Philosophy · Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and...

PhilosophyMoral Philosophy:Student Activities

Higher and Intermediate 27899

.

Summer 2000

PhilosophyMoral Philosophy:Student Activities

Higher and Intermediate 2

Support Materials

HIGHER STILL

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 1

CONTENTS

• Introduction to Moral Philosophy• Utilitarianism; information and activities• Kantian Ethics; information and activities• War - introduction to topic• Utilitarianism and War• Kantian Ethics and War• Punishment - introduction to topic• Utilitarianism and Punishment• Kantian Ethics and Punishment• Euthanasia - introduction to topic• Utilitarianism and Euthanasia• Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia



NOTE TO TUTORSThese support materials have been designed to support the teaching of theMoral Philosophy Unit at Int 2 and Higher. The materials have alreadybeen used by one set of students and it is intended that the informationsheets and tasks can be given directly to students.

The materials deal with Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and their approachto three issues explored by the unit – War, Punishment and Euthanasia.

The materials should be used to supplement other resources or as a basisfrom which to start.

Various authors are frequently cited, giving their views on the specifiedissues. This gives students a breadth of views without having to read allthe texts mentioned. It might be useful to look at some of thesupplementary texts and some of these texts are listed below.

General texts

Honderich, T Oxford Companion to Philosophy O U P (Oxford 1995)

Morton, A Philosophy in Practice Blackwell (Oxford 1996)

Osborne, R Philosophy for Beginners Writers and Readers Pub. (New York 1992)

Palmer, M Moral Problems. The Lutterworth Press (Cambridge 1991)

Thompson, M Philosophy: An Introduction Hodder and Stoughton (London 1995)

Warburton, N Philosophy: The Basics (edition 2) Routledge & Kegan Paul(London 1995)



Introduction to Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy is about making moral choices – about howpeople decide what is moral / immoral.Morality is concerned with ideas of right and wrong. Making amoral choice is not like choosing something to wear; it involveschoices about how we should behave and the intentions behindour behaviour. It involves what we and society see as the correctvalues to have.

Think of some of the topics that might be covered under“Moral Philosophy”

What is morally right is not the same as what is legally right(although what is legal is usually thought to be moral too).

Think of something legal but, you could argue, is immoral

Think of something illegal but, you could argue, is moral

STUDENT TASK



Moral philosophers look at the reasons behind decisions aboutwhat is right and wrong and debate whether these decisions arejustified. This is important because if we don’t have good reasonsagainst murder, torture etc we don’t have any real justification incondemning it.

Some people say that deciding what is right is merely a matter oftaste – like deciding between tomato and brown sauce on yourburger. This is something that is down to individuals to decide andyou can’t criticise their decision.

Others say there is more to moral decision -making, that it makes sense to discuss and debatedecisions of this nature in a way that it does notmake sense to debate the taste of sauce(obviously tomato is best !!!).

Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is amatter of taste.

What are the possible consequences of dealing with moralitylike this?

Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is morethan personal taste.

What are the possible consequences of dealing with moralitylike this?

STUDENT TASK



Presuming that we can and should debate what is right and wrong,there are many answers to the question of how we should decidemoral/immoral acts.

Write down as many ways of deciding what is right as youcan.

Which of the ideas do you think you agree with most? Why?

STUDENT TASK


Why should we be moral?Before you came to this class, you have probably had to make at least one moraldecision. Perhaps you could have taken a chocolate bar from the canteen withoutpaying and not been caught, perhaps you promised to do something for a friend andthey seem to have forgotten and you have to decide whether to remind them.Everyday you have to choose between what you want and the interests of others,between your desires and rules you feel you should obey.

But why should other people matter, why shouldn’t we just suit ourselves?

Answers like ‘ because it is unfair to others’ don’t always work. Some people don’tcare about others. The answer ‘because the consequences will be bad for you’ mightnot apply if there is no way anyone will find out. So why should we be moral?

Here is a story told by the famous philosopher Plato.

It is known as the‘Myth of the Ring of Gyges’

• If you had the ring of Gyges what would you like todo?

• What ‘immoral’ acts might you commit if you knewyou would not be caught?

• Are there any things you still would not do even ifyou would get away with it? What are they?

• Why would you not do these things?

