodas.

Garret Hardins main argument

Garrett Hardin's argument is grounded on the idea that the wealthy nations of the world can be considered to be in a lifeboat, and the poor people of the world are floundering in the ocean. The essential idea here is that a lifeboat has limited space and limited supplies of food and water. In this context, we can raise the question of whether the wealthy people of the world have an obligation to assist those who are in danger of death. He asserts that there are 3 and only 3 options: 1) Admit all the suffering people of the world. But, this will overwhelm the capacity of the lifeboat to support human life and result in disaster for all. 2) Admit suffering people to the capacity of the lifeboat (and address difficult questions about who to admit). But, this course of action also risks disaster since the safety margin of the lifeboat is used up. 3) Finally, we could admit no one. The hungry would die, but the wealthy would have a reasonable chance of surviving. Hardin obviously believes the first two options are futile and suicidal, leaving only the last. He believes the only solution for poor nations is to limit population and not seek to produce more food.

Goodpaster and Matthews on corporations

Goodpaster & Matthews then assert that corporations are able to display each of these three qualities. They certainly are able to cause things to happen as when they determine to build a new plant, produce a new product or cease production of an old one. They must also be able to follow rules. Any corporation must, for example, uphold the laws of the domain in which it functions. Lastly, it must be able to make decisions and, in doing so, display the qualities necessary for decision making. Thus, they must be able to determine whether constructing a new plant is desirable or whether producing a new product is likely to be successful. Hence, corporations are able to be moral agents. But, Goodpaster & Matthews then ask whether they should be considered moral agents. They mention several answers. The first is Milton Friedman's claim that they should not be since the pressure of the free market will lead them to behavior that benefits all. Another answer is provided by John Kenneth Galbraith (another prominent economist of the mid-20th Century). Galbraith says corporations cannot be trusted to be morally responsible, so government should guide them to correct conduct. Finally, they repeat their answer, which is that corporations are indeed able to function as moral agents.

Why does Hardin condemn the idea of world food bank?

Hardin also condemns the idea of a world food bank. The basic idea was that the wealthy nations of the world would contribute extra supplies of food to a common store that would be used to assist needy nations. As you might expect, he believes this will only make the problem of world hunger worse since people with food will product more babies. When food shortages return, the suffering will be greater since there will be more people in need. Furthermore, Hardin believes this aid will prevent the poor nations of the world from developing the their own sources of food and learning how to managing the food they possess more efficiently.

What is the "lifeboat metaphor" for Hardin, and why is it important?

Hardin uses the metaphor of a lifeboat to make his argument Lifeboat ethics is a metaphor for resource distribution proposed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin. Hardin's metaphor describes a lifeboat bearing 50 people, with room for ten more. The lifeboat is in an ocean surrounded by a hundred swimmers - the richer nations are lifeboats the poorer nations are swimming in the watereach boat has a given capacity. The lifeboat metaphor and the options available for helping those in the water is embodiment of the moral dilemmas of a nation making decisions to use their resources to help others or to survive themselves. We must govern our actions by the ethics of the lifeboat as harsh as they may be.

Friedman's claims on moral responsibility and corporations

He opens with the assertion that claims regarding moral responsibility cannot be directed at corporations, since only individual human beings are capable of acting as moral agents.But, if claims about moral responsibility cannot be directed at corporations, they must be directed at corporate executives. They are individual personas and therefore capable of moral understanding. However, corporate executives are employees, hired to carry out the wishes of corporate owners. In this case, the owners are shareholders in the corporation. The essential thing is that corporate executives are not independent agents but are the instruments for carrying out the wishes of others--the owners—and Friedman's assumption is that the shareholders want maximum profits in return for their investment. But, if corporate executives were to support goals not directly mandated by shareholders, they would be in effect taxing shareholders. That is because they would be using profits that would otherwise be distributed to shareholders for other purposes. However, only governments are authorized to tax and make decisions about legitimate social goals. So, in effect, the managers would be acting as governing agents without the checks, balances or legal constraints that constrain public officials.

