Ethics Quiz #2
Asceticism
"The imposition of harm for no good reason" criminalization of drugs-> mass incarceration Criminalization of abortion-> unsafe abortions Immorality of open marriage-> repressed desire, resentment, guilt, broken marriages/high divorce rate...
What does the experienced moral judge know, if not general principles?
"a range of ways in which a feature can contribute to determining how to act." Moral concepts (e.g., cruelty) enables a person to see "new differences made in situations rather different from those one has encountered so far." (9)
Self-Interest and Evolution: -Selfish genes and kin altruism -The Mountain People
-"We are genetically programmed to try to preserve our genes." Self-sacrifice: mother's for children Claim: "The more closely you are related to these people, the more altruistic you will be; conversely, you will be less altruistic toward people who are more distantly related." Thought experiment Direct vs. indirect motivation -Varieties of altruism: group, kin, reciprocal The free rider problem: kin/reciprocal altruism group altruism Free riders tend to be identified, especially in small communities
-What the particularist believes -Variability of reasons
-Agreement with the generalist: "the perfectly moral person is the person who is fully sensitive to the moral reasons present in the case." (6) Disagreement with the generalist: moral reasons operate like other reasons operate and thus "moral thought does not have a distinctive structure." (6) -For the generalist, a morally relevant feature of a moral situation has the same relevance in all moral situations. Lying, murder, rape, theft... The relevance of a feature of a situation depends on principles For the particularist, a morally relevant feature can have variable relevance in different cases. The relevance of a feature of a situation depends on other features of the situation. Holism of reasons: "what is a reason in one case may be no reason at all in another, or even a reason on the other side." (6)
Self-interest vs. Selfishness: -Being selfish might be against one's... -Friendship -Other peoples' interests are not...
-Being selfish might be against one's self-interest: Most people don't like selfish people. Avoiding the negative reaction of others Securing the concern from others for one's interests (reciprocity). -Having friends enriches one's life To have (and keep) friends, one must consider their interests -Other peoples' interests are not of primary consideration, but often are of secondary consideration.
The Problem of Contingency: Gender and Race: -Mill's defense of women's equality -Mill's view about racial equality
-Contingent on maximizing happiness Vs. simple injustice The right result, for the wrong reason What if it turned out that the subjection of women maximized happiness? -Belief: European superiority Nature or nurture? Mill: nurture Mill's anti-paternalism and non-Europeans Analogy to children Unconditional rights?
Justifying Utilitarianism: -Can utilitarianism be justified-proven -Bentham: argument from elimination
-Dewey: desire is a fundamental aspect of human nature -Bentham: argument from elimination The principle of utility cannot be proven (i.e., it is an axiom) Common sense? Argument from elimination Show that all other moral principles are indefensible Only utilitarianism meets two important criteria 1. Provides a formula to help make ethical decisions 2. Does not suppress pleasure for no goods reason Are there other theories that meet these criteria? Equal happiness theory Are these criteria as important as Bentham believes? Assumes moral monism
Psychological Egoism: -things to consider
-Finding a possible reason why a seemingly altruistic action may be actually selfish does not prove it is selfish. -An action can be both altruistic and promote self-interest simultaneously.
Measuring Happiness: -Quantitative focus -common sense -Six factors of quantification (how we make judgements)
-Quantitative focus The qualitative differences between possible actions or effects of actions are irrelevant Deciding among two or more actions: sum up the total happiness and unhappiness produced -Common sense: all people calculate happiness and unhappiness, consciously or unconsciously It is better to do so consciously and carefully -Six factors of quantification (how we make judgements) 1. Intensity (of pleasure and pain) 2. Duration 3. Certainty or uncertainty 4. propinquity/remoteness 5. Fecundity (likelihood of being followed by other pleasures) 6. Purity (likelihood of not being followed by pain)
Ethical Egoism: -meanings -what is it -two ways to construe ethical egoism
-Whether or not psychological egoism is true, following your own self-interest is the morally right thing for you to do. -Ethical egoism is consequentialist and hedonistic (happiness) -1. Ethical egoism follows from psychological egoism We are inherently and inevitably egotistical; we will act toward what we take to be our self-interest, but we could be wrong about it. Ethical egoism gives us a theory to help us direct our actions toward what is actually in our best interest. 2. Ethical egoism does not follow from psychological egoism We might be primarily self-interested, but we can still act genuinely altruistically; but we shouldn't.
