Intro to Philosophy - Exam #3

Conflicting Interests

"Us humans are social creatures, we don't live in a social vacuum, rather we must INTERACT with others. And this natural fact generates an enormous amount of ethical concern." - Mary Midgely

Consequentialist Theory: Two Types (A)

(A) Ethical Egoism - the primary focus is on the individual, i.e., on the consequences to the individual. NOTE: Some scholars have questioned whether (EE) is a legitimate ethical theory since it clearly violates sacred principles of moral equality. However, because it's prescriptive in nature, it must be deemed to be a real ethical theory.

AU and the Basic Themes

1) AU is an objective ethics as opposed to being relative or subjective. Why you ask? Because the theory is based on objective/observable phenomena, namely pain and pleasure. Remember, Bentham hoped that his school of utility would make ethics much more scientific. 2) Clearly, because AU is a consequentialist theory, consequences are going to be stressed over reasons. Reasoning is important only to the extent that it promotes net utility. 3) Third, AU focuses on specific actions, although there are other types of utilitarian interpretations in which persons may resort to following general rules as time-saving devices, if this promotes overall utility. 4) Finally, because AU stresses overall utility, the group or majority of persons will always win out over individual interests or concerns.

Problems with ER

1) Actual Ethical Guidelines Possible Responses a) Majority b) Government/ Ruling group c) Laws d) Moral tradition 2) Multiple Sets of Moral Guidelines Due to this problem, ER ultimately fails to demonstrate that some spheres of social reality have precedence over others and hence fails to effectively solve important ethical issues. 3)Moral Change and Dissent Because reasons based on reason are irrelevant, significant moral change is rendered mysterious. Furthermore, given the very definition of ER, all social dissent or deviation is necessarily wrong, regardless of its apparent justification; hence even in the case of the abolition of slavery.

Evaluating Ethical Theories: The Essential Criteria - #1

1) An ethical theory must be able to identify some ethical guidelines. Obviously, if a theory cannot identify any guidelines, then it cannot solve any moral conflicts and hence cannot help us live together successfully.

Virtues of Act Utilitarianism

1) Clear Content - since presumably everyone is directly aware of whether or not they are feeling pleasure or pain, the content of the theory is straightforward and clear-cut. Remember, Bentham thought that his school of utility would make ethics more scientific, since the content of his theory -pleasure and pain - can be directly observed, unlike such theoretical constructs as moral rights.

DCT and the Basic Ethical Themes

1) DCT is definitely NOT a consequentialist theory, but rather places primary emphasis on the reasoning leading up to the act. In sum, if your reason for doing something is that God commanded it, then it is good, regardless of the consequences. 2) Clearly, DCT is committed to the view that good and bad are connected to following general rules instead of separately evaluating each action, belief and so on. Plain and simple, in order to act rightly, we must, without exception, follow God's laws. 3) Because DCT focuses on the special personal relationship between persons and God, the primary ethical emphasis is placed on the individual moral agent. 4) From what has been said thus far, it is obvious that DCT is NOT a subjective or relative theory, but instead based on objective claims.

Problems with KT

1) Descriptions for Actions This problem deals or relates to the procedure for creating moral laws. According to KT, persons must be able to identify an action and then decide on the rule that guides the action. Here Kant apparently has assumed that there is only one correct description for an action and that each action only connects to one rule. Unfortunately, however, there are examples that suggest otherwise. Example: Struggling single mother

Problems with AU

1) Doing the Calculations Indeed, it is difficult to identify ALL the consequences of a moral action. Short-range consequences can be difficult to identify, and long-range consequences are even harder to identify. Further, these calculations are simply too time-consuming and complex. 2) Contrary to Moral Intuitions Without much imagination, one can produce a variety of results that run contrary to many peoples moral intuition. Examples: Slavery and killing innocent people. 3) Moral Luck In short, if good and evil depend on the consequences of an action, then the ability to perform good actions is not totally in the control of the moral agent. Rather, an element of luck enters the moral realm.

