1340 Ethics: Exam 1
2nd Formulation of the "Categorical Imperative"
"Always treat humanity as an end and never as a mere means" because people are so valuable -Must have a strict duty of beneficence toward other persons -Must strive to promote their welfare -Must respect their rights -Must avoid harming them -Must try as best we can to further their ends **•Humans have "an intrinsic worth, that is dignity" because they are rational agents. •Because the moral law is the law of reason, rational beings are the embodiment of the moral law itself. •Thus, if there were no rational beings, the moral dimension of the world would simply disappear -animals are not rational agents and only serve humans as means to an end.
Objections to Emotivism
Critics of Emotivism have said that if this perspective is taken seriously then there can be no meaningful discussion about ethics. Critics also say that this view is potentially dangerous because if accepted serious ethical issues will be trivialized. Plus, it has been argued that Emotivism leaves us with no objective way to analyze ethical matters.
Culture Relativism Serious/Credible?
1) If cultural relativism is true, then moral progress, comparison and criticism don't make sense 2) Moral progress, comparison and criticism do make sense Therefore, cultural relativism can't be true (it contradicts obvious facts)
Three levels of subjectivism.
1) Simple Subjectivism, 2) Emotivism, and 3) Sophisticated Subjectivism
Three arguments against ethical egoism
1)The argument that ethical egoism cannot resolve moral conflicts •Moral theories should solve problems of conflicts of interest •EE cannot solve these problems, it only exacerbates them •Disputes are resolved by someone winning out or by compromise between the warring parties 2)The argument that ethical egoism is self-contradictory because it gives inconsistent advice •People will often have conflicting duties •The result is that they both have a duty to prevent the other from doing their duty •But, it's morally wrong to prevent someone from doing their duty •Thus, EE leads to their actions being both morally wrong and right •Ethical Egoists reject this premise: •It is only wrong to prevent someone from doing their duty if it's contrary to your interests to prevent it •If it is in your interest to prevent someone from doing their duty, you are not wrong, in fact you are morally obliged according to EE to prevent them from doing their duty. 3)The argument that ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary •Ethical egoism divides the world into 'I' and 'everyone else •Ethical egoism says we should treat others and ourselves differently •But there is no factual difference between self and others that justifies this difference in treatment •Arbitrary moral views make distinctions between groups without having a good reason to do so, i.e. racism, draft lottery Thus, Ethical Egoism is arbitrary
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
1. Not Wrong •If Simple Subjectivism were correct none of us could be wrong in our moral judgments -Wrong means I disapprove -If I disapprove of something by saying [sincerely] "It's wrong" -Then I do disapprove -How could I be mistaken •But we can be wrong •So Simple Subjectivism is false 2. Disagree •If Simple Subjectivism were true there could be no moral disagreements -Y believes homosexual is OK sometimes and I say it is always wrong -Then both statements are true -There is no contradiction between them; they're not logically opposed -But we think the moral judgments are logically opposed -Morality would be one big nonjudgmental encounter session •We really do disagree •So Simple Subjectivism is false
3 arguments for ethical egoism:
1. The Argument That Altruism Is Self-Defeating. 2. Ayn Rand's Argument 3. Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality
Two Arguments against Ethical Egoism
1. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Endorses Wickedness. Consider these wicked actions, taken from various news stories: To make more money, a pharmacist filled prescriptions for cancer patients using watered-down drugs. A paramedic gave emergency patients injections of sterile water rather than morphine, so he could sell the 2. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Unacceptably Arbitrary. This argument may refute Ethical Egoism. Unlike the previous argument, it tries to explain why the interests of other people should matter to us. They divide people into groups and say that the interests of some groups count more than the interests of other groups. Racism is the most obvious example. Racists divide people into groups according to race and assign greater importance to the well-being of one race than to the well-being of other races. In fact, all forms of discrimination work like this—anti-Semitism, nationalism, sexism, and so on. People in the sway of such attitudes will think, in effect, "My race counts for more," or "People who believe in my religion count for more," or "My country counts for more," and so on. The Principle of Equal Treatment stands in way of this argument: We should treat people in the same way unless there is a good reason not to. Ethical egoism violated the principle of equal treatment Ultimately, Ethical Egoism fails as a Moral theory.
Advantages of Social Contract Theory:
1."What are the rules we are bound to follow, and how are those rules justified?" •Answer: The morally binding rules are those needed for social living •Obviously: rules against harming others 2."Why is it reasonable to follow the moral rules?" •Answer: in the long run and in general it is to our advantage to live under the contract •Our own steady compliance is the reasonable price we pay to secure the compliance of others in this mutually beneficial arrangement 3."Under what circumstances are we allowed to break the rules?" •Answer: it's a matter of reciprocity •If someone (habitually) violates the agreement then we are entitled to do likewise •Justification for punishment 4.How much can morality demand of us? •Answer: Should a contract theorist accept the rule "Sacrificing your own live to save many lives"? •While it might be rational to agree to such a rule, it would be irrational to act on it. •There is a natural limit to the amount of self-sacrifice that the social contract requires.