What does Friedman say is the best way for corporations to improve society

However, Friedman has another bold claim to make. He asserts that the best way for corporations to improve the society in which they operate is to seek maximal profit. "What?" you say. His point rests on an understanding of how free markets work. Consider Apple Computer. Apple can only make money if it can convince customers that they want is products more than they want the money in their accounts. So, people will stay up all night outside an Apple Store to gain the privilege of paying out hundreds of dollars in return for one of its products. If the transaction takes place, both parties have benefited. The customer then has something he or she wants more than the money in his or her accounts, and Apple has what it wants, namely your money. So, all parties benefit by seeking what they most want. If we multiply this by billions of commercial transactions each day, we can see that many benefit from these exchanges. Recall that Apple can't pull a gun on you and demand that you take one of its products. It has to make you want them. Consider the iPhone. Your parents didn't want them when they were your age since iPhones didn't exist. Steve Jobs had the idea that he could make these things and convince people to want them.

Why is Auburns smoking ban controversial

However, notice that some will pay a cost for these benefits. If we assume students spend 4 to 6 hours or longer on campus, those who smoke are likely to become uncomfortable and unhappy. Hence, the benefit for the campus as a whole is gained at the expense of a cost for some members of the campus community. Hence, we will want to ask whether this benefit for the majority is justified since it is gained at the expense of discomfort for (we presume) a minority.The implication of the above is that any exposure to cigarette smoke, no matter how small, is capable of causing health effects. So, if you are standing on the Concourse and a smoker passes by close enough for you to smell the smoke, your health may be harmed. If that implication is unjustified, then Auburn's smoking ban is unjustified (if we assume Mill's Harm Principle is correct), since others are not being harmed by a brief exposure to cigarette smoke. The quote above states there is no safe limit of exposure to cigarette smoke. However, we must wonder whether anyone has seriously sought to find out whether such a limit exists. Notice that from Mill's perspective, it is irrelevant that non-smokers dislike the smell of cigarette smoke or are irritated by it. What matters from the perspective of Mill's Harm Principle is actual harm rather than simple dislike.

Japan and China population issue (Hardin)

In China, with the world's largest population, the fertility rate is about 1.7. Many families in cities believe they cannot afford more than 1 child. Hence, China's leaders now worry about insufficient numbers of people and wish to encourage couples to have more children. In the United States fertility is about 1.9. The population is not declining because of immigration. Immigrants add numbers of people, but immigrants also tend to have larger families than native born Americans. (In case you believe that it unfortunate, ask whether Auburn's mayor would be pleased by a drop in population. Not only would that mean fewer taxes paid, but fewer customers for groceries, hardware, gasoline, etc. He would consider a population decline as a disaster. Japan has suffered a population decline for some time. Now it has empty houses that nobody wants. It worries about having a sufficient supply of workers, and it worries about caring for an increasing number of older people. Many of the world's most advanced nations are also losing population, and they consider it a problem.)

Rawls on society

In Rawls's view, the critically important thing about all of these is that they are products of society as a whole. You don't educate yourself, he believes, because you require schools, teachers, and texts to gain knowledge. You may work hard and earn money to pay for your schooling, but you won't be able to gain an education without all the above. And, in this period of coronavirus pandemic, you can't keep healthy simply through your own efforts. You need large and fully staffed institutions to do so. (Think of all the institutions playing a role in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.) The same applies to personal security, food, and etc. They are all products of society as a whole. Because they are, Rawls believes it is reasonable to ask what principles should guide the distribution of these goods. (It is also important to understand that Rawls is not a socialist (no matter what your roommate says), in the sense that he does not believe that a socialist economy is best suited to provide the goods we all need to live the sorts of lives we find most suitable. He believes that a capitalist economy is best able to provide these goods. If, however, someone could convince him that a socialist economy would work better, he could, in principle, accept that.

What does Harden have to say about the policy of establishing world food banks?

In reality a world food bank would not truly be beneficial. There are problems that it would cause in the short run and long run. First, since the U.S. is the wealthiest country it will end up contributing the most to the food bank. Also, although it seems like the right thing to do as far as humanitarianism, a lot of the money we think will be used solely for the food banks will serve as profits to special interest groups. Another problem is that the poorer countries will not learn to prepare for emergencies or control their population growth. This is because every time something goes wrong they can count on others to come to their aid. As time goes on the poor countries will suffer even more and the richer countries will have to supply even more. Some countries will deposit and other countries will withdraw