Traditional Ethical Assumptions - #1

1) Ethics is RATIONAL (rationality)

Virtues of Kantian Ethics

1) Ethics is Rational-Kantian ethics enables us to provide reason to support our moral rules, and we can therefore determine why some reasons and rules are better than others. 2) Moral Equality of Persons - Because Kantian theory asserts that persons are moral equals, it guards against such prejudiced practices as sexism and racism. 3) Universal Guidelines In short, the moral guidelines or laws generated by the use of the Categorical Imperative ought to be the same for ALL rational beings.

Virtues of DCT

1) Gods Authority - Indeed, persons who believe in God may feel justified in endorsing this ethical standard because they accept God's authority. Therefore, one strength of the theory is that people who believe in God will be inclined to accept a theory that acknowledges God's authority. 2) Clarity - The second possible strength of the theory is that it makes good and evil a very clear, black and white matter. In short, we simply need to follow God's commandments. And at first glance at least, these seem to be relatively clear and unambiguous. For example: Thou shall not kill. What could be more clear-cut than this? Notice, according to DCT, we do not need to consider the complexities of the particular situation we may find ourselves in. Why? Because, these details are not relevant. We shouldn't, in other words, be confused by all the various sorts of human opinions concerning stealing and killing. Rather, the only relevant moral factors are God's commands. 3) Universal - Because God's laws are universal, this, in turn, reduces the possibility of ethical disagreements. Example:The Ten Commandments 4) Overriding Set of Moral Guidelines - To have one set of religious rules and another set of secular rules guiding life would be confusing since the two may very well conflict. For instance, ABORTION and GAY RIGHTS!

Appropriate rule?

1) I ought to take food from large stores only 2) It is unethical to steal the property of others 3) Persons ought to try to save the lives of innocent people 4) We ought to care for our children The problem here, of course, is that we do NOT know the proper description or rule. However, if we cannot identify the single relevant personal rule we will not be able to decide how to act ethically. Why you ask? Because we will not know what rule to examine to see if it can be willed to be a moral law. Therefore, we will not be able to solve moral problems, and thus live together successfully.

Restrictive Criteria

1) Internal Consistency 2) Moral equality 3) Universality

KT and the Basic Themes

1) Kantian's believe good/bad are objective because they depend on or are the product of considerations of reason that do not depend on personal perceptions, judgments, or emotions. 2) Kantian ethics claims that the rightness or wrongness of a moral act depends solely on the reasoning as opposed to the actual consequences. 3) Kantians believe ethics demands that persons faithfully follow rules, without exceptions, as opposed to specific analysis of each action belief and so on. 4) Kantians are committed to the view that the focus of ethics should be on the individual person, or rational being, as opposed to the group or majority of persons.

ER and the Basic Themes

1) Of course, ER is a relative theory as opposed to one that is subjective or objective. 2) ER also stresses reasons over consequences. That is, if your reason for doing something is that your particular culture approves, then it is good/right. 3) Naturally, ER is committed to faithfully following the moral rules of your given society. 4) Obviously, it is the community or group of persons that is of primary ethical importance.

Virtues of ER

1) Serves to Combat Dogma - Indeed, ER is an effective means by which to combat overly rigid and inflexible social standards. In other words, ER effectively combats the "our way or the highway" type of mentality. 2) Moral Guidelines as a Social Institution - societies create various institutions to help them function successfully. Without morality, persons will only respect such things as liberty and property when they believe they might get caught and punished. Therefore, morality helps society function more successfully.

Basic Ethical Themes

1) What kind of moral guidelines makes something good or bad: subjective, relative, or objective ones 2) What makes something good or bad: is it the consequences that are produced or the reasoning that leads up to it.

Bentham: Two Distinguishing Traits

1)Bentham focuses solely on the nature of specific acts as opposed to general rules. 2) Bentham focuses solely on the quantitative rather than the qualitative aspects of pleasure.