Plato’s friend, Glaucon tells the story of a magical ring,which allows the person wearing it to be invisible.Glaucon says that if we had such a ring and could getaway with anything, we would do so. We would be selfishif we could get away with it.

STUDENT TASK


Moral Theories

Why are they important?

Moral theories try to give us some way of deciding why actions are right orwrong. Once we have underlying explanations about why things are right orwrong we can use these reasons to decide on particular cases.

Generally, there are two different types of moral theories.

Teleological theories: Where moral judgements are based on the effects ofan act. You decide whether an act is good or bad by looking at itsconsequences. This appeals to common sense, usually before people actthey think about what the outcome will be.There are different opinions about what counts as good/ bad consequences.Some people think the consequences are only good if they benefit the personacting. Others think the consequences have to benefit more people than theywill harm.

Deontological theories: Disagrees with the idea that consequences areimportant. In deontological theories whether an act is right does not dependon the consequences. There are certain acts that are right or wrong nomatter what the consequences are.This appeals to the notion that there arecertain acts which are wrong even if they have a good outcome. Some peoplethink we can decide whether acts are right by looking at the motive behindthem. Others think that acts have to conform to rules for them to be right.

Teleological theories look forward and deontological theories lookbackward to decide what is right or wrong. Some people believe in onlyone type of theory but we quite often decide what is right and wrongusing both types of theories.

STUDENT INFORMATION


Moral Theories

Decide whether these statements are teleological or deontological orcould be both. (Note that you do not have to agree with the statements).

1.

2.

3.

5. “ Always obey your superiors”

6.

Drinking and driving is wrong. You only have tolook at the deaths it causes to see that.

I knew studyingwas the rightthing to do – I’vepassed all myexams!

4.

When I am older Imust not take sweetsfrom strangers

STUDENT TASK


Moral Theories

Here are some moral dilemmas. For each one decide• What you would do• Why you would do this• Whether your reasons are teleological, deontological or both

STUDENT TASK

You come home one night to find your house on fire.Your dad and his friend, a famous doctor who issupposed to be close to curing AIDS, are inside. You onlyhave time to save one person.Whom should you save?

Your friend tells you she has stolen the papers for the Philosophyexam. You tell her that someone else has been blamed and isbeing expelled for it. Your friend refuses to own up.What should you do?

A man from your town decides to open a video shop that will sell mildpornographic videos. As a moral philosopher, people are looking toyou to say whether this is acceptable or not. Some feel that it willcorrupt the young, others feel that people should free to choose whatthey watch. The shop will provide much-needed jobs for the town.What should you recommend?

You are on a cruise liner that is hijacked. The hijackers discoverthat there is one passenger who has gone missing – your son. Youknow that he has gone to try and alert the authorities on hismobile phone. The hijackers find him and then tell you thatunless you kill him, they will kill him and 10 other people as well.Should you kill your son?


Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism states that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for thegreatest number of people.

What does this mean? What is the ‘greatest good?’

This is explained by the 2 men who are the most famous advocates ofUtilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham(1748 – 1832)An Introduction to the PrinciplesOf Morals and Legislation

John Stuart Mill(1806 – 1873)Essay on Utilitarianism

So for Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for thegreatest number of people. Happiness for Utilitarianism is pleasure and the absence ofpain.

The idea that we ought to produce the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber is called ‘ The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness principle’.

To fully understand – we need more details so

read on!

I’m not very happy– I don’t reallyunderstand whatthis principle thinginvolves

“ Nature has placedmankind under thegovernance of twosovereign masters, painand pleasure.”

“ Utilitarianism holds that actions are right inproportion as they tend to promote happiness,wrong as they tend to produce the reverse ofhappiness.By happiness is intended pleasure and theabsence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and theprivation of pleasure.”

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Consequentialism involves deciding whether anaction is good or bad by looking at the consequencesof that action. If the consequences of the action are goodthen the action is a good one. If the consequences of theaction are bad then the action is a bad one.

Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the only inherently goodthing and that pain is the only inherently bad thing. Acts whichbring about pleasure are good acts. Acts which bring pain are badacts.

NOTEUtilitarianism is not exactly the same as Hedonismbecause hedonism is all about getting yourown pleasure. It is important in Utilitarianism to getpleasure for as many people as possible(happiness for the greatest number).