Mill's Harm principle and smoking ban

Many of the arguments opposed to the smoking ban rely on claims related to Mill's Harm Principle (including the person who says, "I have a right to do whatever makes me happy.") But, there is another argument that stands apart from the rest. One student editor doubts that the smoking ban will be successfully enforced. This is related to an important issue in the philosophy of law, the question of whether a statute that is not or cannot be enforced is genuinely law. The consensus among scholars is that it could not be law. Part of what it is for something to be a law is that it is enforced. So, if the smoking ban cannot be enforced, it would, from this perspective, not be genuine law. From the perspective of a hapless instructor who was present both before and after the ban, it seems it has made a difference. We no longer see groups of people loitering around smoking. If they have to sneak off to the bottom of a Haley Center stairwell to satisfy their habit, it is still the case that the ban has made a difference in behavior. If the smoking ban is not 100% successful, it is not obvious that the ban is ineffectual. For example, the US has supported laws against murder for as long as it has existed as a nation. Yet, murders take place every year. Should that imply that laws against homicide are useless? It seems likely that most would say not. If the laws are not entirely successful, most are likely say that means only that we should improve our efforts to enforce them. In the case of Auburn's smoking ban, it would seem that the degree of difference that it has made is sufficient to satisfy most.

If Sunstein's claim that humans have a present bias is correct and we are therefore not always good judges of what is best for us, what would that mean for Mayor Bloomberg?

Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to ban sodas larger than 16oz. is justified

Mill says people's unhappiness caused by two things, what are they and explain

Mill claims that those who are unhappy are so for two distinct types of causes, external and internal. If people are unhappy because of poverty, disease, or unjust treatment, they can become happy when those conditions are removed. As always, he was a life-long reformer, and he believed that human difficulties can be removed through enlightened reform. What about disease, you ask? Much disease in Mill's day and ours is the result of an unclean and unwholesome environment—consider the coronavirus pandemic of the present time. Hence, those causes can be addressed by enlightened reform. He was also living in the period when the germ theory of disease was being developed. For the great bulk of human history, humans did not have a worthwhile understanding of the nature of disease. If we now believe it often results from bacteria or viruses, we do so because use of microscopes made them visible to us and helped us understand their relation to disease. Even in the 19th Century, many people were incredulous at the prospect that something as tiny as a bacteria could cause a human being to become sick or die. The coronavirus is even smaller. So, how can they make us sick? They can do so as a result of multiplying quickly and transforming into huge numbers. That is when they become dangerous. As a result, Mill had reason to be confident that we have the means to address the main causes of disease.The second cause of unhappiness is internal. Mill would likely say, and you can likely confirm, that there are people who have comfortable lives but are nonetheless miserable. In those cases, Mill asserts that the ultimate cause is that such persons are not concerned about anything other than themselves. Hence, the cure is to encourage them to develop wider interests and concerns. As you might imagine, he believed the key here is education. So, both the external and the internal causes of unhappiness can be addressed in Mill's view. You are welcome to decide for yourselves whether you agree or note.

What is Mill's conception of happiness, and how does it compare with those of Aristotle and Hobbes?

Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. Aristotle claims that happiness involves contemplation for its own sake. Happiness is the highest good because we choose happiness as an end sufficient in itself. Hobbes claims happiness involves continuous success in obtaining those things which a man desires.

What does it mean to say that differing pleasures must be qualitively different, and how does Mill support his claim?

Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher" faculties.

According to Sunstein, how does Sarah Conly criticize Mill's Harm Principle?

Mill states that the coercive power of the state must be used only to prevent persons from harming each other and never to protect a person from himself or herself, based on the position that no one knows a person's interest better than that person. Conly believes, for example, that everyone values his or her health, but nonetheless chooses unhealthy foods. Sunstein suggests that autonomy may be considered an end in itself, making it different to trade off against means to achieving other ends. Alternatively, if autonomy (self-governing) is valued merely as means, that value may well be so great as to outweigh any benefits from paternalism

Suppose O. Potts says, "Pleasure is pleasure. There is no difference between them." Which one of the following would be true?