Why be moral? -The Ring of Gyges
-a ring that makes you invisible -would most people give in to the temptation of the ring of Gyges -would it be rational to follow the moral rules if you knew that you could get away with breaking them? (would you be a fool for forgoing the power of the ring?) -claim: no one is willingly just. Justice is an external constraint on the inner motivation of people toward their own interests. -do we only approve of justice to prevent others from being unjust to ourselves?
Why be moral? Assumptions of this question
-being moral=being altruistic (showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish.) -being moral is a challenge against something possibly more basic, compelling, or even rational (self interest)
psychological egoism: -everything we do is aimed at what -the impossibility of what (what 3 things) -implication -but...?
-everything we do is aimed at making things better for ourselves -the impossibility of morality (altruism)? 1. humans, by nature, can only act in their self-interest 2. morality often requires acting against one's self-interest. self sacrifice. 3. Therefore, morality is impossible -"where morality is consistent with self-interest, we can in fact act morally." examples: (1) a friends agrees to watch my dog while i am away because he really likes my dog. (2) you help a friend through a difficult time in her life because you miss the way things were before -but, does moral action require moral (altruistic) motivation? i.e. is the overlap between self-interest and altruism simply a happy coincidence?
Self-interest vs. Selfishness: -self-interest -selfishness -Why do people prioritize the interests of other people over their own? -Selfish people do not enjoy.....
-general, but not absolute, prioritization of one's own interests. -absolute prioritization of one's own interests -Altruism: genuine concern for others, even at the expense of oneself Self-interest: concern for others forwards one's own interests -Selfish people do not enjoy caring about other people, while people who do care about others do so because it benefits them. Reciprocal benefit, joy in helping others
Psychological Egoism: -Starting Point: People are self-interested
-most people are self-interested; their interests (tend to) matter to them more than the interests of others. strangers; close friends or family members -we do not (usually) expect others to care more about other people's interests than their own -We do not generally fault people for being self interested -we encourage people to develop and seek their interests -self interest vs. selfishness
Two types of Egoism
-psychological egoism -ethical egoism
Evidence for Psychological Egoism
-universal claim: all human action is self-interested. There are no non-self interested actions -apparent self-denying/self sacrificing actions: enlightened self interest. short term loss for long term gain. -self denying/self sacrificing actions: turning in a wallet of cash, with no identification, to the police. mother teresa (getting into heaven). Atheist mother teresa (good feelings) resisting torture to protect fellow rebels against an authoritarian regime. pain of torture vs. the good feelings of helping comrades.