Objections to Natural Law Theory
1."What's natural is good" seems open to counterexamples -Disease occurs naturally, but disease is bad 2.What is the case and what ought to be the case are logically different notions and no conclusion about one follows from the other -Does not follow from the fact that we do seek something -Sex does in fact produce pleasure (usually), but proponents of this view insist that this not its purpose 3."The teleological view of nature is contrary to contemporary scientific understanding, no purposes built-in to nature" -What happens just happens, due to the laws of cause and effect -In other words: it does not rain because plants need water
Three Parts of the Theory of Natural Law
1.Everything in nature has a purpose •The whole has an overall purpose or direction •The parts have their own functions or purposes within the grand design •"Everything in nature has a purpose" - Greeks •Values and purposes were, therefore conceived to be a fundamental part of the nature of things, because the world was believed to have been created according to a divine plan - Christian thinkers •E.g. The rain exists for the sake of plants, plants for the sake of animals, animals for the sake of people 2.The 'laws of nature' describe not only how things are but also how things ought to be. •Moral Rules are now viewed as deriving from the law of nature •Good - natural and bad - unnatural •To act in conformity with this larger purpose of nature is natural and good •To act otherwise is unnatural and bad 3.Moral judgments are "dictates of reason" •The natural (moral) law is discoverable by reason—not dependent on revelation •This means that the religious believer has no special access to moral truths. •God has made all people rational not just believer's; and so, for believer and non-believer alike, behaving morality is a matter of listening to reason and following its directives.
Defenses of Utilitarianism
1.Fanciful examples don't matter 2.Rule Utilitarianism 3.Common Sense Can't Be Trusted
Deontological Ethics
A Normative ethical ethory. The idea that actions are right and wrong in themselves independently of any consequences -notions based on 'rules' i.e. that there is an obligation to perform the 'right' action, regardless of actual consequences -epitomized by Kant's notion of the Categorical Imperative. **Kants theory is a deontological one
Subjectivism is appealing because it presents a false dilemma: Are there moral truths?
It falsely assumes there are only two possibilities: 1.There are moral facts, in the same way that there are facts about stars and planets. 2.Our values are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings. People have not only feelings but reason 3.Moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgment is true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives
Case-Based Reasoning
Argues that "...moral belief and knowledge evolve incrementally through reflection on cases, without essential recourse to a top-down theory." In this belief, case-based moral reasoning is analogous to case law ("Social ethics develops from a social consensus... this consensus is then extended to new cases by analogy to past cases..." (95) Certain paradigm cases like Quinlan and the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment become sources of authority for new judgments. "Just as case law (legal rules) develops incrementally from legal decisions in cases, so the moral law (moral rules) develops incrementally" Casuistry: Casuistry, in ethics, a case-based method of reasoning. Casuistry typically uses general principles in reasoning analogically from clear-cut cases, called paradigms (PARADIGM CASES), to vexing cases. Similar cases are treated similarly. In this way, casuistry resembles legal reasoning. Practitioners in various fields value casuistry as an orderly yet flexible way to think about real-life ethical problems. Casuistry can be particularly useful when values or rules conflict. also helps clarify cases in which novel or complex circumstances make the application of rules unclear. Should e-mail receive the same privacy protection as regular mail? seeks both to illuminate the meaning and moral significance of the details in such cases and to discern workable solutions. casuists use taxonomies to develop general guidelines or policies. Some authors classify casuistry as a subset of applied ethics, or practical ethics. That is the branch of ethics that is concerned with the application of moral norms to practical problems. Others restrict the term applied ethics to deductive reasoning from principles to cases. Accordingly, those authors view casuistry as an alternative to applied ethics. General method in Casuistry: Depiction of the case Classification of the case Moral judgment
Argument for Ethical egoism: Compatible with Commonsense Morality
By obeying certain rules and duties we ultimately are pursuing our own self-interests Self-interest underpins all other principles in commonsense morality - e.g. •The duty not to harm others (Avoid retribution or jail) •The duty not to lie (Reputation / need true information from others) •The duty to keep our promises (Ensure access to mutually beneficial relationships) Ethical Egoists would say that all these duties spring from the one fundamental principle of self-interest. This includes the duty not to harm others, the duty not to lie, and the duty to keep our promises. All of these things benefit us because we would like people to treat us in that way in return. •Thomas Hobbes suggested that the principle of Ethical Egoism leads to the Golden Rule: •"we should do good unto others because if we do others will be more likely to do good unto us" **Argument against: However, there are two serious problems with it. First, the argument does not prove as much as it needs to. It shows only that it is usually to one's advantage to tell the truth, to keep one's promises, and to avoid harming others. But a situation might arise in which you could profit from doing something horrible, like killing someone.
Descriptive vs. normative ethics
Descriptive ethics just describes human behavior, such as psychological egoism. While Normative theory is about how people ought to behavior, such as ethical egoism.