Problems with DCT

1a) The inability to resolve disputes over the source of the divine commands. For instance, the sacred text for Christians is the Bible, for Muslims the Koran, for the Jews the Torah. But which of these texts is the real deal, the truly authentic text? Notice, since DCT does not satisfy the rationality clause, there is no way to devise a set of rational criteria to determine which text is the authentic real deal. The upshot? It doesn't look as though we are in an epistemological position to know the answers to these types of questions. 1b) The difficulty of interpreting the divine text in order to understand God's commandments. Many Biblical scholars disagree about the correct interpretations of many passages in the Bible. For instance, is it ever morally permissible to dance, kill or to get a divorce? 2) Plato's ProblemSimply put, Is what is good good because God commands it, or does He command it because it is good?According to Plato, logic says that we must opt in favor of the latter rather than the former. Why you ask? Well, in short, according to Plato, opting in favor of the former has the unacceptable consequence of rendering morality arbitrary, random and capricious. Thought Experiment: Isaac and Abraham However, if we agree with Plato, this, in turn, is devastating for DCT. Why you ask?Because this means that there is an independent moral standard, apart from God

Evaluating Ethical Theories: The Essential Criteria - #2

2) An ethical theory must be able to show that some guidelines are BETTER than others. A theory that states that any ethical guideline is as good as any other would imply that any solution to an ethical problem is as good as any other solution. This would, in turn, legitimize any actions, even the most harmful and anti-social ones.

Problems with KT (2)

2) Conflicting Moral Laws One way to solve the problem of not being able to identify a single description and rule is to declare that several descriptions and rules are relevant to an ethical action. However, this creates a new dilemma, the problem of conflicting moral laws. And unfortunately, there are no theoretical means by which to solve this problem. That is, there are no theoretical means or mechanisms by which we can rank the various moral laws. Hence, no conflicts can be solved.

Traditional Ethical Assumptions - #2

2) Ethics is IMPARTIAL (impartiality)

Evaluating Ethical Theories: The Essential Criteria - #3

3) An ethical theory must identify ethical guidelines that would prohibit the UNLIMITED pursuit of self-interest Persons cannot live together successfully, if they believe it is permissible to do anything that is in their own self-interest.

Basic Ethical Themes (3) and (4)

3) Are good and bad related to following general rules without exceptions or connected to separately evaluating each action, belief and so on 4) Are good and bad primarily related to the group, community, or majority of persons, or should the primary focus be on the individual.

Traditional Ethical Assumptions - #3

3) Ethics is a UNIVERSAL (Universality)

Problems with KT (3)

3) No Exceptions to Moral Law Because of the absolute nature of the Categorical Imperative, there is no room for compromise. This overly rigid and inflexible aspect of Kantian theory is ultimately unacceptable to many ethical theorists. Example: Nazi inquiries

Evaluating Ethical Theories: The Essential Criteria - #4

4) An ethical theory must produce effective solutions to ethical problems. A theory that produces impractical or ineffective solutions or only a limited number of solutions would not be as preferable as a theory without these limitations.

Bentham's Basic Principle

Actions are good or bad according to the tendency they have to augment or diminish the pleasure or happiness of all the parties in question

Mill and Rule Utilitarianism

Although Mill is sympathetic to the original formulation of Utilitarianism, he believed that he had bettered Bentham's theory in two very important ways. 1) Rules as time-saving devices Mill appeals to general moral rules in order to avoid one of the classic critiques of utilitarianism, namely that it's entirely too time-consuming. According to Mill, throughout human history, we have learned about the tendencies of actions to produce happiness or unhappiness, and much of morality is based on this common knowledge. For instance, we have learned that keeping promisesis generally more beneficial than breaking them. Likewise, we realize thatkilling innocent peopleproduces more unhappiness than happiness. But what about the potential problem of conflicting rules? 1) DON'T LIE 2) DON'T BE MEAN Fortunately, Mill has a ingenious way to get out of this potential problem. So how exactly does he do this? Basically, Mill tells us to opt in favor of the rule that will increase overall utility. Bingo, problem solved! 2) Higher vs. Lower Pleasures Unlike Bentham, Mill believes that we can draw qualitative distinctions. That is, we can say that some pleasures are richer and more meaningful than others. In fact, Mill used this notion of quality to refute critics who argued that Bentham's original formulation of Utilitarianism was a philosophy suitable for pigs.

3) Consistent with Basic Objective of Persons

Although people differ in many ways, they seem to have at least one thing in common, namely they tend to seek pleasure, happiness, and whatever benefits them.

Consequentialist Theory: Two Types (B)

B) Utilitarianism - the primary focus is on the greatest beneficial consequences for the greatest number of people affected. NOTE: This is by far the most plausible and popular form of consequentialism, particularly given its strict adherence to the principles of moral equality.