Mill would say some pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than others

Rawls on utilitarianism

Rawls agrees that utilitarianism and his principles of justice will often have similar outcomes, but he also claims they will have a different basis. Utilitarianism interprets justice as a higher order administrative decision about how goods are to be distributed to people who have no special relation to one another. (Recall that the governmental decision to require the center high mounted brake lights was handed down on the basis of the assumption that the money saved through fewer rear end collisions would be far greater than the money lost by buyers who would have to pay extra for these lights--$13 in 1994 dollars). There was no referendum on this matter, and it was not approved by any legislature. Ten years after the rule was originally mandated, the authorities performed a study in which they found that the money saved by the extra brake lights more than offset the cost of the brake lights to consumers. This is the sort of decision procedure Mill would endorse, since it brought benefits for all even though they had no role in the decision to require the extra brake lights.) Rawls, however, views decisions about justice as made by people themselves who are connected to one another in significant ways. Another important difference is that utilitarianism allows all human desires and gives them equal weight. Rawls' theory, on the other hand, will rule some desires out as having no moral standing (since they would not be accepted by all the participants in the original position). For example, in the days of classical Rome, there was the Coliseum that was the site of sporting events and seated 55 thousand people. It was the predecessor of Auburn's contemporary coliseum. Its ruins remain in the city of Rome. During a portion of that history Romans would crowd into the Coliseum to enjoy watching Christians being eaten by lions. Of course, this caused great suffering for the Christians, but it is claimed that on utilitarian grounds the happiness of the 55 thousand Romans would outweigh the suffering of a few Christians. This seems an obviously unjust result no matter how much happiness it brought Romans. Rawls, in contrast, can say that this sort of event is ruled out by his principles since they would not be accepted in the original position. (Recall that one of the important features of the original position is that people will not know what roles they will play in society once they leave the original position. Since it is possible that they will end up as unfortunate Christians, and the members of the original position will be eager to avoid that fate, they will rule desires of that sort out. This illustrates the critically important distinction between Rawls' principles and utilitarianism. Rawls assumes that people in the original position will place a large value on security. That is, they will be eager to avoid the fate of enduring great suffering or being allotted a miniscule supply of social goods. Hence, it is Rawls' assumption about the desire for security that accounts for the difference between his principles and those of the utilitarians. However, a utilitarian might reply that it is just as likely that people in the original position will place great weight on maximizing the total of goods available for all. They might be so dedicated to this that they would be willing to take the risk of being deprived of social goods or being fed to lions for the amusement of Romans. If people in the original position had that perspective, they would likely chose utilitarian principles. So, it is a matter of the psychology and values of people in the ideal choice situation. It is not obvious that people in that circumstance would place greater weight on maximizing security than maximizing the welfare of the majority.)

Mills vs Hobbes on happiness

Mill's view of happiness has much in common with that of Hobbes. As with Hobbes, Mill asserts we naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. That is simply a fact about our nature. In Hobbes view, we are in a state of felicity (i.e. happiness) when our desires are satisfied. They differ mainly in the feasibility of what is sought. For Hobbes, the main business of life will be to stay alive and achieve security. (That is because, recall, that humans are naturally in a state of war with one another. That is, we are naturally inclined to kill one another if we believe that doing so will help us satisfy our desires or preserve our own lives.) Thus, in Hobbes' view there is relatively little chance that felicity can be achieved, or, if it is achieved, can be sustained for any more than a brief period of time. (Also, Mill & Hobbes would disagree about the inherent quality of pleasures and the importance of seeking the higher pleasures. In Hobbes' view things are good simply because we desire them. There is no conceptual space for assigning different values to different pleasures.) Most significantly, they differ in their view of the inherent competitiveness of human life. For Hobbes, this is a central feature of our existence. In Mill's scheme, genuine happiness requires that we concern ourselves with the wellbeing of others. In fact, Mill believes we cannot be happy unless we are concerned with other's fates. (We will discuss this further in a bit.)

What arguments does Friedman provide to support his claim that the only responsibility of corporate managers is to increase profits?

No matter what decisions the Manager makes, it will be to look out for the best interest of the business. He may not increase prices on the goods, but he could cut the employees' salary. Which would mean profit for the business.

