PHIL 2

principle of autonomy

Principle of autonomy: Every person is equally a creator of the universal moral law; that is, each person makes the moral law for herself -Kant considers this result so fundamental that it is another version of the categorical imperative Summary: Kantian autonomy has a special meaning. The autonomous person not only exercises free will and employs reason; she is also able to "make" or legislate the moral law for herself. The autonomous person is thus not under the authority of any other external moral authority but is under the authority of her own reason alone. Rationally, that person should then follow the moral law. Someone who violates the moral law acts irrationally and so cannot be acting autonomously

Principle of universal law

Principle of universal law: Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time (rationally) will to be a universal law or principle. ---Kant maxim: a rule of conduct or behavior, ex. golden rule, personal property

advantages of rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism can reduce the force of many of the objections brought against act utilitarianism. For instance, it largely avoids the calculation and moral saints problems; it also seems to make significant progress in dealing with promises, justice, and rights. These successes all result from rule utilitarianism's shift from individual acts to rules, which requires that we assess the overall consequences of an entire rule or practice.

Deontology and Abortion

In this module, we study our second main 'normative ethical theory', namely, Kant's deontology. Remember - a 'normative ethical theory' is one that develops basic principles and guidelines by which we can determine what is "morally good" for people in a general way. Deontology identified "rational duty" and "motive or intention" as the moral good; whereas utilitarians identify "pleasure" understood as the pleasure for the 'greatest number' and the highest good for humans. Please study not only the principles of these theories as developed in the chapters (and handout), but also take a look at the various "attractions" or "pluses" of each theory, as well as the various "problems" or "minuses" of each one, too (see textbook chapters). As Burnor indicates, deontology rejects the notion that consequences are how we should judge whether an act is 'morally right' or not. Eighteenth century philosopher Kant (inventor of deontology) instead develops a theory that bases moral goodness on key 'duties' that make up the 'moral law'. Every person, because they are rational beings, can know and form this moral law within their own mind, and then command themselves to do what is right. Deontology focuses on duties, and on intentions or motives, and NOT on consequences or pleasure. Please review the meaning of the "Categorical Imperative" in its various formulations (The "Principle of Universal Law/Principle of Universalizability" and The "Principle of Ends"/Principle of Respect for Persons) found in chapter 8 of Burnor, on deontology. These form the core of this moral theory about duties. Ross is a twentieth century deontologist who says there are seven fundamental moral duties, which we know by "intuition". Kant's theory, however, focused on several key terms, such as 'the good will', the 'categorical imperative' (it is the 'moral law') which includes a few key principles (the 'principle of universalizability' and the 'principle of ends', and of 'autonomy'). There are some strengths and some weaknesses of 'deontology', just as there were pros and cons of utilitarian theory. Please review these in chapter 8 of Burnor, as well. Finally, we apply the two main ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontology) to the topic of abortion, looking at two articles. Purdy and Tooley develop a pro-choice argument, based on the defeating the notion of 'promoting happiness of the fetus' and their definition of a 'person' as a conscious being with a significant range of desires. Their definition of 'person' leaves out some humans as 'persons'. This notion will recur in the arguments of Peter Singer, in our euthanasia section of the course. The opposed article is by Donagan, who develops another view (called a 'natural law' view) of human life. He argues that we have 'noninstitutional duties' towards all persons, and that fetuses are persons since, 'if respect is owed to beings in virtue of being in a certain state/condition, then respect is also owed to whatever of its nature develops into that state' (Donagan, p. 146). Donagan argues that indeed, fetuses are persons and require respect; and that they are not assailants or 'involuntary intruders' in the mother's womb but 'co-victims' in the case of rape, and must be accorded the same respect as the mother. Our discussion will contain one part on abortion this week.

difference between act and rule utilitarianism

-Act utilitarianism considers individual acts and their consequences. But certain social rules and practices (e.g., promising) can also produce consequences and affect overall utility. Building upon this fact, rule utilitarianism offers an important alternative to act utilitarianism. -Rule utilitarianism supports general moral rules and practices (such as the practice of promises) that would promote utility. This contrasts with act utilitarianism's focus on individual acts. The right act for act utilitarianism also depends on the particular situation; for rule utilitarianism, rule hold in general. Given the rules generated by rule utilitarianism, morally right acts are then those acts that follow those rules.