For Utilitarians the pleasure and pain of everyone isequally important. Every person counts for one andonly one. If your happiness is increased by 10 bydoing something but the happiness of others isincreased by 100 if you do something else thenyou should do the ‘something else’.

Can wealways tellwhat theconsequenceswill be?

Should babiescount equallywith adults?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Think about what you want out of life – Money? Fame?A happy marriage? These seem reasonable hopes butwe could ask what we want things like these for?

We wouldn’t, HOWEVER, ask someone who said they wanted to be happy in life –What do you want happiness for? We donot feel the need to justify happiness in the same way that we try to justify wanting money etc.

Happiness is something, which is worth having for its own sake.

JS Mill says that people think of happiness as a goal to aim for. When we lookat what people think is important we find that the reason they find these thingsimportant is because they think they will lead to human happiness.If you go along with this – the Utilitarian ideal of maximising the generalhappiness seems a good way to decide what is the right thing to do.

What about aiming for a stablesociety or stable families? Whyjust aim for happiness?

Even if we do assume people do aimfor happiness - isn't it their ownhappiness they want?Utilitarianism doesn’t always let youhave it – you might have to sacrificeyour own happiness if it doesn’t fit inwith the happiness of the greatestnumber.

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Bentham’s hedonic calculus

For Utilitarianism to work – we have to be able to calculate and measure painand pleasure. If we can’t measure these then we can never know whether wehave brought about the greatest good for the greatest number (the aim ofUtilitarianism).

This seems like a difficult task – the experiences of pleasure and pain are verycomplex. Many pleasurable experiences have some pain mixed in – so howdo we calculate the value of our experiences? To help us out Bentham bringsin his hedonic calculus.

He says there are certain things to think about which will help us calculatehow much pleasure/pain an experience gives us. We have to consider thingslike:

• How intense the experience is• How long it lasts• Whether it will lead to similar types of experiences• How many people will be affected

Can these types ofcalculation work?Can we compare thepleasure of winning atcards and the pleasureof saving a life?

If it were found that amind altering drug wouldmake everyone feelpleasure all the time –wouldn’t it be OK tosecretly add this to thewater supply?

Doesn’t it allow for pleasurethat most people would see aswrong – 10 sadistic guardsgetting pleasure torturing 1man? Their pleasure would beallowed because it is greaterthan his pain.

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Mill’s higher and lower pleasures

Mill’s Utilitarianism is different to Bentham’s because Mill says it is not justquantity of pleasure which matters – quality matters too. Mill believed thatsome pleasures counted for more than others.

Mill is trying to solve the problem of having to allow what most people wouldsee as unacceptable pleasures - the kinds of pleasures the sadistic guardswere experiencing. Mill could now say that the pleasure of torturing someonehas a much lower value than the pain felt by the victim, so it would not fit inwith Utilitarianism to allow the guards to torture the man.

Which pleasures are ‘higher’ and which ones are ‘lower’?

‘Higher’ - Intellectual pleasures such as reading, debating, learning

‘Lower’ – Physical pleasures such as eating,drinking and sex.

How does Mill justify this distinction?

1. Both animals and humans experience physical pleasures but thepleasures of the intellect are what make us different to animals.

2. People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer theintellectual ones.

How do we decide exactly, which are Higher/ Lower Pleasures?

Mill says we have to appeal to the views of what he calls competent judges.These are people who have tried both types of pleasure. If they keep optingfor a certain type of pleasure then it must be a higher pleasure.

“ It is quite compatible with the principle ofutility to recognise the fact that some kinds ofpleasure are more desirable and more valuablethan others.”

Is 2 always true? Don’t some people seem tochoose the physical pleasures over theintellectual ones?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Look at the list below. Which do you think are ‘Higher’ pleasures?

Which do you think are ‘Lower’ pleasures?List them under the headings ‘Higher’ and ‘Lower’

Possible pleasures

Having friends Having moneyEating meat Playing chessListening to Mozart Going to a pop concertPlaying a sport Drinking champagneTaking a walk Reading a novelDrinking water Having powerGiving love Receiving loveMaking love Taking revenge

Compare your list with others in your group.Are they the same?

Try and list them according to what you thinkMill would say.

