Lectures 14-15: Deontological & Consequential Ethics.

Lectures 14-15: Deontological & Lectures 14-15: Deontological & Consequential EthicsConsequential Ethics

Consider these quotes:Consider these quotes:

““The remarkable thing is that we really The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves.” ~ Eric Hofferourselves.” ~ Eric Hoffer


““We can discover this meaning in life in We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering.” ~ Victor Frankl.(3) by suffering.” ~ Victor Frankl.


“ “ Never let your sense of morals get in Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.” ~ Isaac the way of doing what's right.” ~ Isaac Asimov.Asimov.

““When morality comes up against When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” ~ profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” ~ Shirley ChisholmShirley Chisholm


““Actions are right in proportion as they Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain.” ~ pleasure and the absence of pain.” ~ John Stuart MillJohn Stuart Mill

Major Ideas:Major Ideas:Virtue Ethics: An action is right iff it is Virtue Ethics: An action is right iff it is

what the virtuous agent would do. what the virtuous agent would do. 1. An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances; 1a. A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, i.e., one who has & exercises the virtues. 2 A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well. What is essential is to note the conceptual link between virtue & flourishing (living well or eudaimonia).

Major Ideas:Major Ideas:Deontological Ethics: Deontological Ethics: An action is right iff

it is in accordance with a moral rule or principle. A moral rule is one that is(a) laid on us by God, (b) required by natural law, (c) laid on us by reason, (d) required by rationality, (e) would command universal rational acceptance, or (f) would be the object of choice of all rational beings. What is essential is the link between right action, moral rule, & rationality.

Major Ideas:Major Ideas:

Consequential Ethics: An action is right iff Consequential Ethics: An action is right iff it promotes the best consequences. it promotes the best consequences. The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized. What is essential to note is that it forges a link between consequences & happiness.

Major Ideas:Major Ideas:

Before we consider consequential and

deontological ethics, let’s explore some other basic

terms that are important to know:

Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad consequences.

Let’s now explore Let’s now explore Deontological Deontological

Ethics:Ethics:

Deontological EthicsDeontological Ethics

We should choose actions based on their inherent, We should choose actions based on their inherent, intrinsic worth; evangelical approaches to ethics are intrinsic worth; evangelical approaches to ethics are deontological because it presupposes Scripture as deontological because it presupposes Scripture as revelation.revelation.

““DeontologicalDeontological” comes from the Greek word ” comes from the Greek word ““deondeon”, meaning that which is binding, in particular ”, meaning that which is binding, in particular a binding duty. So, you are bound to your duty.a binding duty. So, you are bound to your duty.

Deontological Framework:Deontological Framework:

An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in accordance with a An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in accordance with a moral rule or principle.moral rule or principle.

This is a purely formal specification, forging a link This is a purely formal specification, forging a link between the concepts of right and action and moral rule, between the concepts of right and action and moral rule, and gives one no guidance until one knows what a moral and gives one no guidance until one knows what a moral rule is.rule is.

Deontological Framework:Deontological Framework:

Therefore, the links between right action, Therefore, the links between right action, moral rule, and rationality based upon moral rule, and rationality based upon moral rule + given by God or required by moral rule + given by God or required by natural or laid on us by reason or required natural or laid on us by reason or required by rationality or would command universal by rationality or would command universal rational acceptance or would by the object rational acceptance or would by the object of choice of all rational being—are all of choice of all rational being—are all essential aspects to any deontological essential aspects to any deontological framework.framework.

Deontological Framework:Deontological Framework: So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise about that: A moral rule is So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise about that: A moral rule is

one that would have been historically:one that would have been historically:

A.A. Theistic:Theistic:

1.1. Given to us by God;Given to us by God;

2.2. Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);

B.B. Secular (though can still be connected to God):Secular (though can still be connected to God):1.1. Is laid on us by reason.Is laid on us by reason.

2.2. Is required by rationality;Is required by rationality;

3.3. Would command universal acceptance;Would command universal acceptance;

4.4. Would be the object of choice of all rational Would be the object of choice of all rational beings.beings.


It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of themselves because of the kinds of acts they are and themselves because of the kinds of acts they are and not simply because of their ends or consequences. not simply because of their ends or consequences.

-- The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. -- A good end or purpose does not justify a bad A good end or purpose does not justify a bad

actions.actions.- You are duty-bound; binding is not dependent - You are duty-bound; binding is not dependent on consequences, no matter if it is painful or on consequences, no matter if it is painful or pleasurable.pleasurable.


For example:For example:

1.1. You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive person comes along.person comes along.

2.2. You are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even You are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even if it cost you a job. if it cost you a job.

Duty is not based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather Duty is not based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather upon the obligation itself.upon the obligation itself.


For example, a deontologist might argue that a For example, a deontologist might argue that a promise ought to be kept simply because it is right promise ought to be kept simply because it is right to keep a promise, regardless whether the doing so to keep a promise, regardless whether the doing so will have good or bad consequences. will have good or bad consequences.

In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we should In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we should keep our promises only when keeping them results keep our promises only when keeping them results

in better consequences than the alternativesin better consequences than the alternatives..

Overview of Ethical Systems: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):Overview of Ethical Systems: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):

. To act morally you must be motivated exclusively by rational commitment to the universal moral law or the categorical

Imperative: “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only, that you can will at the same time be a universal law.”

Right actions flow out of right principles

To act morally

requires the power of the will to rise above all natural

feelings and inclinations. This raises us above

our natural world.

To act morally

requires the rational power to recognize absolute

moral laws that

transcend our natural

world.

Second form of categorical imperative:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humans not merely as a

means to an end but also as an

end.”

Do the act that is motivated

by the sincere belief that

what you are doing is the

right thing not merely for

you, but for anybody

seeking to act properly in

any situation.

Basic Terms to Know:Basic Terms to Know:

1.1. Deontological EthicsDeontological Ethics: "rule or duty-based : "rule or duty-based morality; ...emphasizes right action over good consequences“morality; ...emphasizes right action over good consequences“

2.2. a prioria priori: "not in any way derived from experience or dependent : "not in any way derived from experience or dependent upon it"; concepts derived a priori are universal rules that upon it"; concepts derived a priori are universal rules that determine, in advance, the conditions for knowledge in a determine, in advance, the conditions for knowledge in a particular domainparticular domain

3.3. maximmaxim: rule of conduct;: rule of conduct;

4.4. Hypothetical imperativeHypothetical imperative: an action that is good only as a means : an action that is good only as a means to something else;to something else;

5.5. Categorical imperativeCategorical imperative: an action that is good in itself and : an action that is good in itself and conforms to reason; categorical imperatives act as universal rules conforms to reason; categorical imperatives act as universal rules governing a situation regardless of circumstance governing a situation regardless of circumstance

Summary:Summary: Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right iff it Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right iff it

is in accord with the Categorical Imperative (the is in accord with the Categorical Imperative (the supreme principle of morality). Right actions supreme principle of morality). Right actions flow from right principles. flow from right principles.