Fundamental principles of Rule utilitarianism

-two fundamental principles -Principle of rules: a morally right rule or practice would promote significantly greater overall utility that if it did not exist -Principle of acts: a morally right act follows a morally right rule or practice -unlike act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism is not flexible

imperfect and perfect duties

perfect duties: obligations that cannot be obeyed by degrees imperfect duties: a duty that can be fulfilled to varying degrees Summary: Universalizabitily is the key to Kan'ts principle of universal law -- another version of the categorical imperative. This principle states that an act is morally wrong if it cannot be consistently universalized. And doesn't not appeal to people's wants or to consequences. To determine if an act is morally right, we (a) formulate the maxim which that act falls under, (b) universalize that maxim, and (c) determine whether the universalized maxim generates inconsistency. If there's no inconsistency, the universalized maxim violates no moral principle; if there is inconsistency, then the act is morally wrong. Maxim: any rule of conduct or behavior the one can act in accordance with Principle of universal law: act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time (rationally) will to be a universal law or principle. Perfect duty: an absolute obligation that cannot be obeyed by degrees a perfect duty contrasts with an imperfect duty, which can be fulfilled to varying degrees.

alternate dilemma principle

- principle that would give priority to other principles like justice and rights in rule utilitarianism -this principle could require that when rules conflict, the rule that generates the greatest utility must take precedence over the others -act utilitarians say this increases instability -although rule utilitarianism makes progress with justice and rights, it's unclear that I can fully support these. Rule utilitarianism certainly supports important principles of both and can even apply the alternate dilemma rule to giver these principles priority. Still, rule utilitarianism inevitably depends upon a rule's consequences, which can vary across social settings. This means that rule utilitarianism's principle of justice and rights falls short of applying universally, and that seems at odds with a fully adequate conception of either. alternate dilemma principle: requires that when rule utilitarianisms rules conflict, the rule that creates the greatest utility takes precedence and is the rule that should be followed.

categorical imperative

-According to Kant reason demand that every moral act satisfy one all-encompassing principle, the categorical imperative. This principle holds for all rational agents without exception. -an imperative is a command, something that tells us what we should do, can be either hypothetical or categorical -a hypothetical imperative tell us what we must do to achieve some goal: "If you want to become a doctor, you must attend several years of medical school", hypothetical imperatives are conditional: whether the imperative (you must attend med school) applies to you depends on whether you fulfill the condition (you want to become a doctor). The condition in question is described by the "if" clause; the imperative makes up the rest of the statement. -a categorical imperative does not depend upon any conditions: it holds unconditionally for everyone and every situation. A categorical imperative tells us what we must do or not do, regardless of our goals or purposes (e.g. "Tell the truth"; "Don't commit murder"). There is no "if" in the categorical imperative. Summary: According to Kant, the overarching principle of all morality is the categorical imperative. A categorical imperative holds without exception, unlike hypothetical imperatives, which apply only to those who fulfill some condition. One formulation of the categorical imperative --the principles of ends-- requires that we treat persons as ends (having worth in themselves) but never simply as a means (for obtaining something we value more). It is morally okay to treat a person as both a means and an end. But using a person solely to accomplish our own purposes is morally wrong. Hypothetical imperative: a conditional principal that tells us what we should do if we satisfy some condition or hope to achieve some goal Categorical imperative: a binding principle that holds unconditionally for everyone and every situation. One of its formations is the principle of ends. Principle of ends: act so as to treat every person affected by your action (including yourself) as an end and never as a means only.