Moral theory
Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. As Socrates said, it's about "how we ought to live"—and why. It would be helpful if we could begin with a simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is. Unfortunately, we cannot. There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates's simple formulation is bound to offend at least one of them. As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this "minimum." This picture of the conscientious moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or another. Examples: Utilitarianism, ethical egoism,
Arguments against Utilitarian Principles:
False that onl consequences matter: -Utilitarians ignore -Considerations of justice/injustice -Individual rights -Backward looking moral considerations/reasons Example: •Utilitarianism could justify the punishment of an innocent person (say to stop a race riot) •This ignores the moral ideals of justice, fairness, treating people according to their merits and needs Ignore Individual Rights •Could justify the violation of the right of privacy by the police for the sake of their happiness or a peeping Tom if overall happiness was maximized • Rights can't be set aside so easily •Rights are not a utilitarian notion, but a limit on utilitarian thinking: -Rights put limits on what can be done to individuals for the sake of the good results that might come about Ignores Backward Looking Moral Considerations/Reasons •Utilitarianism looks to the results of an action to determine if it is right or wrong; results are in the future, so it ignores any considerations from the past (unless they affect the future) •But what happened in the past is clearly morally relevant to determining if an act is right or wrong -Fact that someone did you a favor may be a good reason for doing her a favor now False that We Should Be Equally Concerned for Everyone: •We should not always be impartial -Equal concern for everyone is too demanding -Utilitarianism would require that we give up personal relationships, because they require partiality Duty vs. Supereregoatory •Utilitarianism is unable to make a distinction between doing our duty and doing things that are praiseworthy but not required by duty •Supererogatory Acts - those above and beyond the call of duty Give Up Personal Relationships Because They Require Partiality •A person who does not save her own child but some other child because that would better contribute to the general welfare is not a hero but a "moral leper"
Simple Subjectivism
First form of subjectivism, which has been improved upon after criticisms over time. •Implies, when a person says "something is morally good or bad", this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more •Simple subjectivism implies that each of us is infallible •The doctrine: -"X is good [or right]" means "I (the speaker) approve of X" -"X is bad [or wrong]" means "I (the speaker) disapprove of X"
Morality
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's action. -Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.It is generally accepted or adopted by the society. -While Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
State of Nature:
Hobbes: • -A war of each against all -Death of civilization -Life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" Rousseau: •humans are born free, autonomous, and naturally virtuous. •Suggested that "we become different kinds of creatures when we enter civilized relations with others." •In this, "the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses." •Humans are selfish by nature and must be controlled. •Humans are good and compassionate by nature, but can be corrupted by civilization. Locke: •"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it" --That is men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations. •Believed reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty and or property". •In this, "the reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." •Humans are rational by nature, and can by-and-large control themselves
Doubts/objections moral theory
Impartiality doubts: •Are we really impartial where our family and friends are concerned? •Should we be? •It seems that the love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. •Any theory that emphasizes impartiality will have a hard time accounting for that love Incompleteness: •Should virtue theory be counted as an adjunct to theories of right action? -Kant and Mill certainly think so •Radical Virtue Theorists think that virtue theory should be counted as an alternative to these other theories.
Theory of Natural Law
In the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory of ethics is not the divine command theory. This honor goes to the Theory of Natural Law •Objective principles for social, legal and moral behavior that are derived from what is believed to be the rational, ordered and character of the world
Consequentialists
say any moral rule may be broken if circumstances demand it Anscombe believes moral rules are absolute and disagrees with this. Anscombes view is a form of Non-Consequentialism
Descriptive ethics
the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices
1st Formulation of the "Categorical Imperative"
•"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law" •The principle summarizes a procedure for deciding whether an act is morally permissible •If the rule by which you act is one that you would be willing to have everyone follow all the time, then your act is permissible, otherwise not.
Contrast Emotivism and Simple Subjectivism
The difference is that Emotivism uses language for persuasion on statements that are neither true nor false, whereas Simple Subjectivism uses moral language to state facts about attitudes. The similarity between Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism is that our judgments cannot be criticized. For Simple Subjectivism our judgments will always be true, and for Emotivism our judgments cannot be false because they are not judgments, but yet a sign of one's attitude. Simple Subjectivism entails that, one approves or disapproves of something when they say "something is morally good or bad," and nothing more. Simple Subjectivism implies that each of us is infallible. Emotivism does not interpret moral judgments as statements that are true or false; it represents expressions of attitude, therefore, people cannot be infallible. Emotivism •Our moral judgments cannot be criticized because they are not judgments at all; •They are mere expressions of emotions, which cannot be false Simple Subjectivism •Our judgments cannot be criticize because they will always be true •They only state or report our emotions