From using our capacity to reason Kant believes From using our capacity to reason Kant believes the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in at least three ways; they are all equivalent with at least three ways; they are all equivalent with the first formulation being the basis. Though the first formulation being the basis. Though they bring out various aspects of the moral law, they bring out various aspects of the moral law, they cannot tell us more than what the first they cannot tell us more than what the first formula does. formula does.

Categorical Imperative:Categorical Imperative: The CI does not depend on a logically prior condition though it The CI does not depend on a logically prior condition though it

assumes the predisposition that one wishes to be rational and will assumes the predisposition that one wishes to be rational and will follow what rationally determined duty dictates (in contrast to follow what rationally determined duty dictates (in contrast to hypothetical imperatives which means that the consequent depends hypothetical imperatives which means that the consequent depends upon the antecedent: If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of upon the antecedent: If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic. Q.E.D., to be human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic. Q.E.D., to be irrational is to be inhuman. To be sure, there are perfect and irrational is to be inhuman. To be sure, there are perfect and imperfect duties. Actions are characterized as perfect because they imperfect duties. Actions are characterized as perfect because they follow directly from an application of the universalization of the follow directly from an application of the universalization of the Categorical Imperative in contrast to imperfect duties that follow Categorical Imperative in contrast to imperfect duties that follow from CI only after considering other factors (e.g., seeking our own from CI only after considering other factors (e.g., seeking our own happiness). An imperfect duty is just as strong in its action guiding happiness). An imperfect duty is just as strong in its action guiding force as a perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin highlights their force as a perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin highlights their differences. differences.

Three Formulations of the Three Formulations of the Categorical Imperative:Categorical Imperative:

First formulation: “Act in conformity with the maxim and the maxim First formulation: “Act in conformity with the maxim and the maxim only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.” This only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.” This means that what I consider doing, it must be something that I can means that what I consider doing, it must be something that I can will or accept that all do (universal); it is replacing individual will or accept that all do (universal); it is replacing individual preferences with purely universal terms.preferences with purely universal terms.

Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always an end and whether in your own person or in that of another, always an end and never as a means only.” In essence, every person has intrinsic never as a means only.” In essence, every person has intrinsic value and that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.value and that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.

Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must act as if he Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” In other words, we have to will what is universal kingdom of ends.” In other words, we have to will what is consistent with the operations of the kingdom as a whole. In sum, consistent with the operations of the kingdom as a whole. In sum, all people should consider themselves as both members and heads all people should consider themselves as both members and heads

Major Points to Consider:Major Points to Consider:

1.1. What gives an act moral worth is our motives because we What gives an act moral worth is our motives because we can’t necessarily control the consequences of our act or/and can’t necessarily control the consequences of our act or/and things do not always turn out as we want. He calls this things do not always turn out as we want. He calls this motive “the good will.” Therefore, we are responsible for motive “the good will.” Therefore, we are responsible for our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we are held morally accountable. are held morally accountable.

2.2. What is the right motive is acting out of a will to do the right What is the right motive is acting out of a will to do the right thing; only an act motivated by this concern for the moral thing; only an act motivated by this concern for the moral law is right.law is right.

Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration:Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration:

Major Points to Consider:Major Points to Consider:3.3. Kant’s Shopkeeper illustration: A shopkeeper charges her customers a fair Kant’s Shopkeeper illustration: A shopkeeper charges her customers a fair

price and charges the same to all. But what is the shopkeeper’s motive?price and charges the same to all. But what is the shopkeeper’s motive?

A.A. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves her own her own best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.

B.B. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is because she is If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is because she is sympathetic toward her customers, then this motive is still not sympathetic toward her customers, then this motive is still not

praiseworthy.praiseworthy.

C.C. If the shopkeeper’s motive is to do the right thing because it is the If the shopkeeper’s motive is to do the right thing because it is the right right thing, then her motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that which thing, then her motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that which is is morally right is praiseworthy.morally right is praiseworthy.

We do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest, We do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest, inclination or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed inclination or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed motives. However, we are certain that the motive is pure when we do motives. However, we are certain that the motive is pure when we do what is right regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.what is right regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.

Major Points to Consider:Major Points to Consider:

4.4. In order for our action to have moral worth we must not In order for our action to have moral worth we must not only act out of a right motivation but we must also do only act out of a right motivation but we must also do what is right.what is right.

Right Motive Right Act

The motive and the act must be morally right!

We must not only act of duty (have the right motive) but also “according to duty” or as “duty requires” (do what is right).

5.5. How we are to know what the right thing to do is to test our How we are to know what the right thing to do is to test our motives and actions against the categorical imperative. If our motives and actions against the categorical imperative. If our motive and acts meets the criteria of the categorical imperative motive and acts meets the criteria of the categorical imperative we are obligated to do it.we are obligated to do it.

Right Motive

Right Act

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

“Oughts” that tell us what we ought to do no matter what, under all conditions, and are

universally binding (categorical imperative).

1st form of Categorical Imperative:

“Act only on that maxim which can will as a

universal law.”

This means that what I consider doing, it must be something that I

can will or accept that all do (universal).

According the first formula:According the first formula:

According to the first formula: the agent According to the first formula: the agent must be willing to eliminate all individual must be willing to eliminate all individual reference from the maxim of her action. reference from the maxim of her action. The most significant exclusion from the The most significant exclusion from the maxim is oneself. Therefore, in order to maxim is oneself. Therefore, in order to pass the test of the categorical imperative pass the test of the categorical imperative in the first formulation, one must be in the first formulation, one must be prepared to go on willing even if it contains prepared to go on willing even if it contains no reference to oneself.no reference to oneself.

6.6. Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can will or accept all do. will or accept all do.

A law by its very nature has a degree of universality. Act only on A law by its very nature has a degree of universality. Act only on that maxim which you can will as a universal law.that maxim which you can will as a universal law.

Maxim: is a description of the action that I will put to the test.

As a rational being I can only will what is non-contradictory

7. How do I know what I can and cannot will as a universal practice?

8.8. First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative:First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative:

2nd form of Categorical Imperative:

“Always treat humanity, whether in

your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an

end.”