Two Major Competing Theories

Consequentialism vs. Deontology Causal Chain: Reasoning -> Actions -> Consequences

Consequentialism

Consequentialists - believe that the goodness of something is a result of the consequences that it produces. Thus, it's primarily out-come based. Notice, therefore, that neither intentions nor the process counts. Rather, ALL that matters are the ultimate results of your actions.

DCT and the Traditional Assumptions

Cutting to the chase, DCT satisfies two of the three traditional assumptions, namely the ones dealing with impartiality and universality. First, DCT assumes that persons are indeed moral equals. All persons are created by God and thus bound by His laws in an equivalent manner. We Are All Equal in the Eyes of God Second, the Ten Commandments, for instance, are essentially universal guidelines. That is, they are meant to apply to ALL persons, regardless of place and time. Unfortunately, however, DCT does NOT satisfy the rationality assumption. Why you ask? Well, saying that ethics is rational means, in general, that we can use reason to reach conclusions about ethical issues. More specifically, persons can provide reasons to support moral guidelines and solutions to ethical problems; these reasons, in turn, can be evaluated. And some guidelines and solutions will be better than others. However, in relation to DCT, reasons CANNOT be evaluated. Again, whatever God commands is good simply because God commanded it. No other reason or factor is relevant to good and bad. Further, though human reasons are clearly irrelevant, even if God himself had some reason for issuing the commands He has, this too would be irrelevant. For presumably God's reasons are far beyond our human kin. In sum, only the commands matter, not any possible reasons for them.

Deontology

Deontological - Deny that good is the result of consequences. Rather the deontologist places primary importance on the reasoning that leads up to the action. NOTE: It is crucial to note that the deontologist appeals to the notion of intrinsic human value as well as a persons intentions.

Utilitarian School of Ethics

Ethical Insight - an action is morally bad if it harms someone, whereas it is morally good if it helps or benefits someone. From the out-set, it should be noted that Utilitarian theory is directly opposed to the abstract, complicated nature of Kantian ethics. Instead of focusing on such abstract notions as the 'intrinsic value of persons,' Utilitarian theory focuses on ordinary, everyday phenomena, namely pleasure and pain. In fact, the grandfather of Utilitarian ethics, one Jeremy Bentham, went so far as to claim that pleasure and pain are the only phenomena that can give meaning to moral good and bad.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical insight - legitimate moral guidelines are necessarily related or connected to actual societies.

Kantian Ethics

Ethical insight -There are moral laws and these laws apply to all persons equally.

Kantian Theory and the Assumptions

From what has been said thus far, it should be clear that Kantian theory satisfies ALL of the traditional ethical assumptions.

Primary Justification

God, so the story goes, is the creator and ruler of the universe. In addition, we humans are an important part of his creation. So if God chooses to make commandments related to human behavior, then we ought to obey them, since to do otherwise would be to rebel against our own creator.

Ethical Theories

IDENTIFY and PROMOTE certain moral guidelines

So what is ethics?

In general, ethics is the study of morality, right vs. wrong, good vs. bad, etc... More specifically, according to scholar MARY MIDGLEY, ethics is about INTERACTING SUCCESSFULLY WITH OTHERS

AU and the Assumptions

In short, act utilitarianism is the first theory that we've addressed that does, in fact, satisfy ALL of the traditional ethical assumptions; those being, of course, rationality, impartiality and universality. In short, we can provide reasons related to pain and pleasure to support our legitimate ethical evaluations. Furthermore, AU clearly endorses the moral equality of persons, since presumably ALL persons are equivalent receptacles of pleasure and pain. NOTE: Case for Animal Rights In fact, some thinkers have argued that AU is, believe it or not, too impartial, since a benefit to a complete stranger counts as much as a benefit to a close family member. Finally, AU satisfies the universal assumption, since obviously ALL persons, regardless of their race, nationality or geographical location, can experience pleasure and pain in an equivalent manner.

Traditional Ethical Assumptions - SUMMARY

In sum, I can UNIVERSALIZE my legitimate ethical evaluations because I am a moral equal to everyone else. No one has special moral status, unless one can offer some very good reasons for thinking so.

