Philosophy 2030Class #9

Tonight (5/7/14):

Final Portfolio DueFrom your portfolio tell your “best” story to the class (5-10 minutes each)Discuss the Golden RuleContinue Discussion of Chapter 6 – Deontology in relation to “High Noon”

Next Week (5/14/14):

Watch “42 – The Jackie Robinson Story” Complete worksheet.

Read Chapter 7, pp. 320-327.

Online Course & Instructor Feedback

Please Don’t Forget!!!

4/15/14/ - 5/15/14

• Many argue against utilitarianism that what makes an action moral is the intention under which it is done. A moral act is done because it is the right thing to do.

• But what is the right thing to do? Such a view can be interpreted many ways and may even appear to beg the question.

• Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule which is stated quite explicitly by many early Greek philosophers & in the New Testament

-- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Confucianism, and Taoism.

Morality as Doing the Right Thing

• A popular view of morality of course is the view that moral duty is set by a divine being.

• But does anyone here remember Socrates?

• But is an act right simply because God has commanded it, or does God command it because it is right?

• In the first view, is God’s commandments arbitrary? That doesn’t seem right. In the second view, is there a criteria for morality which we can study independent of God’s approval of certain acts? Thus, many suggest that the Divine Commandment view “begs the question.”

The Golden Rule as “God’s Morality”?

• But how does one know how others want to be treated? You may not be able to ask them because they do not have the relevant experience.

• "Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."

…George Bernard Shaw

Problems Even With the Golden Rule

But should we use the golden rule when dealing with evil or immoral persons or those with evil desires? Do I really think it is right to treat a terrorist as I would want him to treat me?

But should we use the golden rule in dealing with children? Do I really think it is right to treat an 18th month who is just about put his fingers in a light socket based on how I want him to treat me?

So who qualifies as an appropriate “other”?

Is the Golden Rule Always Right?

If we want someone to do something for us, does this mean that we should do the same to to them? Maybe this works fine if I just want my wife to scratch my back, but surely it is not a universal principle.

If you want your boss to tell you that you are doing a good job, is the “right” thing to do to tell her she is doing a good job when you feel that she is not?

Is the Golden Rule Always Right?

Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule such as: The golden rule requires that we treat others only as we would want to be treated if we were in their situation.

But then perhaps you will use the golden rule to justify that you should help your friend rob banks because you would want him to help you if you were robbing a bank.

Or should we not send criminals to prison because we would not want to go to prison if we were in their situation?

Is the Golden Rule Always Right?

Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule such as:The golden rule requires that we treat others only as we would consent to being treated in the same situation (Gensler’s Golden Rule)

This seems to resolve previous issues but even then, is this always right?

What about the CEO who actually believes that he treats his employees fairly by paying them under the minimum wage and that they get just what they deserve because of lack of ambition.

This is a problem of knowledge and imagination! Without proper knowledge and imagination, the golden rule cannot act as a moral principle.

Is the Golden Rule Always Right?

• Thus, Harry J. Gensler suggests that the Golden Rule is more a pathway to help guide us through moral conduct than a guide or compass to how to conduct ourselves in a given situation.

• He suggests that it is a means to test the consistency of our moral beliefs and values, not a “rule book” for how to live.

• Thus, in this view, the “golden rule” functions within moral decisions much like we have proposed that critical thinking provides a guideline for philosophical discussion.

• That is, it defines consistency between statements and a rationale for our discussions, but does not provide us the content in which to make moral judgments!

Gensler’s Golden Rule

“The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers.

It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence.

If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the

heart of morality.”

Harry J. Gensler,Professor of Philosophy,John Carroll University

• Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation

• Thus, Kant’s view is called Deontology.

• In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is not just because it is done with a good intention.

• It is the right thing to do if it is is done out of an intention to follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or obligation.

• Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical imperative.

• A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this class, you should study for the final exam.

Morality as Doing the Right Thing

• For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is done out of the categorical imperative which does not depend on circumstances or conditional wants or desires. The act is done for the sake of the principle of doing the right thing.

• To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that our own intentions ought to applied as a general law for everybody.

• Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are truly acts of good will and thus, the person who does so has a good will.

• Thus, Kant’s view is a modified view of the Golden Rule. Kant is a hard universalist and relies on conformity to rational principles.

Kant’s Deontology

• For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is done out of the categorical imperative which does not depend on circumstances or conditional wants or desires. The act is done for the sake of the principle of doing the right thing.

• Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are truly acts of good will and thus, the person who does so has a good will.

• To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that our own intentions ought to applied as a general law for everybody.

Kant’s Deontology

• For Immanuel Kant, another way of stating the categorical imperative is that we should treat all mean as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. Treat someone as they agree to be treated.

• This second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is essentially the same principle as the first because the categorical imperative universalizes your maxim. Both formulations are basically saying do not treat yourself as an exception!

• Both formulations capture the essence of seems to be the wisdom of the golden rule!

Kant’s Deontology

• Consider examples:

• Store owner

• High Noon examples

• Marshall Kane?• Amy Kane?• Mrs. Ramirez?• Others?

Kant’s Deontology:Discussion

Video:

The Four of Us Are Dying

An Episode of The Twilight Zone (1960)