Principles differ from rules
1. "A principle evolves in connection with the course of experience, being a generalized statement of what sort of consequences an values tend to be realized in certain kinds of situations." (276) Rule: "something ready-made and fixed" 2. "A principle is primarily intellectual, a method and scheme for judging, and is practical secondarily because of what it discloses." (276) A rule is primarily practical Rules, as ready-made and fixed, require a special faculty to know them They are not known through the course of experience; if they were, they would be principles. Conscience, the word of God... Compare to Dancy
Reasons Against Generalism
1. Absolute principles cannot conflict, by virtue of being absolute This ignores a vital aspect of moral life Principles A and B are absolute; Principles A and B conflict; Either principle A or B is false and thus not absolute. Possible responses: 1. The only way around this is to deny that absolute principles ever conflict How should we understand moral conflict then? 2. There is only one absolute principle Can it be true that only one moral feature is morally relevant? 2. Contributory principles Benefits over absolutism: allows for reasons on both sides W.D. Ross's theory of Prima Facie Duties Fidelity; reparation; gratitude; non-maleficence; justice; beneficence; and self-improvement That an action fulfills a duty counts in its favor; but if other duties take precedence over a particular duty (like justice), one is morally required to act unjust. For generalism of contributory principles, "a feature that makes a difference in one case will make the same sort of difference in every case." Particularism: nothing contributes to moral analysis in such a regular way 1. Counterexamples to supposed regular contributors, in which the fact of X is either no reason to do it or even a reason not to do it. Promising: Suppose that I promise not to keep my next three promises 3. Why should a feature that counts in favor in one case count the same way wherever it appears? If feature X counts in favor in one case, but not another, then there must be some other relevant differences between the cases. For feature X to count, feature Y must be present. Feature Y is present in one case, but not the other. Should I tell the truth in situation X? That depends on whether telling the truth will unnecessarily hurt the feelings of Z. 4. Epistemological requirement: how do we know that some feature will function in the same way in every case? Ross: intuitive induction Test: A feature of a situation is relevant if and only if "in any case where it is the only relevant feature, it would decide the issue." True by definition and thus unhelpful: in what way would it decide the issue? Some features are only relevant in relation to other features
Mill's proof
1. Analogy to sensation X is visible because people see it X is desirable because people desire it Disanalogy?: visible and desirable Example: the alcoholic Dink: desired and this desirable Sobriety: desired and this desirable All things considered: sobriety Begging the question? Actions are undesirable only if they are harmful(cause pain) Could something be desirable, but not currently desired? 2. "That each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons" General happiness is a good for each individual? False
The Generalists' Reply
1. Complicate the principles For every counterexample to a principle, include the counter-feature into the general principle One should always keep promises (but what you have promised to do is immoral) One should always keep promises that do not involve immoral actions (but what if the promise was made under duress) One should always keep promises that do not involve immoral actions and not made under duress... Problem: This complication ceases to be a reason for action and becomes an "elaborate guarantee that something mentioned in the guarantee counts in favor of the action." (17) The complications are not reasons, but enabling condition. Why should moral principles require enabling conditions? 2. Distinguish between a core of invariable (underived) reasons/duties/virtues surrounded by a variable periphery. Counter-examples only damage generalism if they are targeted at the few invariable (underived) reasons. The considerateness of wiping the torturer's brow. Cruelty may be exactly what is called for in some moral situation The burden is on the generalist to show that the few invariable reasons are actually invariable.
3. Over-demandingness objection
1. Deliberation: we are required to seek adequate information, often in a short time 2. Motivation: utilitarianism requires us to be saints Supererogation? Limits of moral expectations? When is enough enough? Partiality and impartiality
Epistemological need for principles
1. If actions are right and wrong, there must be a way to tell the difference. 2. If an action has the property of wrongness, it has it due to having other, non-moral, features that make it wrong. 3. We come to know wrongness (or rightness) by identifying the "regularities connecting the non-moral features of action and their moral properties." (5) 4. Moral principles specify such regularities.
Two Forms of Ethical Egoism
1. Impure Market capitalism: everyone ought to care only about their own interests because doing so will improve the overall good of everyone Private vice public virtue Libertarianism: everyone ought to care only about their own interests as long as you don't harm others. 2. Pure Ayn Rand and the duty of selfishness Altruism as self-sacrifice (extreme altruism) Is there a difference between an obligation to oneself and the disregard of the good of everyone else?
Problems for Ethical Egoism
1. Inconsistency: Why would I accept a general theory that everyone should pursue their own self-interest when my self-interest would be promoted if others were altruistic toward me. Hidden altruism? 2. Deception: If ethical egoism is true, then successful social living would require one to constantly deceive others about one's true intentions, which is very hard to do. sociopaths 3. Common sense morality: Ethical egoism is contrary to common sense moral beliefs, namely that it is wrong to harm others merely for one's own good. Lying, murder, theft, rape...can be morally required. 4. There are no rational grounds to maintain that you are the only one with moral significance.