Rachel's Virtue ethics conclusion:
•Believes virtue ethics adds a valuable dimension to ethics but is incomplete by itself. •Radical Virtue Ethics fails to explain why people should be virtuous •Combine the best features of ethics from duty/obligation/right action with the insights drawn from virtue ethics
Bentham's Principle of Utility
Principle of Utility: Right acts maximize happiness(untility) •Act so as to produce the greatest "happiness" for the greatest number. •This radical approach leaves out of its picture of morality: •Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules "written in heavens" •Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code, or to some set of inflexible rules. •Seen as the happiness of beings in this world, and nothing more; and we are permitted - even required - to do whatever is necessary to promote happiness •Principle of utility is one moral rule central to utilitarianism
Contrast Psychological and Ethical Egoism
Psychological Egoism •We do in fact pursue our own self interest •descriptive theory of human nature about how humans in fact do (must) behavior •Makes claims about human nature Ethical Egoism •We ought to pursue our own self-interest exclusively •Normative theory about how people ought to behave •Makes claims about morality
Rachel's conclusion regarding religious in ethics:
•Religious considerations do not provide definitive solutions to the moral problems that confront us •This realization does not depend on assuming that Christian belief is false •Even if true, morality is an independent matter
Virtue Theory
Rachels gives us five components of any virtue theory: 1.Explanation of what a virtue is 2.A list of which character traits are virtues 3.What do these virtues consist in 4.Why are these qualities good for a person to have 5.Are these virtues universal, or particular to individuals or cultures. •Aristotle said that a virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action. •It is good for a person to have. -Honest person doesn't tell the truth once, but habitually -His honest action springs from his character -Doesn't have to think about it. •Those traits of character that lead us to seek people •Vices too are habitual traits of character •Immoral practice or habit •Aristotle argued that virtues are a mean between extremes which are vices •One of excess and the other a deficiency •Those traits of character that leads us to avoid people Virtue examples: courage, self-control, generosity, kindness, honesty Vices examples: cowardice, bad temper, cruelty •Each of the virtues has its own distinctive features and raises its own distinctive problems. For example: •Courage •Generosity: (Virtue: -We should be as generous with our resources as is consistent with conducting our ordinary lives, with the caveat that our ordinary lives are not too extravagant.) •Honesty (virtue: 1.That an honest person will never lie. 2.That an honest person will never lie except in rare circumstances when there are compelling reasons why it must be done.) •Loyalty to family and friends WHY ARE VIRTUES IMPORTANT: •Aristotle gives the answer that a virtuous person will fare better in life. •Elizabeth Anscombe gives the answer that a virtuous life is a life that flourishes. •The virtues are not a path to riches and power, but they are needed to conduct our lives well. •Despite their differences, the virtues all have the same general sort of value: -They are all qualities needed for successful human living. Virtues are different for ppl due to: -Different eras... -Different lives... -Different occupations... -Different personalities... -Different social roles... •But then there are some virtues that will be needed by all people in all times. -Courage -Generosity -Honesty -Loyalty •These major virtues are not mandated by social convention but by facts about the common human condition
Ethics
The systematic study of moral ideas, values, or principles. AKA Moral philosophy Ethics also means the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.
3 objections to Social Contract theory:
Three Objections to the theory are raised: 1.The Social Contract isn't worth the paper its written on - based on historical fiction •Never really was a state of nature -Reply: Implicit agreement -- It is a useful tool for analyzing our association with society, treating our moral obligations as if they had arisen this way. •If it is fiction it is morally healthy and satisfying one. 2.Beings who cannot enter into contracts are left out, and so they have no moral standing 3. What about personal relationships? ***Bottom line: Unless this theory can explain our duty in the case of impaired people, the social contract theory remains flawed at its root.
Argument for Ethical egoism: Ayn Rand's Argument
States that: •Our life should be the most important thing to us... •The ethics of altruism does not value human life as it should •Ethical Egoism does value human life as it should Thus, Ethical Egoism is the best theory Ayn Rand regarded the "ethics of altruism" as a totally destructive idea, both in society as a whole and in the lives of those taken in by it. Altruism, she thought, leads to a denial of the value of the individual. It says to a person: Your life is merely something to be sacrificed. Rand also suggests that there is a metaphysical basis for Ethical Egoism. Somehow, it is the only ethic that takes seriously the reality of the individual person. **Argument against: Rachel's criticism of this Argument •Altruism doesn't demand regarding your life as of NO importance •Due concern for oneself doesn't require regarding one's self as the ONLY important thing •There is a middle ground: "the common-sense view" we dont have to have only two options: Either we accept the ethics of altruism, or we accept Ethical Egoism. •sometimes you should look out for the interests of others •sometimes you should look out for number one
Argument for Ethical egoism: Altruism is Self Defeating