This means that every person has intrinsic value & that humanity is a limit or constraint on our

action.

1st form of Categorical Imperative:

“Act only on that maxim which can will as a

universal law.”

This means that what I consider doing, it must be something that

I can will or accept that all do (universal); it is replacing

individual preferences with purely universal terms.

11stst Categorical Imperative: Categorical Imperative: 11stst Categorical Imperative is a decision procedure for Categorical Imperative is a decision procedure for

moral reasoning. 4 Steps:moral reasoning. 4 Steps:

1.1. Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reasoning Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reasoning for acting as you propose.for acting as you propose.

2.2. Recast maxim as universal law of nature Recast maxim as universal law of nature governing governing all rational agents-all people will act upon.all rational agents-all people will act upon.

3.3. Consider whether your maxim is even Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in conceivable in a world governed by this law of a world governed by this law of nature.nature.

4.4. Ask whether you would or could rationally will to Ask whether you would or could rationally will to act act on this maxim in such a world.on this maxim in such a world.

9.9. Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives:Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives:

2nd Categorical Imperative:

“Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or

that of another, never simply as a means but

always at the same time as an end.”

This means that every person has intrinsic value & that

humanity is a limit or constraint in our action.

Explains how we ought to treat ourselves.

Treat ourselves & other as ends rather than merely as

means.

The moral conclusions should be the same whether we use the 1st or 2nd form of the categorical imperative.

10. Third Formulation of the Categorical 10. Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Hypothetical Kingdom of EndsImperative: Hypothetical Kingdom of Ends

Key Points:

1. Think of ourselves as members of a society of beings whose permissible ends are to be respected.

2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing the maxims were natural laws, there would be a society of that kind. In other words, we are obligated to act only by maxims which would harmonize a possible

kingdom of ends.

3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or impossible states of natural

affairs when we attempt to universalize them;

We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that promote unstable or greatly undesirable states of

affairs.

“Kant seems to assume that those who apply the categorical imperative to their maxims will come out with answers that agree when the maxims tested are alike.” J.B. Schneewind,

“Autonomy, Obligation, & Virtue,” pg. 338.

“All maxims as proceeding from

our own law-making ought to harmonize with a

possible kingdom of ends as a kingdom

of nature."

Grounding for the Metaphysics of

Morals, 4:436/104.

Third Categorical Imperative introduces a Third Categorical Imperative introduces a social dimension to Kantian Moralitysocial dimension to Kantian Morality

The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends” (4:439). kingdom of ends” (4:439).

It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence must be treated always as an end in itself. must be treated always as an end in itself.

The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in legislating these principles for their community.legislating these principles for their community.

Summary of first three categorical Summary of first three categorical imperatives:imperatives:

The Categorical Imperative requires that I act The Categorical Imperative requires that I act only on maxims that I can will as universal law.only on maxims that I can will as universal law.

The categorical imperative is supposed to give us a The categorical imperative is supposed to give us a

test for maxims. test for maxims. Maxim is the is “subjective principle of an action.” Maxim is the is “subjective principle of an action.”

The principle of an action is that prescription from The principle of an action is that prescription from which the action follows.which the action follows.

If the maxim meets the test, the action that follows If the maxim meets the test, the action that follows from it has moral worth; if the maxim does not meet it, from it has moral worth; if the maxim does not meet it, the action does not have moral worth. the action does not have moral worth.

11stst Categorical Imperative: Categorical Imperative:

11stst Categorical Imperative requires Categorical Imperative requires willingness to continue to the subscription willingness to continue to the subscription to the maxim of an action even if all to the maxim of an action even if all individual or singular reference is excluded individual or singular reference is excluded from it. Eliminating individual or singular from it. Eliminating individual or singular reference requires eliminating reference to reference requires eliminating reference to me. In other words, think of replacing me. In other words, think of replacing individual references with purely universal individual references with purely universal terms.terms.


““Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our action, he Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our action, he presupposes that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action. presupposes that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.

This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection with the first This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection with the first formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be willing to eliminate all formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be willing to eliminate all individual reference from the maxim of her action. The most significant exclusion here is that of individual reference from the maxim of her action. The most significant exclusion here is that of herself. Therefore, be prepared go on willing the maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.herself. Therefore, be prepared go on willing the maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.

The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action must be such The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action must be such that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting our autonomy. Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things I am constrained, according to this first formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to being equal, to impede the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and deception.ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and deception.

For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my class and with it I strike the For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I have bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as neighbouring student’s face, I have bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting implement. The same is true when I deceive a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to make a free and somebody, because if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to make a free and rational choice for that situation.rational choice for that situation.


The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action must be such that any other free and rational person can an action must be such that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases means is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and deception.here are those of coercion and deception.

For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I

have have bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as as a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because if I if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to make a make a free and rational choice for that situation.free and rational choice for that situation.

What is the connection between the What is the connection between the categorical imperative is the following:categorical imperative is the following:

If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then I am If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then I am acting for reasons that it is not possible for everyone to acting for reasons that it is not possible for everyone to share. But to act toward people on the basis of reasons share. But to act toward people on the basis of reasons they cannot possibly share is to they cannot possibly share is to useuse them, to treat them as them, to treat them as a mere means to my goals. In fact, all people should a mere means to my goals. In fact, all people should consider themselves both members and heads because we consider themselves both members and heads because we have a perfect duty not to act in maxims that create have a perfect duty not to act in maxims that create incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs for it will incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs for it will lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs. lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs. See, the truly autonomous will is not subject to any See, the truly autonomous will is not subject to any particular interest. Kant’s idea here is that one should not particular interest. Kant’s idea here is that one should not treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.

10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties:10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties:

Imperfect Duties:

Are those duties that don’t whole heartily conform to the categorical imperative.

e.g., If I were an egoist and concerned only about myself, no one could accuse

me of using other people; I would simply leave them alone. But this

attitude & practice is inconsistent with the duty to treat others as persons. As persons, they also have interests and plans, and to recognize this I must at

least sometimes and in some ways seek to promote their ends and goals.

Perfect Duties: Perfect duties are

absolutes & necessary; they conform to the

categorical imperative.

eg., We can and should absolutely refrain from making false or lying

promises.

The following are 4 examples The following are 4 examples famously used by Kantfamously used by Kant..

1st example: Suicide1st example: Suicide

““Whenever continuing to live will bring Whenever continuing to live will bring more pain than pleasure, I shall more pain than pleasure, I shall commit suicide out of self-love.”commit suicide out of self-love.”