Basis of Bentham's Utilitarianism
1. Individual equality -> utilitarianism Impartiality; everyone counts for only one 2. Pleasures and pains of sentient creatures -> rejection of asceticism A religious form of utilitarianism that causes more pain than pleasure Vs. the value of suffering Vs. some pleasures are inherently immoral (religious puritanism) Vs. the virtue of self-denial (monasticism) 3. Morality and government, must be based on firm principles -> rejection of sympathy and antipathy Vs. individual interests-> inconsistency, uncertainty, prejudice, and corruption all pleasures are good and not immoral in isolation
Dangers of casuistry
1. It tends to magnify the letter of morality at the expense of its spirit. Focus: "the literal conformity with Rule A, Class I, Species 1, subhead (1), etc." Ethics as bookkeeping Vs. the positive good in an act; the agent's disposition which forms its spirit; the unique occasion and context of the situation Effect: "narrow the scope and lessen the depth of conduct" Morality becomes either a search for (rationalization) of the action that benefits the agent while conforming to the rule or Overly formal and pedantic: rigid moralism 2. It tends toward a legal view of conduct Focus on liability, punishment, and reward Defective morality: focus on avoiding punishment or strict obedience 3. Deprives moral life of freedom and spontaneity (the worst evil) Morality reduced to an "anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules." (278) Loyalty to ideals vs. conformity to commands Loyalty to ideals: the spirit of ideals, flexibility Conformity to commands: the letter of the law, disregard for "the concrete processes of living." Self-righteousness, moral conceit, fanaticism 4. Rules fail in practice E.g., justice Universal agreement in the rule of justice, yet justice means opposite things in practice Justice as a principle: "signifies the will to examine specific institutions and measures so as to find out how they operate with the view of introducing greater impartiality and equity into the consequences they produce." (279) Rules: tells the moral agent just what to do Principles: supplies "standpoints and methods which will enable the individual to make for himself an analysis of the elements of good and evil in the particular situation in which he finds himself." (280)
Misconceptions of utilitarianism
1. Must we always benefit the greatest number of people? If a greater good issues from benefiting fewer people than another option, it is right to benefit fewer A policy that benefits 10% of the population could produce more overall good than a policy that benefits 90% of the population 2. What do we do in a situation in which each of two or more actions produce more happiness than unhappiness(or vice versa)? A. do that act that produces more total happiness B. do that act that produces the greatest net gain of happiness over unhappiness A policy that creates more happiness than its rival may also create more misery EX: Gladiator (greater happiness; greater misery) vs. athletic games (less happiness; lesser misery)
Problems for Particularism
1. Particularism denies the rationality of moral thought A. Rational thinking requires consistency "consistency in ethics just means taking the same feature to be the same reason wherever it occurs." (21) Reply: consistency only requires that we do not adopt beliefs that cannot all be true together. B. There is a difference between moral choice and choices of taste. Reply: Moral choice is relevantly different from whim such that it does not need to be distinguished by the generalist requirement to make similar choices in similar situations. C. Particularists cannot give an account of learning from moral experience Reply: Experience can inform us what to look out for and what kind of relevance a particular feature can have. 2. Motivation Particularism is a lax morality: without principles, anything goes. 1. Morality = imposing constraints = regulation = rules =principles Reply: There can be particular constraints on action 2. The person of principle, unlike the particularist, will be unbudgeable Replies A particularist can be of firm conviction case by case (unbudgeability and principle have nothing essentially in common) When unbudgeability and principle do go together, we should be worried: a principled Nazi 3. Only a rule can provide the authority morality needs Reply: moral reasons have sufficient authority in each case without rules 4. Particularism will encourage ethical backsliding Replies Empirical evidence The worry about backsliding only arises after we have made our moral decision, which doesn't require principles/rules Anyone can backslide 5. Special pleading: Unlike backsliding, special pleading (making an exception of oneself) occurs "in the process of making our moral decision" (24) Principles would stop special pleading while particularism might open up the possibility. Reply: the remedy to poor moral judgment is not a different kind of moral judgment, but better moral judgment. "There is only one real way to stop oneself distorting things in one's own favour, and that is to look again, as hard as one can, at the reasons present in the case, and see if really one is so different from others that what would be required of them is not required of oneself." (24)
Resolution of moral disagreements
1. Settle the facts of the matter. 2. Agree on which principles are relevant for the disagreement. 3. Agree on the course of action that the relevant principles recommend.