When we try to help others, we end up hurting them. E.g. •We know our own interests well, but not others' interests. So when we help, we often hinder •Looking out for others robs them of their privacy •Giving "charity" demeans the recipient's self-worth Therefore, we should all attend to only our own interests **Counter arguments: •Sometimes mother knows best •Helping not always = butting in •Charity doesn't always degrade the recipient -Is it really degrading to be given food when you're hungry? -More degrading than being allowed to starve? The reason we should adopt those policies is decidedly unegoistic. It is said that adopting those policies will promote the betterment of society—but according to Ethical Egoism, we shouldn't care about that. If we accept this reasoning, then we are not Ethical Egoists. Even though we might behave like egoists, our ultimate principle is one of beneficence—we are trying to help everyone, and not just ourselves. *Objections to this argument: •We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone's interests •The best way to do that is for each of us to pursue only our own interests Therefore, each of us should pursue only our own interests
Prisoner's Dilemma
a particular "game" between two captured prisoners that illustrates why cooperation is difficult to maintain even when it is mutually beneficial •Morality as a way out a prisoner's dilemma of self-interest. •The prisoner's dilemma can be stated in the form of a puzzle. •You are arrested for treason along with another man (a total stranger) Smith •You are given the following options: -If you confess but not Smith •You go free •Smith get a 10 yr. sentence -If neither of you confess: each gets 1 yr. -If both confess: each gets five years -If Smith confesses but you don't •You get 10 yrs •Smith gets 0 -You are not allowed to communicate with Smith •You are given the following options: -If you confess but not Smith •You go free •Assuming your goal is just to protect your own interests (to spend as little time in jail as possible) •What will get you free the quickest? -Confess -Or not Solution: •Smith will either confess or not •If Smith does -Then if you do you get 5 years -If you don't you get 10 years •If Smith doesn't -Then if you do you get 0 years -If you don't you get 1 year •Either way, you come out ahead by confessing •So you should confess Takeaway/The paradox: •If you both confess you will get 5 years •But if you both hadn't confessed you'd have only gotten 1 year •Each pursuing rationally pressing their own best interests in isolation •Prevented both from achieving a better outcome than they might due to their inability to cooperate •By rationally pursuing your own interests, you both end up worse off than if you had both acted differently. •Here is the paradox: You and Smith would both do better if you simultaneously did what was not in your self interest Dilemma/solution: •Dilemma: the rational thing to do is to act egoistically - but in this situation we'd all be worse off than if we cooperated •Solution: enforceable agreement to cooperate and "obey the rules" of benevolence
Cultural Relativism
•A form of moral relativism which asserts there is no absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places •Moral truths are judged relative to the moral code of the relevant society/culture •E.g. infanticide is morally permissible for Inuits because the moral code of their society allows it. •Different cultures have different moral codes •Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture (what they believe to be morally right and wrong) The following claims have all been emphasized by cultural relativists: •Societies have different moral codes •The codes cannot be rated or compared because there is no objective moral measure •Only the moral code of the culture in question can assess what's 'Morally right' in that culture/society •The moral code of our own society has no special status •Judging other cultures' moral practices is arrogant •We should be tolerant of them -To Cultural Relavisits, "Different cultures have different moral codes"—seems like the key to understanding morality. There are no universal moral truths, they say; the customs of different societies are all that exist. To call a custom "correct" or "incorrect" would imply that we can judge it by some independent or objective standard of right and wrong. But, in fact, we would merely be judging it by the standards of our own culture. No independent standard exists; every standard is culture-bound. The sociologist William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) wrote about this. -The second claim—that right and wrong are determined by the norms of society—is at the heart of Cultural Relativism. However, it may seem to conflict with the fifth claim, which is that we should always be tolerant of other cultures. Should we always tolerate them? Nazis? A cultural relativist, it seems, cannot criticize the Nazis for being intolerant, if all they're doing is following their own moral beliefs
Divine Command Theory
•A moral theory or framework according to which actions are right or wrong because of God's commands. •E.g. Stealing is wrong because the Ten Commandments prohibit it. •"Good" means "commanded by God" •If we are to live as we should live, we must follow God's laws •This, it is said, is the essence of morality. Why is it attractice? •It immediately solves the old problem about the objectivity of ethics. •According to this theory, ethics is not merely a matter or personal feelings or social custom •Whether something is right or wrong is a perfectly objective matter: It is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it
Ethical Egoism
•A normative theory that states it is morally right to pursue self-interest and wrong not to •Selfishness is extolled as a virtue -Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness •We have no moral duty except to do what is best for ourselves •One might be obligated to help others, but only as a means to our long-term self interest Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be. -does not tell you to avoid helping others. Sometimes your interests will coincide with the well-being of others, so you'll help yourself by helping them. Ethical Egoism does not imply that in pursuing your interests, you should always do what you want to, or what offers you the most short-term pleasure. Endoreses selfishness, not foolishness. It says we should really do what is best for ourselves in the long run.