STUDENT TASK


Utilitarianism

So far, the Utilitarianism we have looked at has been Utilitarianismwhich focuses on individual acts. It is often known as ActUtilitarianism. There is, however, another kind of Utilitarianism.

RULE UTILITARIANISMInstead of looking at every act to see whether it will bring about thegreatest happiness for the greatest number, Rule Utilitarians try tofind rules which will bring about the greatest happiness for thegreatest number and then just follow these rules.

There are two forms of Rule Utilitarianism - Strong and Weak.

Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Once the rules have been decided it is notright to break them even when it might bebetter in an individual case.

Weak Utilitarianism: There are special cases when breaking therules may be allowed.

See how much you can find out about ruleutilitarianism.

STUDENT TASKSTUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his waterand his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looksvery weak. Should John drink the water or give it to his friend ?

Jerry is a kind person, always making time to discuss other people’s problemswith them. He is studying for his Highers and his results are very important toallow him to get into University. It is his dream to go and study the Media andhopefully get into TV. The evening before his Philosophy Higher (his favouritesubject) his friend Derek phones. He is upset because he has just discoveredthat his girlfriend has been two timing him with another friend and he needssomeone to talk to. Jerry knows if he lets Derek talk, it will take up most of theevening when he could be studying. But if he tells Derek to phone backtomorrow then Derek will spend the evening being upset.Should Jerry a) Tell Derek to phone back tomorrow? b) Let Derek talk?

Her Granny has left Joanne a fortune. She has a well-paid job and livescomfortably. Joanne has a cousin who is a single parent trying to raise twochildren while working a badly paid job. Granny did not leave any money toher because they had a disagreement about her boyfriend twenty years ago.Should Joanne a)Keep the money? b)Give the money to her cousin?

STUDENT TASK


Utilitarianism

Look at these cases. Think about what youwould do.

1.You work as a doctor. Two babies are brought in one night butyou only have one intensive care bed. Baby A is very ill and willalmost certainly die if he is not admitted to intensive care. Baby Bis less desperately ill.You also know that Baby A has a rare genetic disorder whichmeans that if he survives he is likely to grow up to be anaggressive psychopath. Most people with his condition murder orrape. You know nothing about the genetic makeup of Baby B.Which baby should you admit to intensive care?

2. You are in prison with an incurable disease and you will diesoon. You share a cell with a prisoner who will be in prison for therest of his life. He has no friends and no family. He is alsomiserable and this will only get worse. He is too frightened to killhimself although he has talked about his wish to die many times.You have a poison which you could put in his food to kill himpainlessly and without being detected. The doctors would think hedied of natural causes.Should you kill the prisoner?

Think about what a Utilitarian might recommendWhat reasons would they give?

STUDENT TASK


Utilitarianism

So what do you think of Utilitarianism? Is it a good way to decide what isright and wrong?

Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think thearguments on one side outweigh the others?

Strengths

Natural – Pleasure and pain are real. They play a huge part inour lives. Utilitarianism gives them a central role.

Everyone matters – It is not just concerned with how we feel. Ittakes into account how others feel. This seems right and onlypractical when talking about morality.

Balanced – The consequences of an action depend on thecircumstances of each case. Utilitarians don’t have to deal withhaving moral rules which sometimes conflict, e.g. What if youbelieve in the rules ‘don’t kill’ and ‘protect your family’ yetsomeone is attacking your family? What do you do?Utilitarianism avoids such conflicts.

Simple – Few ideas are actually involved – only theconsequences of an action matter and we only need to look atwhether these bring about pleasure/pain. It is much lesscomplicated than having to deal with the motives of actions andpeoples’ rights’ etc. These are things which other moral theoriesfocus on.

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism

Weaknesses

Can we calculate pain/pleasure? – Can we really work outhow to get the most happiness for the greatest number? e.g. dowe need lots of people with a little happiness or slightly lesspeople who have more happiness?

Does everyone really matter? – What makes you happy mightnot go along with what makes the majority happy. You mightend up being miserable all the time. Also Utilitarianism seemsto ignore an idea that most people accept – that we havespecial responsibilities to particular people like our families.

Problem of Justice – Linked with the idea that some peopleseem to matter less than others. An innocent person could bepunished for a crime if it would contribute to the greaterhappiness – e.g.by deterring others.