Two Parts of Utilitarianism
1. Theory of the Right: what actions are right and wrong The right things to do is to always bring about the most good 2. Theory if the Good: what sort of things are good (or bad) Happiness (pleasure): all pleasures are good Malevolent pleasures? happiness/pleasure is the only thing that is good unhappiness/pain is the only thing that is bad
psychological egoism: -5 things according to kitcher in the ethical project
1. When a person acts in a way that could be appraised as altruistic, he or she acts intentionally. 2. To act intentionally is to identify an outcome one wants and to attempt to realize that outcome. 3. Hence, any potential altruist is trying to get what he or she wants. 4. But, to strive for what you want is egoistic. 5. Therefore, the potential altruist turns out to an an egoist after all
An Inclusive Social Contract
A morality that does not oppress anyone. Established between all people as equals. Basis: the benefits of cooperation (society) vs. the misery of war Reciprocal altruism Is this sufficient to ground morality? The fragility of morality: dependent on the renewal of reciprocal altruism Level of fragility? War of self-interested people Plurality of moral motives
Rule Utilitarianism
A utilitarian morality of rules will maximize happiness better than a utilitarian morality of actions Truth telling Rule: never lie Act: lie whenever doing so would maximize utility Rule utilitarianism might overcome some of the challenges Quantification, scapegoating the innocent The problem of multiple futures problem: we must follow the rule even if we know that, in a specific instance, better results would be produced by not following the rule Not following the rule would collapse rule utilitatianism into act utilitarianism Siggwick: government house utilitariansm Hare: two level utilitarianism
Counterexamples to absolute and contributory principles
Absolute principles: "cases where the supposed feature or combination of features is present but the action concerned is not wrong overall." (8) Contributory principles: "cases where the feature cited is present but either does not count at all or counts the wrong way."
5. The evil pleasures objection
Are all pleasures good by virtue of being pleasures? Ae some pleasures, or the actions that produce those pleasures, just wrong? The pleasures of the torturer, serial killer, pedophile? Does the knowledge that people take pleasure in bad things "make the situation worse"? Utilitarian reply: the good of the (torturers) pleasure will be overwhelmed by the pain they cause
8. Counterintuitive premises
Are some acts of causing pain simply wrong? Commiting injustices to maximize the good (scapegoating) Killing innocent people to deter crime Sacrificing a minority of people for the greater good Punishment: making an example of someone; not punishing someone who deserves it because the harm would be worse The organ lottery Atomic bombing of japan Vs. deontology(duty ethics) Deathbed promise (false promises) Utilitarian response: such things would never maximize happiness
The Roots of the Social Contract -Plato's Republic
Best of all: to do wrong without incurring punishment. Worst of all: to suffer wrong with no possibility of revenge. The evil of the 'worst of all' is greater than the good of the 'best of all.' It is highly unlikely for most people that they will be able to achieve the 'best of all' and avoid the 'worst of all.' Hobbes' state of nature Therefore, it is more important to avoid the 'worst of all' than to accomplish the 'best of all.' We can avoid the 'worst of all' by agreeing with each other not to commit injustice and accept a lower degree of good (between the best and worst).
Illustration: the death penalty
Consequentialism(a type of utilitarianism): the death penalty is justified only if it improves our lives, makes us safer, decreases crime, expands the respect for human life, etc Future directed Vs. Justice: people who murder deserve to die, regardless of the consequences of using the death penalty Past directed The ends justify the means means(action) -> end (intended) ->(pointing down from means) unintended consequences
Public Goods and Public Bads
Everyone will be better off if everyone cooperates. However, it is irrational to cooperate. ↓ Public goods problem ↓ ↓ Public goods Public bads Undersupplied Oversupplied Solution: Politics: Government Morality: internalization of moral rules (moral habits) Moral habits don't carry immediate self-interest return requirements. Reciprocal Learned altruism
Particularism and moral argument
For the particularist, generalists do no make moral arguments "That is stealing, stealing is wrong, and therefore you shouldn't do it" = "That is stealing and wrong for that reason." Assumption: the principle that stealing is always wrong has already been made
Psychological Egoism: Guilt as the outcome of what?