Rawls cancer surgeon example

Now, you are likely thinking this sounds pretty strange. So, we can try an example. We can assume that everyone in society is better off if cancer surgeons exist. We can say we benefit from them even if we never need cancer surgery since we would want to have them present in case we or some members of our family need cancer surgery. Does this sound right? But, we can then ask if you really want to be a cancer surgeon. Why so? Think of what has to happen before you can begin a practice. You will need to graduate from college, get accepted into medical school for 4 more years of training. Then, you will need to work through an internship (usually of 1 year) and a residency of 2 to 7 years before you can begin a practice. You will receive a low salary during these periods while also accumulating large amounts of debt. OK, you say, but I can then begin to make a large salary. Sort of, since you will have large debts to pay off. But, then consider the way you will have to spend your days. You will spend a good bit of time in surgery in which you will remove significant portions of a patient's body, and you will not be sure that you have completely removed the cancer. Then, you will have to spend a considerable portion of your week meeting with patients. In some of those meetings you will have to convey the message that they need disfiguring surgery that may not completely remove their cancer. In others, you will have to tell the patient that there is nothing more that can be done since the cancer has developed too far. Do you really want to spend much of your life having those sorts of conversations? (And, yes, your hapless instructor has heard from two of his past students who are cancer surgeons. In fact, both are chief of surgery at their home hospitals. They have told me what they have to do. One acknowledged that he doesn't sleep very well the night before a major surgery. The second wants to get out because it is too demanding.)However, since we need cancer surgeons, and we are all better off for having them, how do we encourage at least some people to become cancer surgeons? An obvious answer is that people might be willing to make this choice if they have larger incomes and more prestige than people in other social roles. In this case, we are likely to agree that an unequal distribution of social goods is justified since we will all benefit. And, of course, they will need considerably more education than the average person.

Rawls on fairness

Obviously, he believes "fairness" plays a central role in his thinking. Basically, "fairness" for Rawls is the idea that no participant in an activity should feel that he or she is being taken advantage of by others or beings coerced into accepting something unacceptable.

Autonomy vs paternalism

One term commonly opposed to 'autonomy' is 'paternalism' or making choices for us intended to be for our benefit. We may say the rule requiring high center mounted brake lights is paternalistic in the sense that the choice was made for us and without consulting us but is intended to be for our benefit.

Goodpaster and Matthews basics

People and corporations have moral responsibilities and concepts Pursuing profit and self interest comes after moral reasoning

What are Rawls' two principles of justice?

Rawls argues that self-interest rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world. 1. Principle of Equal Liberty - Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all (Egalitarian). 2. Difference Principle - social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to office and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

Sunstein on reasonable choices

So, Sunstein believes there is a large body of social science data demonstrating that we are likely to display present bias, that we are ill equipped to deal with statistical information, that we will be swayed by the availability heuristic, and we are going to be overly optimistic about our own futures. In consequence, he believes there are instances in which we are unlikely to make reasonable choices and other people can be aware of this. As a result, he believes is it sometimes justifiable for others to intrude in our lives on grounds that we are likely to make poor choices and others will know this. The instance of retirement programs returns to mind. Sunstein is particularly concerned about these since people are likely to suffer if they make poor choices in these matters. Sunstein has been an enthusiastic advocate of what has been called the "nudge," that is, arranging a situation so that people are more likely to make one choice rather than others. In the case of retirement programs, Sunstein believes that people should be automatically enrolled in a retirement program whenever they get a job. They will have the ability to opt out if they genuinely desire to do so, but Sunstein believes most will remain enrolled and benefit as a result. But the nudge is used by many organizations in many contexts to guide choices. One notable example is chain coffee shops. They want people to come in, buy coffee, drink it, then leave. But, how should they encourage people to leave after 10 or 15 minutes without causing irritation. One way it to tilt the seats up at a small angle that will be sufficient to make people mildly uncomfortable after 10 or so minutes. They then spontaneously get up and leave without any prompting from the coffee shop operators. If you give the matter some thought, you will likely have little difficulty thinking of other examples of nudges.

Rawls types of primary goods we find most desirable

So, what principle does he believe we will all agree to accept if we place ourselves under the constraints of the original position? He believes the primary goods that all of us need to live the sorts of lives we find most desirable fall into two categories, that of civil liberties and social goods. Civil liberties include such things a freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of political association, and equality before the law. Notice that these things must be provided by social institutions, primarily governments. In any case, he believes that in the original position we would all agree that these civil liberties should be distributed equally to all.Rawls believes that the distribution of the second class of goods, social goods, is more complicated. Remember that social goods include things such as health, education, personal security, food, income, etc. Rawls believes that we would agree, in the original position once again, that these goods should be distributed equally (because, once again, we won't know what role we will play in society once we leave the original position). But he also believes there is a possible exception to this demand for equality which he terms the "difference principle." The difference principle works like this: If we can demonstrate that everyone will be better off if some have more than the rest, then this inequality would be justified.