Difficulties of Calculation – It is hard to predict theconsequences of some actions. It is also hard to tell when theconsequences stop. If you save a baby who then grows up tobe a murderer is this a consequence of your action?

Should we ignore rights/motives? – Do we want to say thatno one has the right to things like justice? Doesn’t the motivebehind an act count for anything?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK

Think about what you knowabout Utilitarianism and writedown what you think aUtilitarian world would belike.

Would you like to live in aUtilitarian world? Why/Why not?


Kantian Ethics

Kant was a German philosopher (1724 – 1804)and he looked at deciding what is right and wrong ina different way from Utilitarianism. Kant was anon-consequentialist. He did not believe that looking atthe consequences of an action was how to decide whetherit was right or wrong.

Let’s look at what this means…..

How do we decide what is right?For Kant, you had to look at the intentions behind any act to see whether it was rightor wrong. Only the reason behind your actions would determine if it was right. Onlyif your intentions were the right ones would you be acting morally. The consequencesdid not matter for morality, what matters was the reason for acting.

Why do consequences not count?Kant believed that the consequences of actions couldn’t be used to decide what wasright because consequences were not totally within our control. Kant believed thatbeing moral was something we did as rational human beings and was somethingwhich applied equally to all such rational beings. If morality was the choice ofrational beings it hardly seemed fair to decide whether someone was acting in theright way by looking at things they couldn’t control.

Think about a man who saves another from drowning and the man he saves then goesand kills his family. If we were just looking at the consequences – the first man couldbe said to have done something wrong, not right.

STUDENT INFORMATION

Even I can’t predict theconsequences of everyaction!

KANT WROTE‘Groundwork of theMetaphysic of Morals’


Kantian Ethics

If consequences don’t count what does?

We have already established that for Kant, the only way to decide what is right is tolook at why you are doing it. Kant says that the only reason which counts as a moralone is to act out of duty.

What does this mean? What is it to act out of duty?

Acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the right thing to do,not from any other motive.

Why Duty?If you were thinking about the right reasons for people doing something, duty isprobably the last thing you would come up with. You might suggest that it wasmorally right to do something out of kindness or compassion but Kant doesn’t agree.We need to find out why.

Think about the different natures people have. Some people are kind by nature; theyenjoy helping people and get pleasure from it. Other people find it harder to be kind.It follows then that if what was right and wrong was decided by looking at whetherpeople acted out of kindness, some people would find it much easier than otherswould. They would be more inclined to be kind. This means that being moral wouldbe a lot easier for some.

I love helpingpeople. I’mlucky…

What about acting out of courage,or out of kindness, do these havenothing to do with morality?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Kantian Ethics

Duty versus Inclination

Kant thinks that duty is all-important because acting out of duty is totally under ourcontrol. The nature that we have is out of our control. It is luck whether or not we arenaturally kind. Like the consequences of an act being out of our control, it hardlyseems fair to decide whether someone is acting in the right way by looking at thingsthey can’t control.

Yes - it will sometimes be hard to tell just from looking at what people do to tell whattheir true motive is. Kant also points out that some acts fit with duty and self-interesttoo

There is more that we need to find out about our duty.Remember we said acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is theright thing to do, not from any other motive.

But what is the right thing to do?Kant believes that there are underlying principles which make us act in certain ways.These general rules are called maxims and there are maxims for morality.

We can tell what are moral laws (maxims) by looking at something Kant calls

The Categorical Imperative

“ it certainly accords with duty that a grocer should not overchargehis inexperienced customer.. but this is not nearly enough to justifyus in believing that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty..his interests required him to do so.”

Won’t some acts fit in with beingkind and acting out of duty?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Kantian EthicsWhat is a Categorical Imperative?A categorical imperative is a command, like ‘Go to your class’ or ‘Keep yourpromises’. This command applies unconditionally.There are commands, which are hypothetical imperatives. These have conditionsattached to them like ‘ Go to your class if you want to learn’ or ‘Keep your promisesif you want people to respect you’.

For morality, Kant says there is one Categorical Imperative. There are 2 main ways inwhich the categorical imperative is stated.