Guilt as the outcome of actual concern for other people. Why do we feel guilty in the first place?
Starting point: Happiness
Happiness: when people are happy, their preferences are satisfied Happiness is what everyone wants: a universal good utility=happiness=pleasure and the avoidance of pain Preference satisfaction Contrast to virtue ethics utility=balance of pleasure over pain One person: what maximizes the balance of pleasure over pain More than one person: aggregation of pleasures and pain->balance of pleasure over pain Greatest happiness for the greatest number Contrast to ethical egoism Scope of the action Whose interests matter Place value on interests Quantity? Judgement?
1. The quantification objection
Identify all the consequences of an action, in the present and future Identify all the facts necessary for the calculations (number, duration, intensity, certainty) Is there a non-arbitrary way to quantify the factors for comparison? The irrelevance of objection Why is pleasure morally good
Plato's response to psychological egoism
Immoral action creates disharmony in the soul. E.g., guilt When we avoid immorality, is it merely to avoid guilt?
7. The partiality objection
Impartiality: utilitarianism requires each person to treat everyone's happiness as equally important Peter singer: equal consideration of interests Most people privilege their own and their close family and friends happiness as most important
Is it possible (reasonable) to place numbers on individual pleasures and pains?
Interpersonal comparisons of utility Even if it could be done, does this quantitative procedure capture everything of relevance and importance in ethics?
4. The agency objection
Is all that matters the way we feel? Experience machine thought experiment Does it matter whether you have accomplished anything (real) through your agency? Is ignorance bliss?-telling someone they have a fatal disease
2. The narrowness objection
Is happiness the sole ultimate good? Knowledge? Art? Why do we struggle (pain) to gain knowledge or create art? For pleasure, happiness? Excellence for its own sake? The focus on happiness may be due to the desire to have a clear goal for moral thought to pursue rather than that happiness just for the sole good For the happiness of others? Do artists really care whether people are happy through their art? What about seeking enlightenment in others?
Two Conceptions of Moral Principles
Issue: Is there a need for moral principles Do not lie, do not steal, do not kill... Two possible definitions of a principle 1. A universal, absolute, claim "that all actions of a certain type are overall wrong (or right)" (2) 2. A contributory claim, such that "if an action involves [breaking a promise], that counts against [or for] it." (2) "The action is the worse [or the better] for being a [promise-breaking]." (2) Each principle is partial; the morality of an action is determined by balancing out all the relevant principles that apply to it. Ranked order of principles? Thesis: "If particularism is true, there is not much room for moral principles of either sort."
Philosophical Views of the Social Contract
Morality = collective strength of the individually weak Glaucon, Nietzsche Morality = a device of the rich (the few) to enslave the poor (the many). Law favors the rich and is enforced by the poor (police, military). Rousseau, Marx Law favors wealthy white males over the poor, women, and racial minorities. Pateman, Mills Morality = mutual advantage (traditional form) Glaucon, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls
Do Particularism and Generalism Differ in Practice or Only in Theory?
Particularism: "one cannot extract from one case anything that is guaranteed to make a difference to another." (19) Practical differences: 1. Past cases: feature X mattered in situation Y, so it might (not must) matter in situation Z. 2. Two similar cases, but inclination to make different judgments Generalist: same judgment unless there is a principle that distinguishes them. Particularist: same judgment unless there is a reason not to do so
Features of particularism
Pluralism: Actions can be right and wrong in a wide variety of ways Pluralism: there is more than one morally relevant property A property can be relevant for one case and not another. A property can count in favor of action in one case and against action in another.
