Ethics Final

"Act for the greatest good for the greatest number." How did Bentham think that this rule should be applied? Explain any technical terms in your answer.

Bentham was concerned with measuring/calculating the amount of pleasures and pains that were occuring. So, in order to carry out the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, he applied what is known as Hedonistic calculus. Utilitarianism itself can be divided into two categories: hedonistic and non-hedonistic. Hedonistic Utilitarianism is focused specifically on pleasure and pain whereas Non-hedonistic is focused on the desires of things such as wealth. The hedonistic calculus is a tool used to quantify pleasure and pain of two different actions with a numerical value based on a number of different factors (such as: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, etc). Whichever action produced a higher utility (or more pleasure for the greatest amount of people) would be the action of choice.

According to Kant, what is the practical value of the categorical imperative?

According to Kant, the categorical imperative should tell us what our duty is. It acts as Litmus paper in an acid and base test. Some duties are perfect and some are imperfect. Perfect duties should be responded to every time that they come up while imperfect duties can be put off for a later time.

According to Langton and Korsgaard, what is the difference between ideals and goals?

According to Korsgaard, ideal circumstances require strict compliance whereas nonideal circumstances (goals) don't have strict compliance. Her theory on ideals is that there is an ideal state of affairs that one must act toward achieving, yet there is also "non ideals" which is when ideal affairs are not feasible. For example, she wants to treat peace as a goal rather than an ideal, not feasible in certain circumstances, we can keep it in mind as a long range objective (so maybe under ideal circumstances we may not do certain things).

How does Korsgaard distinguish between single-level and double-level theories?

According to Korsgaard, single level theories are ones that contain only one part of ideals. This is Kantian theories to her. Double-level theories contain both ideal and nonideal parts.

According to Williams, this decision indicates a serious problem for utilitarianism. What is it?

According to Williams, this decision indicates a problem for utilitarianism which is that guilt and personal feelings are not taken into account when making a decision. Jim would still be killing one Indian if he chose to save the rest. And yet, because of the idea of negative responsibility, the case should not even be looked at from a Utilitarian point of view (According to Williams) because either way Jim will feel guilty.

Compared to the hedonistic calculus, what are some positive features of decision theory? Some negative features?

Compared to hedonistic calculus, decision theory does not contain a biased "WE" stance in the process of making the decision. It plays a more neutral role than utilitarianism. Additionally, there is much less of a numbers problem with decision theory than in hedonistic calculus. It also has greater generality, meaning that you could be a Kantian, for example, and apply decision theory. It does not limit us to any point of view (consequentialist in terms of Utilitarian). Decision theory is generalized and can be used to calculate different decisions, not only consequentialist approaches, while hedonistic calculus is only used for utilitarianism. Some negative features about decision theory is that numbers can still be assigned in both an irrational and/or immoral way.

What are the basic features of Hooker's rule consequentialism?

In Hooker's rule consequentialism, one is to look at the consequences of the rule rather than the consequences of the action. Hooker thinks the second code should always be chosen because it is more equally spread He thinks that total welfare is not the only thing that is important (Distribution sensitivity). He takes into account both total utility and fairness as the two main principles.

Show how to deliberate about Kant's second (borrowing) example as a Kantian.

Maxim: Whenever I need money and can obtain it only through a false promise to repay, I will make this promise (Maxim always in first person). Generalized Maxim: Whenever anyone needs money and can obtain it only through a false promise to repay, that person will make this promise (Third person to make it generalized) Question - 1st Formulation: Can I will the generalized maxim to be a universal law? NO is the answer, so it is contrary to duty Question - 2nd Formulation: Am I treating the person(s) involved as ends? No is the answer, so red light, don't do it, it is contrary to duty

What is the fundamental decision-theoretic rule?

Maximize utility in an unbiased way.

What is the difference between decisions under ignorance and decisions under risk?

For decisions under ignorance we use maximin or minimax regret to maximize utility. It takes into account the Ignorant of states of the world, ignorant of probability of relevant states. For decisions under risk, the probability is known and the utility is calculated. The difference is that you utilize a decision under ignorance when you do not know the probabilities of the relevant states you are comparing whereas a decision under risk means that have probabilities (numbers).

Justice can be understood in different ways. What does Frankena recommend?

Frankena has an egalitarian point of view. Frankena says that we should base the distribution of scarce goods on merit only if everyone is given the opportunity to achieve that same merit, in the case of the soldiers, not everyone had an equal opportunity to obtain the merit. Frakena says that we distribute on the basis of need in order to restore equality which has been violated. Both meritarian and need-based principles lead back to the principle of egalitarian (he is not rejecting meritarian and need-based principles). So, Frankena argues that the fundamental principle of justice is that of egalitarianism.

What are the basic principles of Frankena's moral theory?