Rawls Basics

SocialistDistribution of social primary goods should be equal, unless an unequal distribution is beneficial to the least favoredPrinciples - LIBERTY- equal rights to basic liberties / WEALTH - Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to benefit the least advantagedgreatest good for the greater majority makes it easier to be abused and lead to "tyranny of majority"

Sunstein vs Mill

Sunstein believes that many Americans accept this principle or something akin to it. Sunstein then notes that, you will recall, Mill's claims about ethics should be based in appeals to matters of fact. Hence, Mill believes a major foundation for his Harm Principle is that others cannot have sufficient knowledge about us, our lives, or our concerns to be able to intervene in a way that will have the consequences we foresee. Hence, Mill's Principle is founded on a belief about matters of fact.

Suppose that Mill is out in front of Toomer's drugstore slurping lemonade and arguing with Sunstein about the harm principle. Imagine that Mill says, "What?? How can anyone know enough about another person's life to know what is genuinely good for them?" How is Sunstein likely to respond to this claim (based on what he says in his article)?

Sunstein claims that most people are bad at making decisions for themselves because of present bias, which Sunstein claims is the way people view the future as something foreign and fail to prepare for it, and because people are bad at analyzing probabilities, meaning they tend to be more concerned with statistically less threatening things bc they have recently experienced them. Sunstein believes that governments are capable of overcoming these flaws and are therefore better suited to make decisions for people

Sunstein's basis of anger

Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the Harvard Law School, believes the basis for the anger is that many people in the United States accept something like John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. This principle is not found in the selections for this course but in another of Mill's works titled On Liberty. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right."

Whatley Building example for smoking ban

Suppose that, once the Whatley Building were completed on College Street, the developer celebrated by hanging a large banner with a picture of Alabama's football coach. That would irritate many people, but it is unlikely they would be harmed. On the other hand, suppose that someone who had been diagnosed with corona virus were to go around coughing on others. Coughing on others is normally irritating and impolite, but does not obviously cause harm. But, in this era of coronavirus, that practice could well cause exposure to the disease. The following illustrates the change in perspective nicely. If the action had occurred several months ago, it is unlikely anyone would have been overly concerned. It was, of course, an idiot thing to do, but it would unlikely have resulted in the charge of being a "terrorist threat." (And, yes, a certain instructor was relieved to notice that the individual in the picture does not resemble any of this students.)

Suppose that all people took pleasure only in the use of theoretical reason. Which of the following would be true?

That would provide support for Mill's view of human happiness

What does 16 oz. soda have to do with John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle?

The Mayor of New York tried to ban 16oz soda bottles from being sold, but according to Mill, the government cannot ban something, because individuals know best what they can and cannot handle, and it is not the governments place to make that decision for them, According to Mill's harm principle. If the Harm Principle is correct, then Bloomberg is not justified in restricting people's decisions abo0ut buying sodas since he cannot know enough about them to be sure that his efforts will have the consequences he has in mind. Sunstein, however, believes there is a substantial body of social science research that demonstrates that we (i.e., all of us) tend to make poor choices about our lives in a number of areas. Hence, if it can be demonstrated that we make poor choices about our own welfare, others may be justified in intervening.

Friedman vs Matthews and Goodpaster

The first objection is that (as Friedman claims) only human beings can be moral persons. The answer Goodpaster and Matthews provide is that corporations are indeed not persons in the way individual human beings are. Rather, they have the qualities required for personhood and are capable of functioning as persons. They believe their view is supported by the fact that corporations have goals and strategies designed to achieve them. This perspective has some support in law. Several years ago, in the Citizens United Supreme Court case, the Court determined that they have the right of freedom of speech and that includes the right to donate money to support candidates for political office. (You may believe this is an odd way to view freedom of speech but that's the way the Court does it.) The 2nd objection is familiar from Milton Friedman, the claim that businesses should not be required to commit suicide. In response, Goodpaster & Matthews claim that pursuit of social goals need not conflict with the goal of seeking maximum profits. They might note that, for example, corporations that devote themselves to environmentally sound practices commonly claim that they save money. Or, those who support workplace diversity claim that they benefit from having a wider pool of talented workers. Furthermore, when corporations are sold or valued, one important component of their worth is the corporate "good name." A corporation that is known for being trustworthy and socially responsible is worth more than one without that reputation. This sometimes amounts to 15% or 20% of the value of the institution as a whole. Nonetheless, Goodpaster & Matthews agree that a business entity should not be expected to sacrifice itself for the sake of moral principle. They simply deny that devotion to any or all moral principles is likely to significantly weaken the institution financially and may even strengthen it.