Particularism and past cases
Present judgments of moral situations can invoke past cases Not as the generalist does: Since feature x made a moral difference in a past situation, it must make the same difference in this situation. Past situations provide ways of understanding present situations and thus aid us in our moral reasoning.
The function of principles and rules
Principles aid in recollecting past cases Forecast of possible future circumstances Rules Two problems: In a moral situation, what tells us that a particular rule is applicable? If we do come to know this, how do we know what the rule specifically calls for? Why are these problems: A rule, by definition, is limited to only the elements similar to all examples of the action. E.g., Honest deeds Limited in this way, nothing is left to direct us in knowing when and how to apply a rule Chance, ordinary judgment, external authority? The application of rules "always have had to resort to a more and more complicated procedure to cover, if possible, all the cases." (277) Casuistry: "The attempt is made to foresee all the different cases of action which may conceivably occur, and provide in advance the exact rule for each case." (277)
6. The quality of objection (Bentham vs. Mill)
Quality vs. Quantity Are some kinds of pleasures more desirable and more valuable than others? Higher quanlity pleasures: pleasures that one would not give up for any amoung of a lower pleasure Mill: desire=desirable Test: what would the person who has experience both pelasures choose? The satisfied pig? (148) Issues: 1. How many levels of quality are there?(pushpin, poetry) 2. Quality vs. variety?(diminishing marginal utility) 3. Is mill an elitist
-Principles do not prescribe specific courses of action -Right and wrong are determined by -Principles, rules, and knowledge
Principles do not prescribe specific courses of action, but are tools for analyzing a special situation Gives the agent a basis for looking at and examining a particular question Warns the agent against taking a short or partial view of the act Economizes thinking by supplying main heads by reference to which to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes Guides him I his thinking by suggesting to him the important considerations for which he should be on the lookout Right and wrong are determined by the situation in its entirety Holism of reasons? The golden rule (280) Principles, rules, and knowledge Knowledge in its moral aspect: the will to know Principles: tools in the increase and correction of moral knowledge Rules: ready-made, fixed, knowledge "The essential evil of fixed standards and rules is that it tends to render men satisfied with the existing state of affairs and to take the ideas and judgments they already possess as adequate and final." (282)
Aspect of Social Contract Theory
Psychological egoism Morality reduced to self-interest Implicit agreement Morality as an invention/construct ("an external device or convention for mutual benefit") Avoids the problem of objectivism. The fragility of the social contract: people often believe they can achieve the best of all and thus forgo morality. Social shame, law, and punishment as a means of reminding them that they cannot.
The holism of reasons is true for all thinking, moral and otherwise.
Reasons for belief: color pill (6-7) Reasons for action: X is against the law is not a general reason not to do something. It may be a reason in a particular situation and not in another. "The particularist suggests that there is no reason to suppose that moral reasons function in a radically different way from other reasons." (7) Despite the initial strangeness of particularism, the particularist sees the generalist view that moral reasoning operates radically different from other kinds of reasoning strange.
Social Contract Theory in Practice
Seeing things from the other person's point of view. Social contract enables one to clearly distinguish different people's interests and see from their point of view. The view of the worst-off Moral relevance, moral patients? Expanding the moral circle Moral relevance (moral status, moral considerability) Examples: sick and dying relative Abortion Non-human animals
The Social Contract and Social Relations
Social contract as protection against others. View of society: conflict of individual self-interest Social contract as mutual flourishing View of society: individual flourishing requires strong social relations, including altruism. What would life be like without others who add positive value to other peoples lives. Positive goods of morality can be selected behind the veil of ignorance.