advantages of act utilitarianism

-It's objective, simple, very flexible, and it easily extend to include animals that can be aware of pleasures and pains. The theory also encounters several objections. It requires that we do calculations to determine what is right, and these can be unduly difficult. It also demands that we act as moral saints, and it encounters all kinds of problems with promises, justice, and rights. Of these, the calculation problem can be at least partly solved via rules of thumb, through this will sometimes lead us to make choices that are wrong according to act utilitarianism. The most serious set of problems go with promises, justice, and rights. -rules of thumb: rules that tell us what we should do based on what usually promotes utility best in similar situations

Good Will

-Kant is a deontologist, according to him the only thing of foundational moral worth--the Good Will -exercising the Good Will amounts to choosing to do something precisely because it is one's moral duty - because it is morally right -the Good Will is solely motivated by moral duty, it doesn't do something for the sake gaining pleasure, knowledge, satisfaction, or any other such value, its only motivation is the rightness of the act -Good Will might be better called rational Good Will because it has two essential aspects: 1) it freely chooses to do its duty precisely because that is its duty; its choice is motivated by moral duty. 2) that duty is determined by reason. The Good Will is thus essentially rational: moral duty depends entirely on what reason demands Summary: Kant's deontological theory depends on reason. Kant argues that no consequence can have foundational or intrinsic moral worth; the only thing that is morally good in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will is thus motivated purely by reason. The Good Will: the only thing of foundational moral worth, the Good Will chooses to do something because it is one's moral duty.

qualities of pleasure

-Mill's wants us to recognize that there are different kinds or qualities of pleasure -where "pleasure" here includes experiences that relate to happiness as well as to "mere" pleasures -Although Mill grants that all pleasures are good, he observes that some pleasures are one a higher plane than others -the pleasures of artistic creation, of helping others, or of solving a challenging problem, for instance, are "higher" and thus preferable (in some sense) to, say, getting drunk or pigeon out on junk food -associates higher-quality pleasures with more intellectual and distinctly human experiences -- ones particularly conducive to human happiness -the lower-quality pleasures, meanwhile, he associates more with bodily instincts and appetites -Mill famously observes, "It is better to be a human dissatisfied the a pig satisfied."

Consequentialism

-a general approach to ethics that maintains that only consequences determine what is morally right or wrong -Everything we do has consequences. Consequentialist theories define what is morally right while in terms of effects or consequences

Ross's Ethics

-according to Ross there are at least seven foundational moral duties: Fidelity: the duty to be truthful, pay back debts, and keep agreements. Reparation: the duty to set right any wrongs we have previously done to another (e.g. to apologize, pay for damages, etc.). Gratitude: the duty to make some return for favors and services others have done for us (e.g. expressing thanks, acting similarly as needed, etc.) Justice: the duty to ensure the fair distribution of goods according to merit Beneficence: the duty to improve the condition of others. Self-improvement: the duty to improve oneself. Non-maleficence: the duty not to harm or injure others. Each of these constitutes a binding moral duty, and each is an essential part of any adequate moral standard. Ross doesn't think that moral duties depend on what happens after we act. It is more correct tithing of each duty as resuming upon something that already holds true before we act. In keeping with the deontological perspective, Ross views moral duties in terms of what we already owe, not in terms of what we might produce. Summary: W.D. Ross offers an intuitionist theory that includes seven foundational moral duties. It resembles a deontological theory in that these duties prescribe general kinds of acts and does not rest on consequences. Ross views these as prima facie duties; when duties conflict, one of them overrides the other and so becomes the actual duty in that situation. Ross's theory is an instance of objectivism, not subjectivism. Its main weakness is its intuitionism, which refused to explain these duties and can't help us when our sincerely considered intuitions differ. prima facie moral duty: a moral duty that I ought to fulfill as long as no more important duty overrides it actual moral duty: the one prima facie duty the is more important than the others and so is the duty that ought to be fulfilled in a particular situation. intuitionism: maintains that we simply know, by intuition, what our general moral duties are, with no further explanation.

qualities

-allow us to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures; Mil thought the lower-quality pleasures deserve less moral weight -for utility to encompass happiness while remaining measureable, Mill introduced different qualities of experience, proposing that greater moral weight belongs to higher-quality pleasures. To determine which experiences are higher, we ask those familiar with both higher-and lower-quality experiences. But there may not be any genuine moral differences between these. Other consequentialists have abandoned traditional hedonism and define utility in other ways.