1.1. Suicide can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that Suicide can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that would be universal will.would be universal will.

2.2. Remember, suicide would be morally right if and only Remember, suicide would be morally right if and only if the person who is thinking about suicide can if the person who is thinking about suicide can consistently will that suicide be a universal law.consistently will that suicide be a universal law.

11stst Example: Suicide: Example: Suicide: A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied

of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: 'From self-could become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: 'From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It is asked then duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It is asked then simply whether this principle founded on self-love can become a simply whether this principle founded on self-love can become a universal law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature universal law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of would contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of nature; hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature; hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent with the nature and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme principle of all duty." (Quoted from the supreme principle of all duty." (Quoted from the Fundamental Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of MoralsPrinciples of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott) , as translated by T.K. Abbott)

2nd example: Lying & Not Keeping Promise:2nd example: Lying & Not Keeping Promise:

““Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow the money and promise to repay, even the money and promise to repay, even

though I know I will not repay.”though I know I will not repay.”

1.1. Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that would be universal will.can’t will that would be universal will.

2.2. Remember, lying and not repaying would be morally right if Remember, lying and not repaying would be morally right if and only if the person who is thinking about lying and not and only if the person who is thinking about lying and not keeping promise can consistently will that lying and not keeping keeping promise can consistently will that lying and not keeping promise be a universal law.promise be a universal law.

33rdrd Example: Developing One’s Habits Example: Developing One’s Habits

"A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture "A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, agrees also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of agrees also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of nature could indeed subsist with such a universal law although men nature could indeed subsist with such a universal law although men (like the South Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve (like the South Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve to devote their lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation to devote their lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation of their species- in a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will of their species- in a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will that this should be a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as that this should be a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as such by a natural instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills such by a natural instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties be developed, since they serve him and have been that his faculties be developed, since they serve him and have been given him, for all sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the given him, for all sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of MoralsFundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by , as translated by T.K. Abbott) T.K. Abbott)

33rdrd example: Developing One’s example: Developing One’s HabitsHabits

““When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my talents rust.”talents rust.”

1.1. Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.

2.2. If everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed, If everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed, then no one can consistently will that his non-use of talents to be a then no one can consistently will that his non-use of talents to be a universal law.universal law.

3.3. Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a universal law. universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)(The Categorical Imperative)

4.4. Therefore, allowing one’s talents to rust is morally wrong.Therefore, allowing one’s talents to rust is morally wrong.

44thth Example: Helping Others. Example: Helping Others. A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend

with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: 'What with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: 'What concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only be can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law, distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law, the human race might very well subsist and doubtless even better than in a the human race might very well subsist and doubtless even better than in a state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes care occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats care occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats when he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But when he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which should have the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would which, by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope of the aid he desires." (From the deprive himself of all hope of the aid he desires." (From the Fundamental Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of MoralsPrinciples of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott), as translated by T.K. Abbott)

4th example: Helping Others:4th example: Helping Others:““When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall

give nothing to charity.”give nothing to charity.”

Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be helped in desperate Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be helped in desperate circumstances.circumstances.

2.2. If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that non-help be a universal law.non-help be a universal law.

3.3. Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be a universal law. a universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)(The Categorical Imperative)

4.4. Therefore, not helping others is not morally right.Therefore, not helping others is not morally right.

11.11. Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:

Fairness, Consistency, and morally equal treatment of all people for they are intrinsically valuable.

Emphasizes the Law of Non-contradiction; we would not will anything that is not rational.

Emphasizes doing what is morally right (it is our duty).

It is universally binding and Impartial-in order for an action to be morally permissible, we should be able to will it for all.

12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics: 12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics: Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to rules, Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to rules, as opposed to result-centered or utilitarian ethics.as opposed to result-centered or utilitarian ethics.

1.1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each other.other.

2.2. Deontological ethics are consequential moral systems in disguise enshrined Deontological ethics are consequential moral systems in disguise enshrined in customs and law have been known to give the best consequences.in customs and law have been known to give the best consequences.

3.3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.

4.4. Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?

5.5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.

6.6. Rule worship: The refusal to break a generously beneficial rule in those Rule worship: The refusal to break a generously beneficial rule in those areas in which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.areas in which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.

7.7. Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human beings.beings.

There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts consider the following:consider the following:

a.a. Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must tell the truth (illustration by Kant).tell the truth (illustration by Kant).

But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is given in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we given in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we cannot will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat cannot will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as persons as persons.persons.

Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth and preserve life are moral obligations.and preserve life are moral obligations.

Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:

b.b. Kant’s moral philosophy is its belief in impartiality; in order Kant’s moral philosophy is its belief in impartiality; in order for an action to be rally permissible, we should be able to will it for an action to be rally permissible, we should be able to will it for all.for all.

However, persons do differ in significant ways (gender, race, age, and However, persons do differ in significant ways (gender, race, age, and talents). In what way does morality require that everyone be treated equally talents). In what way does morality require that everyone be treated equally and in what does it perhaps require that different person be treated and in what does it perhaps require that different person be treated differently (e.g., gender).differently (e.g., gender).

c.c. Kant’s stress on rationality may be considered to be too male-Kant’s stress on rationality may be considered to be too male-oriented, too Westernized. It is subject to the continental oriented, too Westernized. It is subject to the continental critique of structure (Foucault).critique of structure (Foucault).

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being'shuman being's will in will in

fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390) fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390) This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.

First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character traits as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, traits as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, Kant takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of Kant takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these principles.principles.

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence

does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’ does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’ by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions, a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions, feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz., Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz., continence or self-control.continence or self-control.

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral

principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed, between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed, assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of degree rather than in terms of the different principles degree rather than in terms of the different principles each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice, each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice, for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of possessing them.possessing them.

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice Fourth, in classical views the distinction between Fourth, in classical views the distinction between

moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of the soul , but one finds classical theorists the soul , but one finds classical theorists treating wit and friendliness along side courage treating wit and friendliness along side courage and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary between non-moral and moral virtues could not between non-moral and moral virtues could not be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed, remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed, much of much of AnthropologyAnthropology is given over to is given over to discussing the nature and sources of a variety of discussing the nature and sources of a variety of character traits, both moral and non-moral.character traits, both moral and non-moral.