Ethical Subjectivism
•A theory about the nature of moral judgments •The belief that the answer to what is right and wrong is held by each individual's personal beliefs, and that moral decisions are made by consulting one's own conscience •Even more radical form of relativism than cultural relativism •Moral values are relative to individuals -No right and wrong, per se -Just right-for-Sally, wrong-for-Sue, etc. •Morality is -Mere matter of personal opinion -Mere expression or statement of feelings -Matter of sentiment/emotion/feeling, not truth, fact or reason
Common Values as relates to Cultural Relativism
•All cultures must share some common values -Without these, the societies would fail •Caring for offspring •Truth-telling •Murder is wrong •If we look closely, what looks to be moral disagreements are not disagreements about values but about facts: •E.g. Eating cows (grandma) •E.g. Inuit baby-killing -Men are the hunters and die more easily -Mums can only nurse/carry so many kids at a time Adoption (if possible) first
Virtue Ethics
•An approach that deemphasizes rules, consequences and particular acts and places the focus on the kind of person who is acting •What is primary is whether the person acting is expressing good character (moral virtues) or not. •The ethics of virtue ask, "What is the good of man?" •The central question is about character. •The Greeks asked, "What traits of character make one a good person?" •With the rise of Christianity, and the thinking of the church fathers, "righteous living meant obedience to the divine commandments." •The Greeks had viewed reason as the source of practical wisdom —the virtuous life was, for them, inseparable from the life of reason. •In the divine command theory, distrusting reason, the "theological virtues" of faith, hope, charity and... obedience came to have a central place. •After the Renaissance, reason was again incorporated in moral theory replacing the divine command with Moral Law. •Instead of asking, "What traits of character make one a good person?" they began by asking "What is the right thing to do?" •Developed theories of right and obligation and duty, not of virtue: -Ethical Egoism (self interest) -Social Contract Theory (mutual benefit) -Utilitarianism (happiness) -Kant's Theory (universal laws) •These theories dominated moral philosophy from the 17th century on A Return to Virtue ethics: •Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a paper in 1958 suggesting a return to the ethics of virtue claiming that contemporary moral theory was misguided. •Stop thinking about duty, rightness and obligation and return to thinking about virtue and vices •More progress in ethics made that way
Altruism
•An ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest -unselfish regard for the welfare of others •The battleground of psychological egoism is the question whether there are ever any truly altruistic acts •If psychological egoism is true, then altruism is impossible •Altruism is not impossible •Therefore, psychological egoism is not true **BOTTOM LINE: Altruism IS possible
Emotivism (Second version of Subjectivism)
•Begins with the observation that language is used in a variety of ways -Not only to state facts: indicative statements -But also to ask question (interrogative sentences): express feelings (exclamations) -And [of especial interest here] to give commands (imperative sentences) Believes that.. •Moral statements do not make assertions about anything (not even our own psychological states). •Moral statements express, but do not report, our emotional reactions to issues •Linguistically, moral statements function like exclamations and commands Emotivism is a philosophical theory in the realm of ethics. It is the view that all ethical statements are expressions of emotion and, thus, are meaningless. For example, statements such as "Abortion is wrong" or "Euthanasia is okay" are emotional opinions that relate solely to how a person feels about a certain issue. With Emotivism, ethical statements are also perceived as emotional attempts to get others to agree with one's views. As a result, Emotivism is often referred to as the "Boo/Hooray" theory. It's as if when you disagree with an ethical position you say "Boo"; if you agree with a position you cheer "Hooray." Possible Upsides (improvements from Simple Subjectivism): •Offers an explanation of why there appear to be irresolvable ethical disagreements •According to Emotivism, ethical statements are neither true nor false, so they are not all true (therefore, the infallibility objection to Simple Subjectivism is avoided) •According to Emotivism, people have differences in attitude, even if they don't have disagreements about attitudes. •Recall that a problem with Simple Subjectivism is that because moral statements report attitudes, moral statements do not come into conflict. •But if moral statements express attitudes, then they can be in opposition (very much like the opposition between someone who says "Close the door" and someone who says "Leave it open.") •Thus, the second objection to Simple Subjectivism seems to be avoided as well.
The Cultural differences arugment made by Culture Relavisits:
•Different cultures have different moral codes •Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture (what they believe to be morally right and wrong) NEW Cultural Differences Argument: •If cultures believe in different moral codes, then there is no objective "truth" in morality •Cultures do believe in different moral codes Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality; it's all relative example, they invite us to accept this reasoning: (1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Or: (1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe that infanticide is immoral. (2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a more general argument, which says: (1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. **But is it a good argument—is it sound? It is not. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and its conclusion must logically follow from them. Here, the problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. The premise concerns what people believe—in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe something else. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. This sort of conclusion does not follow logically from that sort of premise. In philosophical terminology, this means that the argument is invalid.
Divine Command Theory: Socratic Dilemma (Euthyphro)
•Does God command it because it's good or is it good because God commands it? •The question is about whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they are true Taking place during the weeks leading up to Socrates' trial, the dialogue features Socrates and Euthyphro, a religious expert, attempting to define piety or holiness. The dialogue is set near the king-archon's court, where the two men encounter each other. They are both there for preliminary hearings before possible trials. Euthyphro has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, as his father had allowed one of his workers to die exposed to the elements without proper care and attention . This worker had killed a slave belonging to the family estate on the island of Naxos; while Euthyphro's father waited to hear from the expounders of religious law about how to proceed, the worker died bound and gagged in a ditch. Socrates expresses his astonishment at the confidence of a man able to take his own father to court on such a serious charge, even when Athenian Law allows only relatives of the deceased to sue for murder. Euthyphro misses the astonishment, and merely confirms his overconfidence in his own judgment of religious/ethical matters. In an example of "Socratic irony," Socrates states that Euthyphro obviously has a clear understanding of what is pious and impious .[2] Since Socrates himself is facing a charge of impiety, he expresses the hope to learn from Euthyphro, all the better to defend himself in his own trial. Euthyphro claims that what lies behind the charge brought against Socrates by Meletus and the other accusers is Socrates' claim that he is subjected to a daimon or divine sign which warns him of various courses of action. Even more suspicious from the viewpoint of many Athenians, Socrates expresses skeptical views on the main stories about the Greek gods, which the two men briefly discuss before plunging into the main argument. Socrates expresses reservations about such accounts which show up the gods' cruelty and inconsistency. He mentions the castration of the early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronus, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept. Yet after claiming to be able to tell even more amazing such stories, Euthyphro spends little time or effort defending the conventional view of the gods. Instead, he is led straight to the real task at hand, as Socrates forces him to confront his ignorance, ever pressing him for a definition of 'piety'. Yet with every definition Euthyphro proposes, Socrates very quickly finds a fatal flaw. Conclusion: At the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro is forced to admit that each definition has been a failure, but rather than correct it, he makes the excuse that it is time for him to go, and Socrates ends the dialogue with a classic example of Socratic irony: since Euthyphro has been unable to come up with a definition that will stand on its own two feet, Euthyphro has failed to teach Socrates anything at all about piety, and so he has received no aid for his own defense at his own trial.