utility

-measures the degree to which a consequence promotes the foundational hedonistic value of pleasure/happiness -utility is whatever makes consequences desirable; disunity is undesirable being associated with pain and suffering -Consequentialist theories often employ a concept of utility, describing desirable consequences as having disutility. Hedonists define utility as pleasure/happiness--their only foundational (non-moral) value-- and disutility as pain. Still, we must distinguish between pleasure, a more short-lived feeling, and happiness, a state of mind related to personal fulfillment. Treating utility as mere pleasure creates some problems: there are morally bad pleasures, and other things appear as good pleasure. Thus, it's tempting to try to define utility to include happiness rather than mere pleasure.

deontological theories

-reject consequences as the basis of morality, deontological theories focus on particular moral duties, calling something right or wrong depending on the kind of act committed -whereas consequentialist theories base moral right and wrong solely upon effects, deontological theories reject consequences as the basis of right and wrong and focus instead on our duty to practice or avoid certain kinds of actions. Deontological theories also often consider our motives and intentions. Deontological theories: reject consequences as a basis for morality and instead focus upon duties (characterized by principles regarding specific kinds of acts) and, often, intentions.

four aspects of an act's overall effects

-scope, duration, intensity, probability -scope: the individuals affected by an act; the greater the number affected, the greater the scope -duration: the time period over which an effect last -intensity: the degree of strength or force of an experience -probability: the chance or likelihood of an effect actually taking place -Act utilitarians defines specific acts as morally right or wrong; the right act in a situation is then that will produce the greatest overall utility. To determine which this is, we consider out possible choices and the overall utility produced by each, taking into account each effect's scope, duration, intensity, and probability. When an effect includes both utility and disutility, the disutility is subtracted from the utility. We then compare the overall utility resulting from each choice; the morally right choice is the one that will produce the most overall utility.

Act Utilitarianism

-the morally right act, for any particularly situation, is that act that results in producing the greatest overall utility -treats all individuals impartially, counting every individual exactly the same -also focuses on specific situations -the situation determines what choices of action there are, along with the likely effects of each choice, meaning act utilitarianism can only be applied to particular situations, as what can and should be done both depend on the situation's circumstances -utilitarianism considers the right act to be the one that produces the greatest overall utility

problems with rule utilitarianism

1) dilemmas: promise to hold a gun till your neighbor asks for it back, he comes asking for it after getting in a fight with his father-in-law and you think he might kill him, remedy: dilemma principle dilemma principle: When circumstances place two or more moral rules in conflict, the morally right act, for those circumstances, is that act which will produce the greatest overall utility 2) inconsistency: brought up by act utilitarians, there are cases where the act and rule utilitarianism render different judgements of what is right rule utilitarians have two responses: 1) sometimes we can lose utility by following rules, but rules can also establish practices (i.e. promises) that generate more overall utility than could ever be achieved by act utilitarianism 2) a rule utilitarian might point out that there's nothing that keeps us from fine-tuning rules 3) the collapse of rule utilitarianism: suppose we keep fine-tuning rule by adding more and more qualifications, exceptions, and adjustments to every rule. Each rule will then become increasingly specific and more limited in its application, requiring more rules, ultimately leading to a distinct rule for each situation by which point rule utilitarianism has turned into act utilitarianism

Rule Utilitarianism

Chapter 7 of Burnor's text (one of our readings for this week) starts off with a discussion of cultural rules and practices, which are necessary for a smoothly running, cooperative society. How can these be incorporated into the theory of utilitarianism? They provide a basis for rule (vs act) utilitarianism, Burnor argues. Which is a better approach to ethical cases - act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? How do act and rule utilitarianism deal with the problems for this pleasure-based theory in general, namely, problems of justice and rights? Are there problems for rule utilitarianism, and does this theory have any good responses to those problems? Burnor uses the case of "involuntary organ donation" as an example to study the advantages vs. the disadvantages of rule utilitarianism. Our cases for the week include a case debating the rights of student populations at colleges (transgender students), a case on the merits of curbing grade inflation, and a case on the benefits vs. problems involved in a policy of universal healthcare.