Frankena has two basic principles part of his moral theory: the principle of beneficence and the principle of justice. The principle of beneficence says to do good and prevent harm. This however can be broken down into four basic principles: don't cause evil, prevent evil, remove evil, and do good. The principle of justice helps support his theory by providing a just distribution of utility when making decisions of how to spread good and harm. With his principle of justice, Frankena uses the egalitarian view. However, Frankena discusses the problem of conflict which is when the principle of beneficence clashes with the principle of justice.

Is Frankena a utilitarian? Please explain.

Frankena is not a utilitarian, he is considered more of a deontologist. This is because he focuses on usually putting justice first compared to the consequences from the principle of beneficence. Normally putting justice first, is a deontological idea, and this is what makes his ideas classified as mixed deontologism but to prevent great evil or achieve great good we can put the principle of beneficence first. He also is not "wedded" to quantifying utility in the way that a utilitarian is.

Show how you would deliberate as a utilitarian about the Milgram experiments.

Goal: find the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people, maximize happinessOptions: Continue with the experiments that have already been designed, discontinue the experiments that have already been designed Deliberation: Use the hedonistic calculus as the rational tool, ultimately a Utilitarian would probably say to continue with the experiments because the knowledge gained would bring more people pleasure than it would hurt the few people in the experiment.

What is the "profound challenge" that Maria von Herbert poses to Kantian philosophy?

Herbert proposes a challenge to Kant's philosophy because she strictly follows his philosophy, she does everything right, yet she still wants to die. Kant's approach to morality may lead to a dead end.

In Williams' case of Jim and the Indians, what decision would a utilitarian make?

In the case of Jim and the Indians, Jim is forced by a General to make a choice. He either has to kill one Indian to save all the others, or not kill the indian but in this case the General will kill all the Indians. The Dilemma: killing one to save all, or condemning all to death by not killing one. The utilitarian decision: would be to kill one Indian in order to save all the others, as the utilitarian goal is to create the most good for the most amount of people. By killing one he will save all the others thus creating the most amount of happiness/good.

Are the first two formulations of the categorical imperative equivalent? Why or why not?

Kant believes that they are ultimately equivalent and should allow one to reach the same conclusion about duty.

What does Kant claim is good without qualification?

Kant claims that good will is good without qualification. The only thing truly good in itself is good will. He argues that no consequences can have fundamental moral worth. If someone performs an act because they ought to do it (not because there are good consequences or because they want to do it) then this is acting with good will, which is the only good without qualification.

Kant describes two kinds of imperatives. What is the difference between them?

Kant describes two kinds of imperatives. An imperative is, in a sense, some type of authoritative command. The first imperative is the hypothetical imperative, which states what someone should do if they happen to be in a certain circumstance or situation (If I want to go to the concert, then I should buy my ticket). The second imperative is the categorical imperative which is the stricter imperative which states the action to be done, (no "ifs" involved). The categorical imperative is much more absolute and tells us about universal moral obligation. The hypothetical imperative is not absolute nor universal. The hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself and works as a means to an end (changes depending on a certain outcome) while the categorical imperative is not conditional and functions as the end itself.

How do Kant and Langton handle the dilemma of whether to lie to the murderer?

Kant would say to tell the murderer the truth (because it is your moral duty). Langton would say to lie to the murderer to save your friend. Langton discusses "evil circumstances" in the case of Herbert which permit her to lie, applicable to this situation.

Is Kant's ethics single-level or double-level? Please explain.

Kantian ethics is a single level theory because it only contains ideal theory. It only contains information about how one should act 100% of the time. It does not contain any ideas about how one should act when the ideal circumstances are not feasible.

Does Korsgaard think that the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative provide the same answer to the dilemma about whether to lie to the murderer? Please explain.

Korsgaard said that we can use the 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative in ideal theory and we can use the 1st formulation of the categorical imperative in non-ideal theory. She says to lie to the murderer is to treat them as mere means. She says the second formulation in this case would say to tell the truth to to murder.

How does Korsgaard want to modify Kantian ethics?

Korsgaard wants to modify Kant's theories to make them a double level theory so that there is a part that includes non ideal situations. Throw out the 2nd categorical imperative?

Langton describes Maria von Herbert as a "Kantian saint." What does she mean by that?

Langton describes Herbert as a "Kantian saint" because Herbet says that she has no inclinations/desires other than the inclination to commit suicide (her only other inclination is to meet Kant). She has no struggle between inclination and duty, a Kantian master has duty that completely overrides her inclinations, she has nothing left to overcome.

How did Mill modify the theory he inherited from Bentham?

Mill is one of the most classic followers of Bentham's Utilitarianism. He does make some departures from Bentham's work, but Mill accepts the general framework that Bentham has laid. For Mill, the quality of the pleasure makes a difference, it is not solely the quantity. This leads Mills to the idea that some pleasures are higher than others. Mill aims to correct Bentham's theory in saying that "humans live a life no more worthy than that of swine." According to Mill some pain is okay if it leads to a higher pleasure in the end.