The Nature and Office of Principles, John Dewey
Starting points: 1. Moral situations have common elements. Values found in them resemble one another 2. General ideas are a great aid in judging particular cases. Experience is intellectually cumulative: it carries over points from one situation to another Development of general ideas Language, instruction, tradition Generalized points of view (of a whole people and even all people) General ideas = principles (useful for "surveying" particular cases) Thesis on the origin of rules from principles: "But as they are transmitted from one generation to another, they tend to become fixed and rigid. Their origin in experience is forgotten and so is their proper use in further experience." (276)
What the Particularist Does Not Believe
The Person of principle 1. A person with a set of sound moral principles 2. A person with sufficient skill at applying these principles Moral judgment = the application of principles to cases Rational moral judgment 1. consistency Application of the same principle to like cases E.g., don't lie: friends vs. strangers 2. Impartiality Don't lie to friends or strangers Questions: "Why do we think of the moral person as the person of principle, and why do we think of moral judgment as subject to this sort of consistency constraint?" (4) Supposed answer: Without moral principle, there can be no right and wrong.
Jeremy Bentham
The greatest happiness principle: "by the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves and disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the part whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness."
The Problem of Opposed Interests
The reality of opposed interests Natural vs. historical Social contract as actual history vs. a philosophical technique What kind of social contract is obtainable among all people as equals? Opposed interests E.g., Would people of an advantaged race be willing to give up their racial privileges? ↓ Minimal morality (security of the person) Rawls' original position Veil of ignorance as a device of equality Self-interest + ignorance = justice The perspective of the worst-off Presupposes moral good will: "a sense of justice"
Mill's Utilitarianism and Social Reform
The subjection of Women Right to equality Vs. Utilitarian grounds for women's liberation The subjection of women is detrimental to overall human happiness 1. Male dominance mkaes men miserable: arrogant, overbearing, expectation of service, etc. 2. Womens subjection limits the talent pool for important occupations 3. Mens responsibility for wives and children leafs to less fulfilling lives and less activity for imporatant social causes 4. Women suffer miserable lives
Rules: reified principles
Thought of as if they existed in and of themselves Function: bringing action under them in order to determine what is right and good.
Challenges for Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism claims Everyone wants to be happy Happiness is the sole ultimate good 1. The quantification objection 2. The narrowness objection 3. Over-demandingness objection 4. The agency objection 5. The evil pleasures objection 6. The quality of objection (Bentham vs. Mill) 7. The partiality objection 8. Counterintuitive premises
Actual Vs. expected Results
When we consider an action, we judge its morality based on its expected results When an action has been done, we judge its morality based on its actual reuslts These actual results can only be compares to the expected results of actions not taken Good intentions: "I meant no harm" Vs "You should have known better" Forseeable vs. intended effects: doctrine of double effect
The Prisoner's Dilemma
Whether Clyde (or Bonnie) confesses or doesn't confess, Bonnie (or clyde) is better off confessing. Since both Bonnie and Clyde think this way, they will both get 7 years. But Bonnie (or Clyde) remembers that Clyde (or Bonnie) loves her and would not confess to save himself. Therefore, I should confess to get zero years in prison. But Clyde will think the same and confess, and thus both will get 7 years.
Principle of sympathy and antipathy
Without a guiding principle Arbitrary Subject to misuse, especially by the powerful Over Punishment of the poor Under Punishment of the rich
Overall particularist claim:
morality does not depend on there being invariant reasons, i.e., principles. There could be invariant principles, but morality does not require them.
3. Certainty/Uncertainty
more certain pleasures have greater weight than less certain pleasures
2. Duration
more enduring pleasures have greater weight than less enduring pleasures
1. Intensity
more intense pleasures have greater weight than less intense pleasures Requires cardinal measurements, not just ordinal (ranking), to make interpersonal comparisons X's pain is worse than Y's Or, would rough, common sense or intuitive, judgements be enough? Can we use past experience to aid our judgements?
4. Remoteness
more remote pleasures and pains have less weight than less remote pleasures and pains Already covered by certainty? More remote pleasures are less certain Controversial: should we discount future pleasures and pains Climate change? Does this violate the value of equality? Why are future people of less value than present people?
5-6: Fecundity and purity
pleasures that lead to more pleasures have greater weight than pleasures that do not or that lead to pain
Utilitarianism: -What matter morally?
praise /blame->self/character->virtue ethics relations-> act-> deontology desire-> consequences-> consequentialism-> utilitarianism self/character->act->consequences