Universal Moral law

The idea here is that you should only do things, which it would make, sense to applyto everyone. You should only do things that you would make a moral law foreveryone. Kant uses the example of making promises. If you make promises youdon’t intend to keep this might be convenient for you sometimes but it would notmake sense to make this a universal moral law. It would not be good if everyonebroke their promises when it suited them. If everyone broke their promises when itsuited them then people would stop trusting each other when they made promises.

The idea that the universal law has got to make sense is very important. Kant doesnot use the word ‘want’ in the quote above; he uses the word ‘will’. This means thatyou rationally intend that it happen. It means that you have thought it through andit makes sense. If you think back to Kant’s reasons for duty as the only proper motive- he wanted to make sure that everyone had the choice to be moral – that they were incontrol of what they did.

“Act only on that maximwhich you can at the sametime will that it shouldbecome a universal law.”

“Act in such a waythat you always treathumanity… neversimply as a means, butalways at the sametime as an end."

What kinds of thingswould it make sense tohave as universal laws?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Kantian Ethics

Treating People as ends not means

The idea here is that you should not use people to suit your own purposes. You shouldmake sure that you are treating them as individuals who have their own lives to leadand deserve respect.

Again Kant’s idea about people all having the chance to choose to be moral, to be incontrol, comes in here. If people are being used then you are not giving them thechance to be in control. You are not giving them the chance to act like rational beings.

Think about the little white lieswe tell people so we don’t hurttheir feelings – ‘No your bumdoesn’t look big in that’. Kantthinks this is wrong because it isnot treating people as valuableindividuals, but is it?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Kantian Ethics

!"#!$%"&'!(")*+"&!,(-

."/%"0*12(%

3"4%5%,6")*+78%15".+(",%9%7

8(!7("('%"52:'(-

6";2%"&'%,"2("8+2(8")*+

%"<29%"!11")*+"'!9%"(*"('%"0**7

5"=%9%7"12%

:">1&!)8"$%%0")*+7"07*?28%8

STUDENT TASK


Kantian Ethics

Think about what Kant believed about what doing your duty involved.Where would Kant say your duty lies in the following cases?

John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his waterand his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looksvery weak.Should John drink the water or give it to his friend?

A plane has crashed in the mountains with 26 survivors and 14dead. The rescue attempt will take days. Food is running out. Dothe survivors have a duty to eat the flesh of the dead so thatthey stay alive?

A group of 50 cancer patients are in a 6 month long drugsexperiment. 25 are given a new drug and 25 are givenvitamins. The patients don’t know which they are beinggiven. After 3 months there is a dramatic improvement inthose taking the new drugs but the doctor has to keep theexperiment going for 6 months for any drugs company toaccept the new drug.

Does the doctor have a duty to give the 25 patients onvitamins the new drugs or should he keep the experimentgoing?

STUDENT TASK


Kantian Ethics

Look at these cases. Think about what youwould do.

1. You are a teacher who has taken a group of children to thetheatre. You sit upstairs. In the middle of the show, you smellsmoke and someone shouts ‘Fire’. When you and the children getto the fire exit, you discover it is made of glass and can only beopened from the outside.There is a man standing in front of it, frozen in panic.It flashes into your mind that you could use the man to smash theglass and get out. This would save all the children.Should you use the man as a sort of battering ram?

2. You are part of the government of a country at war. You havemanaged to strike a deal that will end the war but it involves allprisoners of war being killed. If you do not agree to this, the warwill continue.Should you sign the deal?

Think about what a Kantian might recommendWhat reasons would they give?

STUDENT TASK


Kantian Ethics

So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide whatis right and wrong?


Strengths

STUDENT INFORMATION

No problem of consequences – You do not have to worryabout how to predict the consequences of actions, aboutconsequences, which you can’t foresee.

Motives matter – Think about the difference between theperson who makes promises because they are convenient andthe person who promises because the person wants to keepthem. We prefer the latter person.

We should act out of duty not just do what we want –Making duty the important thing stops people assuming thatwhat they want is the best thing to do.

Justice matters – We cannot treat people badly in order tobring about better consequences. There are things you can’t dono matter what. Everyone has rights and has to be treated withrespect. This theory is universal and impartial.


Kantian Ethics

So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide whatis right and wrong?