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since

it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses. constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses. Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is possiblepossible (and we (and we recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not change the fact that each and every desire and interest change the fact that each and every desire and interest could havecould have run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they cancan conflict conflict with moral law, not the fact that they actually with moral law, not the fact that they actually dodo conflict with it, that conflict with it, that makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait concerned with constraint.concerned with constraint.

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will, at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will, who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth, also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth, it must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable it must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable only through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution” only through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution” in the orientation of the will of the sort described in in the orientation of the will of the sort described in ReligionReligion. .

Kant’s View of Virtue/ViceKant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Kant here describes the natural human condition as one Kant here describes the natural human condition as one in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent change in the will's orientation in this respect, a change in the will's orientation in this respect, a revolution in which moral righteousness is the revolution in which moral righteousness is the nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of one's actions that are in accordance with duty are one's actions that are in accordance with duty are nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is that a good will is a will in which this revolution of that a good will is a will in which this revolution of priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one with the strength to overcome obstacles to its with the strength to overcome obstacles to its manifestation in practice.manifestation in practice.

Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:

1.1. How do decide between two principles? How do decide between two principles?

22 What about moral conflict between two What about moral conflict between two morally right principles.morally right principles.

3.3. From where or whom do we get our From where or whom do we get our principles? Nature? God? principles? Nature? God?

4.4. If from nature, that assumes that what is in If from nature, that assumes that what is in nature is actually good? How do we define nature is actually good? How do we define nature?nature?

Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:

1.1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with one another.into conflict with one another.

2.2. They are consequential moral systems in disguised-They are consequential moral systems in disguised-enshrined in customs and laws that have been known enshrined in customs and laws that have been known to promote the best consequences.to promote the best consequences.

3.3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.based on absolutes.

4.4. Which duties qualify given time and location. Are old Which duties qualify given time and location. Are old duties still valid?duties still valid?

5.5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what is best for human welfare result in a clash with what is best for human welfare and prescribe actions which cause human misery.and prescribe actions which cause human misery.

6.6. Rule worship: Refusal to break a rule because it is Rule worship: Refusal to break a rule because it is rule, even if it is not beneficial.rule, even if it is not beneficial.

Let’s now Let’s now explore explore

consequential consequential ethics:ethics:

Consequential Ethics:Consequential Ethics:

We choose the actions that bring about the best We choose the actions that bring about the best outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential forms of ethics. Let’s consider the following:forms of ethics. Let’s consider the following:

-- Egoism: we should always act to maximize Egoism: we should always act to maximize our own individual interests.our own individual interests.

A. Consequential Ethics:A. Consequential Ethics:

We choose the actions that We choose the actions that bring about the best outcomes: bring about the best outcomes:

-- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our Egoism: we should always act to maximize our own own individual interests.individual interests.

-- Utilitarianism: we should act to maximize the Utilitarianism: we should act to maximize the happiness happiness of all affected by the action.of all affected by the action.

A closer look at Utilitarianism:A closer look at Utilitarianism:

This theory that holds that an act is This theory that holds that an act is right or wrong according to the right or wrong according to the utility or value of its consequences. utility or value of its consequences.

An act that produces more good An act that produces more good than harm has greater value than than harm has greater value than act that produces more harm than act that produces more harm than good.good.


Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical laws in Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical laws in helping people determine which action will helping people determine which action will probably bring about the greatest good for the probably bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people.greatest number of people.

While they are not against laws or values While they are not against laws or values (antinomians), they are not absolutists either.(antinomians), they are not absolutists either.

Every act is judged by its results, not by it intrinsic Every act is judged by its results, not by it intrinsic and universal value.and universal value.


In order to do determine the best consequence, In order to do determine the best consequence, some argue that you must add up the happiness some argue that you must add up the happiness in one person and then multiply the total in one person and then multiply the total happiness in the total number of people and happiness in the total number of people and subtract the total pain.subtract the total pain.

If the result is positive then the action is good.If the result is positive then the action is good. If the result is negative then the action is bad.If the result is negative then the action is bad.


Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure vs. Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure vs. Pain (Peter Singer):Pain (Peter Singer):

1.1. When we testify the safety of a new When we testify the safety of a new shampoo, we drip the shampoo in concentrated shampoo, we drip the shampoo in concentrated form into the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible form into the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible pain. But does shampoo leaving your hair pain. But does shampoo leaving your hair lustrous and manageable, sufficient to justify the lustrous and manageable, sufficient to justify the infliction of so much suffering?infliction of so much suffering?


2.2. The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy and The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy and tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But can tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But can this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential to this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential to sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten our sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten our lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify the lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify the infliction of suffering on cattle that are raised on infliction of suffering on cattle that are raised on crowded feedlots, and then herded into slaughter crowded feedlots, and then herded into slaughter houses?houses?


3.3. It must be delightful to live in an elegant home, richly It must be delightful to live in an elegant home, richly equipped with a Jacuzzi and sauna in addition to having a master equipped with a Jacuzzi and sauna in addition to having a master bedroom suite with an entire wall-covered entertainment system. But bedroom suite with an entire wall-covered entertainment system. But is it really right to spend that much on luxuries that add only a small is it really right to spend that much on luxuries that add only a small increase to our pleasure when the same resources could be used to increase to our pleasure when the same resources could be used to care for impoverished children living in hunger? For example, $21.00 care for impoverished children living in hunger? For example, $21.00 US dollars can feed over 150 elementary students in Ghana for two US dollars can feed over 150 elementary students in Ghana for two weeks (rice mixed with yams).weeks (rice mixed with yams).


4.4. I purchase another I purchase another expensive “GQ suit” to expensive “GQ suit” to add to my already stuffed add to my already stuffed closet-for it will bring me closet-for it will bring me pleasure. But is that pleasure. But is that small increment of small increment of pleasure even remotely pleasure even remotely comparable to the comparable to the pleasure and relief of pleasure and relief of suffering that would result suffering that would result if I took that same money if I took that same money and purchased clothes to and purchased clothes to orphan children or a orphan children or a threadbare family?threadbare family?


5.5. A tummy tuck will certainly improve A tummy tuck will certainly improve sagging appearances and make some of us feel sagging appearances and make some of us feel better. But the cost of a tummy tuck can be used better. But the cost of a tummy tuck can be used to drill a water well and provide clean and pure to drill a water well and provide clean and pure water to an entire village in most third world water to an entire village in most third world countries.countries.