Universalizable
•For Kant, right acts are ones that follow rules that are universalizable •Universalizable means: -Not self-defeating -Reversible -Consistently Applied Rachels arguemnt: •We often can know what the consequences of our acts will be •Kant ignores that one is also responsible for the consequences of telling the truth as well as the consequences of lying
advtanges Virtue ethics:
•Is a virtue-based ethic superior to other forms of ethic, i.e. ethics of right action? •Here are two of the most important reasons. 1. Virtue ethics is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation better than ethics of right action. •Duty and utility are very poor explanations of human interaction. •To do something from duty is completely impersonal. Any gesture lacks humanity. •Behavior based on utility is a calculation, not a relationship. •It doesn't take into account the persons involved, rather an estimation of some idealized form of happiness -There are doubts about the ideal of impartiality.
Takeaway Cultural Relativism
•It's main argument has 2 problems: -Believing in a moral code isn't enough to make it true -There may not be moral cultural differences after all •If CR is true, then we can't: -Compare, criticize or progress morally •It reminds us about cultural differences -and helps us to examine the peculiar cultural rules we follow -Which may well be arbitrary (not morally right or wrong) •Be open-minded -Some of your moral beliefs are probably based on cultural influences during your upbringing
Kant's mistake
•Kant's mistake was to think that consistency implied absolute (exceptionless) moral rules •But it does not •All that's required: -"When we break a rule" (lie to save an innocent person) -It must be "for a reason that we would be willing for anyone to accept, if they were in our position"
Maxims
•Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules that guide action. -That is, each individual agent regards itself as determining, by its decision to act in a certain way, -That everyone (including itself) will always act according to the same general rule in the future. •All actions have maxims, such as, -Never lie to your friends. -Never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you. -Always watch out for number one. -It's ok to cheat if you need to. Example -If I don't repay I act on the maxim: "Don't bother to pay your bets". -If everyone did this: •The practice of betting would be undermined, which I don't wish, •Reversal: If I were in his shoes, I'd wish to be repaid
Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism
•May one make exceptions to these utilitarian rules in atypical cases where breaking the rule maximizes happiness/utility? •If so we are back with the original version of (act) utilitarianism •If not, then we seem to have an irrational rule worship; a utilitarian telling us we should do something that does not maximize happiness?
Immanuel Kant
•Morality consists in following (absolute) rules (independent of consequences) •For Kant, reason requires Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives. An imperative are like instructions and tells you what you should do: •Hypothetical imperative tells you that you should do this if you want something else -E.g. If you want to go to law school, then you should take the entrance exam -If you want to pass the course, you ought to complete the assignments. -If you want to do so-and-so, then you ought to do such-and-such •Categorical imperative tells you what you should do regardless of what you want; independent of any desires; do such and such period -Unlike hypothetical imperatives, which you can get out of by not having the desire they depend on -Categorical imperatives require certain action whatever your desires are •For Kant, morality involves categorical imperatives •These are justified by reasons: -Binding on all rational agents simply because they are rational -Not just personal preference •Moral judgments must be backed by consistent (impartially applicable) reasons: -Binding on all persons -At all times -A requirement of consistency that "no rational person could deny" •Reasons can't be accepted sometimes and not other times; they can't apply to others but not to me •A person cannot regard themselves as special from a moral point of view •There are purely rational constraints on what we morally may do -I cannot consistently drink your beer -Unless I'm also willing to have you drink mine
Social Contract Theory of Morality
•Morality is I.A set of rules necessary for social living II.That rational people will agree to accept III.For their mutual benefit IV. On the condition that others follow the rules (reciprocity) Answers the questions: •Why be moral? Why obey moral rules? Why reasonable to be moral? •Because: 1.We agreed to obey the rules 2.It is in our self-interest and to our advantage to live in a system where rules are obeyed 3.Our compliance with these rules is the price we pay to make sure others comply."
Types of Ethical Egoism
•Personal -"I am going to act only in my own interest, and everyone else can do whatever they want." •Individual -"Everyone should act in my own interest." •Universal -"Each individual should act in his or her own self interest."