What does Bernard Williams mean by "negative responsibility"?

Negative responsibility refers to the idea that we are responsible for both the things that we do and do not choose to do/fail to prevent.

Rawls says that the good and the right are the two main concepts of ethics. Please explain them.

Rawls says that the good and the right are the two main concepts of ethics. Rawls says the the "good" is the end or the goal in terms of the standard procedure while the "right" is the action in terms of the third step of the standard procedure.

In "Classical Utilitarianism," Rawls says "Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons." What does he mean by that?

Rawls uses the veil of ignorance to mask personal interests, thereby getting rid of any biased or criminal interests and all rational citizens become the same. Thus decisions regarding utility have to be made by an impartial observer who identifies with the desires of others. This way you can maximize the net balance of satisfaction taken over all of its members. He says that while utilitarianism allows for the greater gains of some to compensate for the lesser losses of others, his theory does not.

Hooker treats rule consequentialism as a mean between the extremes of absolutism and act consequentialism. Please explain.

Rule consequentialism takes elements from both extremes, on the one hand it makes one choose the rule (like Kant), but adding to this, it makes one choose the best consequence using the rule (Utilitarians). On top of this it allows for exceptions to the rules in order to prevent disasters.

Know how to apply the basic decision-theoretic rules for decisions under ignorance and decisions under risk.

See Note sheet.

In "A Theory of Justice," Rawls treats choice in the original position as a problem of deliberation. Can you summarize the first two steps of the deliberation?

Stage one, Our end: - decide on the principles of justice that will govern societyStage two, our options: Egoism: first-person dictatorship, free rider egoism, general egoism, Utilitarianism: classical utilitarianism, average utilitarianism, Dualism: have both an equality and inequality principle

Describe some of the problems that can come up in applying the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative is based on duty alone, and does not take into account inclinations (as stated by Langton). Example about the abuser, finding pleasure in abusing, they could create a maxum that could satisfy the categorical imperative to allow themselves to technically be acting with duty. Another example, "Sucide Act" with Physician assisted suicude - too many variables to be able to apply the categorical imperative.

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative? The second? The formulation of the Kingdom of Ends?

The first formulation of the categorical imperative is: act only on maxums that you can will to be a universal law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is: never treat people as mere means, only as ends. The formulation of the Kingdom of Ends is: act according to the maxims of a universally legislative member of a merely potential kingdom of ends. It states that in a hypothetical kingdom which contains only rational beings with the ability to morally deliberate, these beings must act according to necessity common law that is established by the categorical imperative. This would mean that everyone would treat each other as ends instead of mere means to obtain their own selfish goals.

What is the problem of conflict? Does Frankena recommend a solution?

The problem of conflict is the idea that occurs when the principle of beneficence and the principle of justice clash with their ideas. What Frankena proposes is that we usually put justice first, but in some cases we should consider putting the idea of beneficence first. These cases would include when a small injustice avoids a great evil or when a small injustice can obtain a great good.

Are Kant's and Langton's conceptions of morality the same or different? Please explain.

They are different in the sense that Langton believes duty and inclination should be tied together whereas Kant only believes in acting out of duty and nothing else. This comes up in the question of lying. Langton argues that there are certain cases where lying could be permissible and Kant's theory does not agree. Kant focuses on duty to other people whereas Langton focuses on duty to self. They are talking about two completely different types of duty, so there may not be an apparent contradiction, yet they are not the same.

When faced with a choice between average utilitarianism and the two principles of justice, which would Rawls choose? Why?

Two principles of Justice. Rawls believes to narrow down between average utilitarianism and dualism. Average utilitarianism will ultimately cause a loss of liberty. Dualism will provide equal rights to basic utility.

How is utilitarianism a form of consequentialism?

Utilitarianism fits inside the umbrella of consequentialism. A consequentialist approach judges the morality of an act by its consequences. The utilitarian judges an act specifically by asking if the consequence of an act is one of human pleasure or happiness - creating the most good for the most people.

Describe two basic contrasts between Kant and the utilitarians.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. This means that utilitarians focus on the outcome/consequences of an action and if that itself is morally. They are less concerned about the morality of the actions taken to get there; there is no emphasis on the intention behind the action. This is different from Kant/deontology because the focus is solely on the morality of the action itself and puts no emphasis on the consequence or the outcome of the action. Kant puts a large emphasis on the intention of an action, as that is how he judges whether or not an action is moral.

What are the strong points of utilitarianism? Its weak points?

Utilitarianism is good in the sense that it looks out for the greatest number of people in the end, yet it sometimes fails to take into account one's own moral conscience, and one's negative responsibility. Utilitarianism may push you to violate other people's rights. Utilitarianism leads to problems with the "I" even though it emphasizes the "WE." Additionally, Utilitarianism does not have a scale for Hedonistic Calculus (aka a numbers problem).