6.6. Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy: Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy:

If we are trying to decide whether a new football If we are trying to decide whether a new football stadium with luxury boxes for the very rich is a stadium with luxury boxes for the very rich is a better investment than decent inner-city schools better investment than decent inner-city schools and health care for the poor, is utilitarian and health care for the poor, is utilitarian calculations a better guide for making such calculations a better guide for making such decisions than deontological ethics?decisions than deontological ethics?

Problems with Utilitarianism:Problems with Utilitarianism:

1.1. The end does not justify the means.The end does not justify the means.

An act is not automatically good simply because it An act is not automatically good simply because it has a good goal.has a good goal.

The road to destruction is paved with good intentions The road to destruction is paved with good intentions (Prov. 14:12).(Prov. 14:12).

Ex. President Nixon’s goal of national security was Ex. President Nixon’s goal of national security was noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate was not noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate was not justified.justified.


2.2. Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.

Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically valuable act.valuable act.

No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any value No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any value unless it happens to have good results.unless it happens to have good results.

Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire, doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire, one is obligated to save the medical doctor.one is obligated to save the medical doctor.


3.3. People are subject to the greater good of People are subject to the greater good of statistics:statistics:

Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical doctor or a poor child from a destructive doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire, one is obligated to save the house fire, one is obligated to save the medical doctor because we know he is able to medical doctor because we know he is able to help people; we don’t know the future of the help people; we don’t know the future of the child.child.


4.4. The need for an absolute standard:The need for an absolute standard:

Relative norms do no stand alone. They Relative norms do no stand alone. They must be relative to something which is not must be relative to something which is not relative. So, unless there is a standard, relative. So, unless there is a standard, how can they know what is the greater how can they know what is the greater good.good.


5.5. The “end” is an ambiguous term:The “end” is an ambiguous term:

If the utilitarian contends that ethics If the utilitarian contends that ethics should be based on what will bring the should be based on what will bring the best results in the long run, how long is best results in the long run, how long is “long?” A few years? a life-time? “long?” A few years? a life-time? Eternity? Anything beyond the immediate Eternity? Anything beyond the immediate present is outside of the human range.present is outside of the human range.


6.6. Ambiguous as well in determining Ambiguous as well in determining whether the “end” means “for the greatest whether the “end” means “for the greatest number” or for “all individuals.”number” or for “all individuals.”

Could good could be achieved for the most Could good could be achieved for the most people if basic rights were denied to some people if basic rights were denied to some people? Is this intuitively right?people? Is this intuitively right?


Pleasure vs. Pain:Pleasure vs. Pain:

Pain and Pleasure are not exact Pain and Pleasure are not exact opposites. Is this true?opposites. Is this true?

How do you measure pain and How do you measure pain and pleasure?pleasure?

Can pain be beneficial over and Can pain be beneficial over and against pleasure?against pleasure?

Conclusion to Consequentialism:Conclusion to Consequentialism:

Consequentialists believe that Consequentialists believe that consequences are the only things that consequences are the only things that

matter:matter:

A.A. We do not necessarily know the We do not necessarily know the outcome.outcome.

B.B. The consequences of our own action The consequences of our own action may be unpredictable.may be unpredictable.

Conclusion to Consequentialism:Conclusion to Consequentialism:

C.C. he consequences of other people’s actions he consequences of other people’s actions which impact on our actions may also be which impact on our actions may also be unpredictable.unpredictable.

D.D. We do not know what the consequences We do not know what the consequences will be of our action in the will be of our action in the long termlong term..

E.E. We can’t necessarily control the We can’t necessarily control the consequences.consequences.

Concluding thought to Consequentialism:Concluding thought to Consequentialism:

Dostoyesky’s Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists:Dostoyesky’s Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists:

““Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me: imagine that you are Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me: imagine that you are charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of which is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and of which is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and unavoidable to torture just one speck of creation, that…little child unavoidable to torture just one speck of creation, that…little child beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has to be erected on her unexpiated [suffering for having done nothing to be erected on her unexpiated [suffering for having done nothing wrong] tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those wrong] tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those conditions? Tell me honestly!”conditions? Tell me honestly!”

~ ~ The Karamazov BrothersThe Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University , trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Press, 1994).

Overview of Ethical Systems: Utilitarianism:Overview of Ethical Systems: Utilitarianism:A theory of moral reasoning within teleological ethics or consequentialism

that looks to the principle of utility, i.e., the degree to which an act is helpful or harmful in order to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act.

John S. Mill:

Cultural, intellectual, &

spiritual pleasures are

of greater values than

mere physical pain or

pleasure.

J.J. C. Smart:

Preference Utilitarianism: Maximize the achievements

of people’s priorities; it is

for each person to

decide what counts as being

happy.

J. Bentham:

Only 2 intrinsic values: “Good is whatever brings the greatest

happiness to the greatest number.”

Negative Utilitarianism by K. Popper in The Open Society & Its

Enemies (1945): Promote the least amount evil or harm; prevent the greatest amount of harm for the

greatest number:

Ideal Utilitarianism by G.E. Moore: The rightness or wrongness of acts is determined by their actual consequences; our duty: produce the best possible consequences.

Motive Utilitarianism (Robert Adams): Inculcate motives within ourselves that will be generally useful across the

spectrum of the situations we are likely to encounter.

R.M. Hare’s 2-level utilitarianism: The

logic of moral terms & facts about human

nature & condition) leads to

a 2 level version whereby both rule

& act utilitarianism are bridged: intuitive

level (simple, general rules) & critical level (act utilitarianism.

John S. Mill: Though still hedonistic utilitarianism Mill argues that cultural,

intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of greater values than just mere physical pain

or pleasure.

A Closer look at Consequentialism:A Closer look at Consequentialism:

Classic utilitarianism is a complex Classic utilitarianism is a complex combination of many distinct claims, combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts (even though it moral rightness of acts (even though it reduces all morally relevant factors to reduces all morally relevant factors to consequences):consequences):

Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether it can be measured in the defined and whether it can be measured in the

way utilitarians requires:way utilitarians requires:

1.1. Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on only on consequencesconsequences ( (not circumstances, the intrinsic not circumstances, the intrinsic nature of the act, or anything that happens before the actnature of the act, or anything that happens before the act). ).

2.2. Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the depends only on the actualactual consequences ( consequences (not foreseen, not foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequencesforeseeable, intended, or likely consequences). ).

3.3. Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of depends only on the consequences of that act itselfthat act itself ( (not not consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so onthat covers other acts of the same kind, and so on). ).

Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:

4.4. Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the valuevalue of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the consequences). consequences).

5.5. Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasurespleasures and and painspains in the consequences ( in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so onsuch as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on). ).

6.6. Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are consequences are bestbest (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo). over the status quo).