Rule Utilitarianism
•Principle of utility is a guide for choosing rules, not individual acts •This version of utilitarianism claims that right acts are those that follow the set of rules whose existence would maximize happiness overall •Rule: "Don't bear false witness against the innocent" •Act utilitarianism would incriminate an innocent man •Rule utilitarianism can easily respond to the anti-utilitarian arguments
Flaws of Divine Command Theory
•Suppose God commands us to do what is right, then either a)The right actions are right because God commands them or, •Then, God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary, (religious ppl cannot accept an arbitrary god, so will follow them) •Moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless. •God might equally well have commanded murder and mayhem rather than love and mercy b)God commands them because they are right: •If God commands things because they are good •Then they must've been good before God commanded them •Then, we have admitted there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will.•Suppose God commands us to do what is right, then either
Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism
•The act utilitarian considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the rule utilitarian considers the consequences that result from following a rule of conduct. Rule: •Look at whether the action follows the rule •Right = The action conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest happiness •Breaking Promises •Do not follow rule •We should not make false promises Act: •Look at the individual action •Right = The action can maximize the happiness (good) •Breaking Promises •Happiness > Unhappiness right to do •Morally permissible. Nothing wrong
Utilitarianism
•The morally right act is the act whose consequences bring into the world the greatest total amount of happiness (after subtracting any unhappiness caused). •Imagine a world with as much happiness as possible, your job as a moral agent is to act so as to bring us as close as possible to this world 3 features of Utilitarianism: 1. Only consequences matter •Right acts determined solely by the goodness of the results •What kind of act it is, the motive behind the act, and the kind of person who did the act doesn't matter, all that matters in determining if the act is right/wrong is its consequences •All that matters is if the act produces results that maximize happiness 2. Only the happiness or unhappiness of the consequences matter 3. Strict impartiality -Each person's welfare is equally important. •Everyone who is affected gets included equally; whose happiness is not relevant; even the agent's own happiness doesn't get special treatment. •Rules out special treatment of groups; rules out racism, sexism, egoism, speciesism
Psychological Egoism
•The most well-known descriptive position, holds that we always act in own self-interest exclusively. -•Every human action is at its root a selfish act; even acts that are altruistic on the surface are primarily motivated by a deeper selfishness -Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or about the way things are; Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be. 2 Arguments for psychological Egoism: 1. The Argument That We Always Do What We Want to Do: •This argument states that even though on the surface one person's acts might appear selfish and another person's acts might appear unselfish, in both cases each person is just doing what they want to do, which is inherently selfish. Moved by self-interest. •Flawed argument: 1.We do things not because we want to do them but because we ought to 2.We do things because we only desire to help others 2. The Argument That We Always Do What Makes Us Feel Good: •Suggests that people just do what makes them feel good, thereby making all acts selfish •Good acts makes that person feel good about themselves. The second argument for Psychological Egoism appeals to the fact that so-called altruistic actions produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the person who performs them. Acting "unselfishly" makes people feel good about themselves, and that is why they do it. Once the motives of a person performing an allegedly altruistic action are "properly examined" we can see that, at the bottom, they are still acting in their own self interest -Flawed argument: •If we only desire to help others, feeling good may merely be a by-product not the object of our desire. •We sometimes indulge in actions that feel good, but are not in our best interest Conclusion about Psychological Egoism. •Even though it provides a response to human vanity, it is simple and one size fits all formula for human behavior •Psychological Egoism is not a credible theory. -Some people like the theory's cynical view of human nature. Others may like its simplicity. And, indeed, it would be pleasing if a single factor could explain all human behavior. But human beings seem too complicated for that. Morality has nothing to fear from Psychological Egoism. Moral theorizing need not be a naïve endeavor, based on an unrealistic view of human nature.
The prisoner's Dilemma in real world:
•There are two things about the prisoner's dilemma that are like the real world. 1.People's interests are affected not only by what they do but by what others do 2.Everyone will end up worse off if they simultaneously pursue their own interests than if they simultaneously do what is not in their own interests. Rachels opinion: •Rachels suggests that we could see the dilemma if we looked at it from the point of view of an egoist and a benevolent person. -Choosing egoism is clearly the safest bet but this lands us in the state of nature again. •According to David Gauthier, we "bargain our way into morality." •Rachels concludes, "We can do that if we can establish sufficient sanctions to ensure that, if we respect other people's interests, they must respect ours as well."
When is it Permissible to Break the Rules/Laws? (under Social Contract Theory)
•Under the Social Contract Theory we have a moral obligation to obey the law based on our contractual agreement •"Are we ever justified in defying the law? And if so, when?" •Rely: Civil disobedience requires a good justification When the terms of the contract are broken
Rachel's conclusion Utilitarianism:
•Utilitarianism is better than our common moral sense, which includes prejudices absorbed from parents, religion and general culture. •Perhaps it is our inherited morality and moral feelings, not utilitarianism, that need to be discarded. •Act Utilitarianism may be the best way to overcome the fallacies of our common sense morality.
What Rachels Sees as the Lasting Contribution of Kant to Morality
•Violating morality is not only immoral but irrational -Morality and rationality are tied -Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons (Rachels account of morality)