2) Responding to the Situation of the agent

In sum, unlike Kantian theory, ethics is not a matter of following abstract principles, but instead investigates the actual situation in which the moral agent finds himself or herself. Basically, many people are more comfortable with an ethical theory that allows them to evaluate each action separately, according to its own special status. Example: Nazi inquiries

ER and Cross Cultural Tolerance

Initially, it is natural to suppose that ER is going to be a very flexible and tolerant theory. After all, each culture is free to create their own moral standards, without judging their neighbor societies. However, some scholars have argued that this is simply not the case. Exactly why you ask? Basically, the statement that we should not condemn different beliefs and practices of other societies is an objective/non-relative claim to which the ethical relativist has no proper recourse. As a result, there is simply no way, for instance, to cast a critical assessment on Nazi Germany.

Moral Agency

Moral agency is an extremely important concept in ethical philosophy. Indeed, virtually every ethical theory is based or premised on the idea of moral agency, that is, based on the assumption that there are moral agents. Q: Ok, so what exactly is a moral agent? A: Well, in short, a moral agent is a being who can perform morally significant actions and be held morally responsible for those actions Therefore, if there are no moral agents then there can be no moral concerns or issues. So morality as we know it is founded on the assumption that there are, in fact, moral agents (i.e. Persons who can be held accountable for their actions)

Impartiality

Persons are moral equals and ought to be treated as such i.e. impartially. THE PROBLEM Natural Inequality: The DNA Lotto

Developing the Kantian Insight

The Categorical Imperative ( Absolute Must) Formulation 1 - Act only from those personal rules that you can, at the same time, will to be moral laws. Formulation 2- Act in regard to all persons in ways that treat them as ends in themselves and never simply as mere means to accomplish the ends of others.

Cultural Relativism

The indisputable view that different societies or cultures simply do things differently. CAUTION: CR is not to be confused with ER, these being inherently different types of claims.

Moral Action and Personal Rules

The relation between personal rules and moral action is essential to Kantian ethics. In short, all moral action are guided by personal rules. Consequently, Kantian theory maintains that if persons want to be ethical, the personal rules that guide their actions must be able to be willed into moral law.

Moral Responsibility

Three Central Criteria 1) Rationality-A being must be rational or able to know the difference between good and evil Counter examples - psychopaths, the mentally challenged, infants and children. 2) Cognizant of Consequences- a person must be able to ascertain and evaluate the possible consequences of a particular course of action or moral situation 3)Free-will- a person needs to have freely or willingly caused something to happen Problematic Factors: 1) Environmental setting 2) DNA makeup

Critique of Mills version of RU

Unfortunately, Mill believes that people who have had the experience of both higher and lower pleasures will always prefer the higher. Yet a more accurate picture is that a person will sometimes prefer higher pleasures, and at another time, lower pleasure.

ER and the Traditional Assumptions

Unfortunately, it is highly doubtful as to whether ER satisfies any of the traditional ethical assumptions. Why you ask? Well, in the case of the rationality assumption, there are no ultimate reasons, based on reason, for the moral guidelines and judgements. Further, members of other societies are NOT treated impartiallyor in the same manner as members of a persons own society.

Divine Command Theory

When asking the all important question, So how should a person live his or her life?,according to divine command theorists, the correct answer is that he or she should always follow God's laws or commands. Consequently, legitimate moral guidelines are necessarily related to God. Now notice, on this view, good and bad are not dependent upon human perception, cultures, conventions, but rather solely on God's laws. Simply put, what God commands is good and what God forbids is bad.

Moral guidelines

are essentially rules, principles, or standards that moral agents create and which ultimately inform us about how we OUGHT to live.

Moral agent

is a being who can perform morally significant actions and be held morally responsible for those actions.

Rationality

is the ability to think and act according to certain rules or principles. That is, persons can use reason to reach theoretical and practical conclusions about ethical matters. Or in other words, people can provide reasons to support moral decisions and solutions to ethical problems.

Universal

persons can extend their ethical evaluations to anyone else in a sufficiently similar situation. Note: Much like impartiality, the universal assumption is closely connected to the idea of moral equality.