7.7. Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of function of the values of partsparts of those consequences ( of those consequences (as opposed to as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequencesrankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences). ).


8.8. Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the totaltotal net net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person). person).

8.8. Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for consequences for allall people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).

9.9. Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one

person matter person matter just as muchjust as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).who count count equally).

10.10. Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others

does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer). perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).


These claims could be clarified, supplemented, and subdivided further. These claims could be clarified, supplemented, and subdivided further. What matters here is just that these claims are logically independent, so a What matters here is just that these claims are logically independent, so a moral theorist could consistently accept some of them without accepting moral theorist could consistently accept some of them without accepting others. Yet classic utilitarians accepted them all. That fact makes classic others. Yet classic utilitarians accepted them all. That fact makes classic utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight.utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight.

It also makes classic utilitarianism subject to attack from many angles. It also makes classic utilitarianism subject to attack from many angles. Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism. Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism. Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims of classic utilitarianism. By dropping one or more of those claims, of classic utilitarianism. By dropping one or more of those claims, descendants of utilitarianism can construct a wide variety of moral descendants of utilitarianism can construct a wide variety of moral theories. Advocates of these theories often call them consequentialism theories. Advocates of these theories often call them consequentialism rather than utilitarianism so that their theories will not be subject to rather than utilitarianism so that their theories will not be subject to refutation by association with the classic utilitarian theory.refutation by association with the classic utilitarian theory.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Hedonistic Utilitarianism:John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Hedonistic Utilitarianism:

Greatest Happiness Principle: “Acts are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness (intended pleasure), wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pain and privation of

pleasure). Cultural, intellectual, & spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure, because the former would be valued more highly by competent judges than the latter. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher.

John S. Mill:

Cultural, intellectual, &

spiritual pleasures are

of greater values than

mere physical pain or

pleasure.

Mill reaffirmed though

developed the hedonistic theory of

Bentham from strict hedonistic path by saying that some kinds

of pleasure, whatever their quantity, are intrinsically superior to

others.

.

Mill was an advocate of rule utilitarianism: you obey those

rules which experience has shown will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. When you always know what people will do

you get predictability and security.

We ought to choose the action which looks most likely to produce most

happiness. In order to do so we should usually be guided by those general rules

which have been formulated as a result of the long experience of men in society:

The beliefs that have come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and

or the philosopher, until he has succeeded in finding better.”

A rule is valid only because it passes the utilitarian test: and it is difficult to

believe

Pleasures differ from each other qualitatively as well as quantitatively,

a “higher” pleasure being intrinsically better

than a “lower” pleasure.”

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied

than a fool satisfied.”Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal:

“a pushpin is as good as opera.” Some desires

are primitive: others the result of experience,

training, self-discipline, & special associations.

The only justification society has in interfering with the liberty of action of an individual is self-protection;

People should be allowed to think & do whatever they like. Mill was worried about the “tyranny of the

majority” in his Essay On Liberty.

Qualitative differences easily recognizable

whereas quantitative differences are

difficult to determine.

He also differed with Bentham by denying

that human motivation implies

egoism. Even though we are by nature

pleasure-seekers, we can be trained through proper development of

our feelings to find pleasure in the

pleasure of others.

John Stuart Mill:John Stuart Mill:Essential Terms:Essential Terms:

1.1. higher pleasures:higher pleasures: "pleasures of the intellect, ...relating to our feelings "pleasures of the intellect, ...relating to our feelings and imagination"; also those relating to our moral values. and imagination"; also those relating to our moral values.

2.2. lower pleasures:lower pleasures: bodily and physical pleasures bodily and physical pleasures

3.3. inferior type:inferior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the lower persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the lower pleasures (88-89) pleasures (88-89)

4.4. superior type:superior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the higher persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the higher pleasures pleasures

5.5. altruism: altruism: personal sacrifice; "putting other's interests before one's personal sacrifice; "putting other's interests before one's own" own"

6.6. incommensurable: incommensurable: (in this case) two things that are incomparable (in this case) two things that are incomparable because they are essentially different. Mill uses this word to describe because they are essentially different. Mill uses this word to describe the comparison of pleasure and pain. the comparison of pleasure and pain.

John Stuart Mill:John Stuart Mill:7.7. Although Mill was heavily influenced by Bentham, there are two Although Mill was heavily influenced by Bentham, there are two

specific points of the latter's utilitarian theory that are rejected in Mill's specific points of the latter's utilitarian theory that are rejected in Mill's version: version:

Mill did not regard all pleasures equally. He made a distinction between Mill did not regard all pleasures equally. He made a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. higher and lower pleasures.

Mill rejects Bentham's hedonic calculus because he believes that Mill rejects Bentham's hedonic calculus because he believes that pleasures and pains are incommensurable.pleasures and pains are incommensurable.

8.8. Higher pleasures are such because they: Higher pleasures are such because they:

offer a sense of human dignity, offer a sense of human dignity, offer greater permanency, safety, and un-costliness, and offer greater permanency, safety, and un-costliness, and challenge us to develop our intellectual capabilities. challenge us to develop our intellectual capabilities.

9.9. The The only persons qualified to judge the relative merit of only persons qualified to judge the relative merit of pleasurespleasures are those acquainted with the higher pleasures. Mill inserts are those acquainted with the higher pleasures. Mill inserts this qualification so that his ethics can overcome the charge the it is this qualification so that his ethics can overcome the charge the it is an ethics for pigs and because he argues that anyone who is an ethics for pigs and because he argues that anyone who is acquainted with both types or pleasures will certainly affirm the acquainted with both types or pleasures will certainly affirm the superiority of the higher type. superiority of the higher type.

Egoism vs. Altruistic Utilitarianism:Egoism vs. Altruistic Utilitarianism:

Enlightened self-interest is rejected in favor of consider Enlightened self-interest is rejected in favor of consider the greatest happiness of all concerned. the greatest happiness of all concerned.

Persons responsible for making ethical decisions should Persons responsible for making ethical decisions should do so from a disinterested, benevolent perspective. do so from a disinterested, benevolent perspective.

The value of personal sacrifice or altruism takes center The value of personal sacrifice or altruism takes center stage over that of psychological egoism. stage over that of psychological egoism.

If one can see that personal interests are bound up with If one can see that personal interests are bound up with communal interests, then the conflict between ego and communal interests, then the conflict between ego and community will be minimized. community will be minimized.