Rawls Primary Goods

The foundation of Rawls' thinking on this matter is his conception of primary goods. By this he has in mind the goods each of us requires in order to live the type of life we find must suitable. (It is important to understand that, along with John Stuart Mill, he believed that each of us should have the responsibility for determining what mode of life suits us best. Hence, for him as for Mill, it doesn't make sense to ask what the best life for human beings should be. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.) But, he also believes that, no matter what sort of life we choose, there are certain things we will need to achieve that mode of life. These things include health, personal security, food, shelter, income, and some form of education. Different modes of life will require more or less of these, but we will all need at least some of them in some form. We also need things like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and equality before the law.

What are the major features of the principle of utility in Mill's view?

The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they pretend to produce the reverse of happiness. Mill defines happiness as pleasure in the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in ones higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that human achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality and that people never desire anything but happiness.

What reasons does Mill give to support his claim that it is possible for all human beings to achieve happiness?

The major sources of unhappiness are selfishness and a lack of mental cultivation, thus it is fully within most people's capabilities to be happy, if their education nurtures the appropriate values. Furthermore, most of the evils of the world, including poverty and disease, can be alleviated by a wise and energetic society devoted to their elimination.

Mill and Kant on autonomy

There is a conceptual link with Mill's Harm Principle since we can assume that being a law unto one's self requires that others not interfere in our lives. Though the term itself is ancient, it has been most closely associated with Kant in Western European philosophy. His thought was that insofar as we act in accordance with rules that we can will to be universal law for all rational beings, we are making that law since it arises out of our nature as rational beings. In practical terms, however, it amounts to making choices and making them without interference from others

What do Goodpaster and Matthews believe about moral agents

They assume that simply being human is insufficient to achieve this since then comatose people or human infants could be moral agents. Goodpaster & Matthews believe 3 qualities are required for a being to have the status of a moral agent. First, they assert that a genuine moral agent must be able to cause things to happen. A being that cannot bring anything about is not a moral agent. If a single human is completely paralyzed, that person cannot cause anything to happen and therefore is not a moral agent. Second, they claim a moral agent must be able to follow rules. Any agent incapable of following rules cannot be held to account for its actions. Third, a moral agent must be able to make decisions. That is, it must be able to imagine various courses of action, determine the results of each, and finally selecting the one that yields the most desirable results. Included in this practice is rationality and respect (that is, concern for the effects of decisions on others).

Sunstein on present bias

To begin with, Sunstein believes our choices display a present bias. By that he means that we tend to give too much weight to matters that are of concern in the near future but too little weight to matters that will become extremely important in years to come. "Like what?" you say. A good example, and an issue that has been a serious concern for Sunstein, is retirement funds. It will be very important to you to have a sufficient income when you retire from work. But, that time is likely to be 40 years in the future. Well, you might think you could rely on Social Security. Almost no experts agree. The problem is that the money you pay to the Social Security Administration this year is paid out this year to people who are retired already. But, people are living longer and the US birth rate is declining. Hence, in, say, 40 years there will be a large number of people who want to retire but too few people of working age paying into Social Security. Politicians are well aware of this but disinclined to do anything about it. As a result it is likely best that you not rely on Social Security to sustain you during your old age. Then you might think that you will get a job with an organization that will have a retirement plan for you. But, this sort of thing costs organizations a good bit of money, and their leaders are working on ways to escape that obligation. The most common strategy is to switch from "defined benefit" programs to "defined contribution" programs. The difference is the following: Defined benefit programs require organizations to offer certain levels of money to their retirees. Defined contribution programs commit the organizations to contributing a certain amount to their retirees each year. Is there a difference? Yes indeed. Since organizations are trying to save money, they will have strong incentive to minimize the contributions they make to their retirees each year. If that occurs, their retirees will have less to live on as each year passes. As a result, experts claim that people should take responsibility for their own retirement income. The most reasonable way to do this is to open a retirement account with a small amount from your first paycheck. In that way, you can accumulate an amount sufficient to support you comfortably after you retire. But, it is likely you will have other uses for your 1st paycheck and your 2nd or 3rd. You then think I can begin the account next year. But next year comes and goes and you wait until you are in your mid 50's, and panic (as Hume would have claimed) sets in. At that point, you will have to save a considerable amount from each paycheck and still are unlikely to have a sufficient amount saved to support a comfortable retirement. That's an example of Sunstein's present bias at work. Or, more immediately, you think we have another exam coming up in a few weeks. If you begin studying early and work on it a bit each day, you can be amply prepared for the next exam. But, what will happen instead? You will wait until 10:30 or 11:00 the night before the exam and have to cram & still not do well. Sunstein would say he told you so.