Act Utilitarianism

In this module, we study the consequentialist ethical theory called "utilitarianism", and in particular, "act utilitarianism". Consequentialist theories say that an action or choice is "morally good" only if the "end" or "consequences" result in pleasure for people. Utilitarianism (unlike deontology, and unlike other theories we'll study, such as virtue ethics and natural law) argues that a few key principles define what is ethically good, where the 'good' is 'happiness' and 'happiness' is 'pleasure'. But, we might ask, is it true that pleasure the highest value, and the only goal humans seek? Also, how have different utilitarians interpreted pleasure (Bentham vs. Mill)? There are two principles that form the heart of this theory: a) the 'utility' principle, and b) the 'greatest happiness' principle. We apply these principles this week in studying several cases, ranging from hybrid cars to child sponsorship, to human torture and factory farms.

Ch. 6 Case 1 Charity vs. iPad

Josh has his eye on the latest iPad and has been saving up his earnings from the tutoring job he works at his college. Although he's been really looking forward to getting this new toy, he's now having second thoughts. Joe is an international studies major and also a member of the international student club. Just last week, his friend Samesh made a presentation to the club about Kenya students who can't afford to finish high school. In Kenya, attending school is mandatory, but since it costs money, many people can't afford it. Samesh proposed that the club start collecting for a reputable charity that sponsors Kenyan high school students. Both Josh and most of the club felt they really wanted to help; still, Josh would also like the new iPad. He is torn, but realizes that by donating the iPad money to the charity, he could do a lot more good than by just spending it for himself.

Summary of why rule utilitarianism is better than act utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism fares better than act utilitarianism with several utilitarian problems. Still, it has some problems of its own. Its difficulty with dilemmas appears to be met easily by the dilemma principle. The act utilitarians charge of inconsistency is at least partly met by the argument that rule utilitarianism achieves greater overall utility than act utilitarianism ever could; the strategy of fine-tuning may also help. However, when taken too far, fine-tuning makes rule utilitarianism collapse into act utilitarianism. A rule utilitarian argument for keeping its rules practicable (not too complicated) may provide a way to avoid this collapse. Dilemma principle: when rule utilitarianism encounters a moral dilemma, the morally right act for those particular circumstances is that which produces the greatest overall utility. Fine-tuning: introducing qualifications to a rule or practice, allowing it to generate more utility over a more limited set of situations.

complete rule utilitarian account consists of three principles

a) the principle of rules, b) the principle of acts, c) dilemma principle

Attractions and Problems to Kant's ethics

attractions: no problem ruling out involuntary organ donation => lends story support tot justice since every version of the categorical imperative maintains equality of persons, establishes general moral principles => easy to derive moral rights , it's commitment to the foundational value of persons has considerable intuitive appeal, -practically speaking Kant's principle of ends is helpful for thinking though many everyday moral problems problems: weak in the areas utilitarianism addresses:Consequences (Consequentialists object to Kant's deontological viewpoint that consequences have no moral relevance), Moral formulations: difficulty arises wherever we apply the principle of universal law to determine the moral acceptability of an act Rational agents: Kantian ethics emphasizes the personal worth of individual persons, which impressively contrasts utilitarianism's tendency to neglect justice and rights note: doesn't extend to animals Kant claims we have indirect duties to animals- duties that arise former moral duties toward other persons Summary: Kant's deontological theory has considerable attraction, especially in how it emphasizes justice and rights. However, it neglects consequences, which seem to have some moral relevance even when we can't entirely control them. Further, the same act can be characterized by different maxims. Since some of these might be universalizable while other are not, an act being right or wrong may depend on how we formulate its maxim. Finally, since Kantian persons are rational free agents, his theory may not adequately respect human infants, children, and others. indirect duties: duties not owed directly to an individual itself (e.g. an animal) but arises from our moral duty to respect human beings as persons