Other Points on Mills:Other Points on Mills:10.10. Human Suffering:Human Suffering: Mill argues that "we have ... a moral duty to prevent or to Mill argues that "we have ... a moral duty to prevent or to

reduce to human suffering.“reduce to human suffering.“

Selfishness and a want of mental cultivation are the greatest causes of Selfishness and a want of mental cultivation are the greatest causes of unhappiness.unhappiness.

Individuals who have not taken the time to develop their intellectual capabilities are Individuals who have not taken the time to develop their intellectual capabilities are unlikely to share the view that the improvement of the human condition is of unlikely to share the view that the improvement of the human condition is of paramount importance.paramount importance.

11.11. On Democracy:On Democracy:

Although he favored democracy, Mill sees the possibility for domination of the Although he favored democracy, Mill sees the possibility for domination of the minority by the majority under a strict system of "mob rule.“minority by the majority under a strict system of "mob rule.“

Accordingly, Mill argues that safeguards be put in place to protect the interests and Accordingly, Mill argues that safeguards be put in place to protect the interests and viewpoints of minorities in the political process. Note that the term minority is not viewpoints of minorities in the political process. Note that the term minority is not meant to denote racial minorities, but rather all types of political and social meant to denote racial minorities, but rather all types of political and social minorities that do not share majority/mainstream views.minorities that do not share majority/mainstream views.

Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics:Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics:

Utilitarian Ethics:

1. Consequential Outcomes-Based.

2. Case-by-Case.

3. Hypothetical Imperative.

4. Happiness (Greatest Happiness Principle)

Deontological Ethics:

1. One universal law for each situation.

2. All times, all places, & all people.

3. Categorical Imperative (Maxim-rule)

4. Duty, Obligation, & Good will.

Other Ideas:Other Ideas:

Though you are not going to be tested on Though you are not going to be tested on these issues, it would be in your best these issues, it would be in your best interest to understand both pluralism and interest to understand both pluralism and relativism.relativism.

What is Pluralism?What is Pluralism?

There are definite standards of right behavior but There are definite standards of right behavior but that more than one right standard exists.that more than one right standard exists.

- There are several right course of action.- There are several right course of action.

What is Relativism?What is Relativism?

The theory that there are no absolute standards and The theory that there are no absolute standards and that all truth is relative to a person or culture.that all truth is relative to a person or culture.

-- No universal moral law or norm of goodness No universal moral law or norm of goodness or rightness exists. or rightness exists.

- What seems right to a person or group is right; - What seems right to a person or group is right; there is no higher court of appeal.there is no higher court of appeal.

A. Relativism assumes the following:A. Relativism assumes the following:

1.1. The context or situational setting in which The context or situational setting in which any talk occurs any talk occurs influencesinfluences its outcome or the its outcome or the conclusions that arise from it. conclusions that arise from it.

2.2. Relativism leads to the conclusion that the Relativism leads to the conclusion that the situational character of all conversations have situational character of all conversations have no access to a standpoint from which we no access to a standpoint from which we could reach conclusions about what is could reach conclusions about what is absolute or universally right or wrong, good absolute or universally right or wrong, good or evil, just or unjust. or evil, just or unjust.

Relativism assumes the following:Relativism assumes the following:

3.3. Moral relativism declares that Moral relativism declares that assertions about the right and the good, assertions about the right and the good, as well as laws or principles that guide as well as laws or principles that guide human moral behavior are human moral behavior are contextually contextually determined.determined.

3a. Cultural Relativism:3a. Cultural Relativism:

A form of pluralism, this theory holds that different A form of pluralism, this theory holds that different standards of right and wrong arise in different standards of right and wrong arise in different cultures. Within a given culture there are distinct cultures. Within a given culture there are distinct standards, but these standards may vary from standards, but these standards may vary from culture to culture.culture to culture.

- No culture is in a position to make ethical - No culture is in a position to make ethical judgments about the behaviors of other judgments about the behaviors of other cultures. cultures.

- Ex. One culture may have a prohibition against - Ex. One culture may have a prohibition against slavery, whereas another culture does not. In this slavery, whereas another culture does not. In this view, slavery is right for the one culture but wrong view, slavery is right for the one culture but wrong for the other.for the other.

3b. Individual Relativism:3b. Individual Relativism:

A form of pluralism, individual relativism is the A form of pluralism, individual relativism is the doctrine that states that what is right depends on the doctrine that states that what is right depends on the view of a specific individual.view of a specific individual.

Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital affairs are Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital affairs are morally permissible but her husband does not, then morally permissible but her husband does not, then extramarital affairs are right for her, but wrong for extramarital affairs are right for her, but wrong for him.him.

In contrast, what is Absolutism?In contrast, what is Absolutism?

There are definite and universal standards of There are definite and universal standards of ethical behavior, that we can know what they ethical behavior, that we can know what they are, & that all people have an obligation to are, & that all people have an obligation to act on them.act on them.

a.a. Believed to be standards which are dictated or Believed to be standards which are dictated or generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).

b.b. These ethical standards are either “religious” in These ethical standards are either “religious” in nature (e.g., special revelation; the Bible.).nature (e.g., special revelation; the Bible.).

3c. A Problem of Relativist 3c. A Problem of Relativist Theories:Theories:

A. They seem unable to account to how strongly A. They seem unable to account to how strongly people feel about certain immoral acts. people feel about certain immoral acts.

Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing Jewish Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing Jewish children is morally permissible, can we only say that children is morally permissible, can we only say that such behavior is right for him but that it is not right for such behavior is right for him but that it is not right for

us?us?

B. They are unable to offer a strong account for B. They are unable to offer a strong account for justice vs. injustice; good vs. evil, right. justice vs. injustice; good vs. evil, right.

vs vs wrong; it is counter-intuitive. wrong; it is counter-intuitive.

3c. A Problem of Relativist 3c. A Problem of Relativist Theories:Theories:

C.C. Unlivable and inconsistent with Unlivable and inconsistent with reality.reality.

Criticisms made against Relativism:Criticisms made against Relativism:

Relativism commits treason against legitimate Relativism commits treason against legitimate authority.authority.

Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty).Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty). Relativism conceals certain defects.Relativism conceals certain defects. Relativism cloaks greed with flattery.Relativism cloaks greed with flattery. Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility.Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility. Relativism enslaves people.Relativism enslaves people. Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism.Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism. Relativism silences personal identity.Relativism silences personal identity. Relativism poisons personal character. Relativism poisons personal character.

Date post:	12-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amice-dorsey
View:	234 times
Download:	3 times

Lectures 14-15: Deontological & Consequential Ethics.

Documents