Rawls ideal choice situation

To give form to the decision of which principles should guide the choice of principles to govern the distribution of these primary goods, Rawls makes use of his conception of an ideal choice situation, which he terms the original position. He believes that we can all place ourselves in this ideal choice situation by reasoning in accordance with certain rules. First, he assumes that we will all desire as large a portion of these goods as is possible. Second, he assumes we are all rational in the sense that we will all make use of reason to find the best means to achieve our ends. (Hence, he is relying on the practical reason that Hobbes believed is most important. Even though Rawls wants to employ a Kantian perspective, he does not make use of Kant's idea of theoretical reason.) Third, he believe we will not be jealous of one another in the sense that it won't matter to us how large a share of goods others receive so long as we are able to live the sorts of lives we desire. But, fourth, he makes use of what he terms the "veil of ignorance" to structure our choices. What he means by this is that, while in the original position, we will not have any idea of our own personal abilities and weaknesses, and we will not have any idea of what role we will play in society once we leave the original position. In relation to this, he assumes that each of us will be most concerned that we have the means to live a decent life when we return to the actual world. In consequence, Rawls assumes that, in the original position, we will be highly concerned that the worst off people in society will be as well off as is possible. This is on grounds that we might end up on one of those positions when we return to the real world. (This is Rawls' way of introducing Kant's idea of moral agency without claiming there is a separate realm of the mind, soul, or spirit. He doesn't need this because we are to imagine that we possess these qualities. But, like Kant, he believes that our nature as moral agents is all the same. As a result, he believes it is reasonable to believe that we will all agree on the basic principles that we should use to guide the distribution of goods to individual people.)

Hobbes says happiness is what

continuous success in things a man desires, not happiness itself

Aristotle says happiness is what

done for its own sake, its the highest good because we choose it as an end result

Principle of equal liberty?

each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all

What are Rawl's 2 principles of justice?

he argues that self-interest rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two principles to structure the world

what is rawls concept of fairness?

he believed in a society of free citizens with basic rights and also cooperating with an egalitarian economic system. (1. liberty and 2. equality) it was important to him because he was a high figure and utilitarianism was the main principle until he stepped in

Friedman's single-minded pursuit of profits has benefits for society?

if the business is profitable then it will bring business to community and provide jobs. this then spikes competition and raise salary levels

What arguments does Friedman provide to support his claim that the only responsibility of big managers is to increase profits?

no matter what decision a manager makes his best interest is to look out for the business. even if he doesn't increase the prices on the goods he could cut salary which would = profit

Mills says happiness is what

pleasure is the absence of pain and argues it can differ in quality/quantity and that all we desire is pleasure

Difference Principle

social and economic inequalities are arranged so they benefit the position of the least advantaged person and positions are are open to all under equal opportunity

Friedman and the Amazon.com example

the claim that corporate leaders have the responsibility to seek maximum profits deserves some attention. Amazon.com is among the most successful corporations in the world. For most of its history, it has lost money and done so intentionally. Its leader, Jeff Bezos, wants to put all profits back in service if expanding its market penetration. His goal is to make Amazon.com into the everything store. He has not quite achieved that goal as yet, but he is getting closer. As it happens, Amazon.com has made a profit in the past several years, but that is because of its venture into using cloud computing for data storage. Another corporation with close ties to Auburn is Apple Computer. In contrast to Amazon.com it has tens of billions of dollars in profits stashed away. Shareholders sometimes go to court to gain some of those profits, but have enjoyed little success. Tesla Motors is another example. It also loses money, but shareholders love it and continue to buy its stock. Hence, it is not obvious that corporate executives feel any great obligation to seek maximal profits, not at least if some of the most successful corporations of the modern era are considered. It is entirely true that corporate executives have little expertise in matters of ecology, diversity, or community improvement. However, should they determine to engage these matters, they will likely proceed as they do elsewhere: they will rely on consultants.