WeaknessesAre consequences totally irrelevant? – Is obeying the rule ‘NeverKill’ what we should do even if we know killing one person will savemillions of people?How can we tell what people’s motives are? –People can act in thesame way for many different reasons. One shopkeeper might behonest to help his business, another might do it because he wantsto help people, and another might do it for both these reasons.

Is duty the only correct motive? – People save lives because theyare brave or because they are compassionate. Kant says that thesemotives don’t matter for morality but in real life people find theseemotions very important. You can’t totally ignore human emotionsor it will make morality inhuman.

What happens when duties conflict? - How do we decidebetween 2 acts which count as moral or when we only have achoice between 2 immoral acts? What happens if we act to do ourduty but this will break another duty that we have e.g. if it is alwayswrong to break promises and always wrong to lie, what happens if Ihave to lie to keep a promise?

Some immoral acts are OK under Kant’s theory – Telling acontract killer where his victim was would fit with the universal lawalways to tell the truth.

STUDENT INFORMATION


The twentieth century has seen the largest and bloodiest wars in history.Since 1945 there have been hundreds of wars all over the world. It isestimated that nearly 30 million people have been killed using‘conventional’ (non-nuclear) weapons.

The average death toll from armed conflict is put at between 33,000 and41,000 a month from 1945.

Is killing in war any different to other types of killing? Some people think that itis less morally wrong to kill in war – because you might be fighting for yourcountry, or you might be fighting an aggressor. Some people think it is moremorally wrong to kill in war because of the sheer number of deaths involved.

Questions to think about….

• Do you think war can be justified? If so when?• Would you be prepared to fight for your country?• What questions (if any) would you ask before you would fight?• In what circumstances (if any) would you be prepared to die for your

beliefs – in a war against another country, in a war within your owncountry, in a revolution?

STUDENT INFORMATION

‘If you are a soldier, you haveto control your fear. You haveto try not to think about thedeaths. You just think aboutdoing your job.’


War can be defined as:

‘Armed conflict between 2 or more groups or countries’

This definition covers many different types of war. There are world wars andlocal wars, conventional wars and nuclear wars; there are civil wars andreligious wars, to name but a few.

Even if you concentrate on a ‘simple’ case of ‘conventional’ war between2 countries, there are different moral issues to think about.e.g.

i) Is the government justified in committing the country to war?ii) Once the war has started should you participate?iii) Questions about the possible use of chemical, biological and

nuclear weapons.

When talking about war you must note that there arethese different types of war. You must be clear aboutwhat kind of war you are discussing.

How would you feel if you werecalled up to fight in a war

a) You thought was justb) You thought was unjust

STUDENT INFORMATION


For a Utilitarian to decide whetherwar is right or wrong, they have to look atwhether it will fit in with the Greatest HappinessPrinciple.

Utilitarians will only be for war if it will increase the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The greatest happiness principle and the issue of warLook back at your notes on the ideas that underlie Utilitarianism.

• Utilitarians will look at both short and long term effects of a war. They willconsider things like the pain and deaths, loss of relatives, the misery of beinginvaded, future freedom and peace. Everything depends on whether the benefitwill outweigh the pain of those killed, injured and bereaved.

Underlying Idea = Consequentialism

• Utilitarians will look at the pain, which will be brought about by a war. Theywill try to calculate whether the actions of war will bring about more of anabsence of pain than not going to war would.

Underlying idea = Hedonism

• Utiltarians will not see the killing of ‘innocent’ men, women and children asany worse than the killing of soldiers. The term ‘innocent’ in war is usuallyapplied to civilians. It would only be worse in Utilitarian terms if theconsequences were worse. This might well happen because the killing of childrenetc might decrease the morale of the soldiers fighting.

Underlying Idea = Equity

STUDENT INFORMATION

Could Rule Utilitarians thinka rule against war wasjustified?


Nuclear War

Although a Utilitarian has toconsider the effects of war before condemning war,we can say that they would be against nuclear war.

Why? - The use of nuclear weapons would inflict pain out of all proportion tothe military, political, social advantages to be gained by its use. We now haveenough weapons to destroy all life on earth and obviously this would not fitwith the greatest happiness principle. Even if, however, the nuclear war wasnot on such a global scale, the terrible effects of even one nuclear bomb willalways far outweigh the benefits.

Using nuclear weapons as a deterrentWhat does this mean? - This is the idea that if one country has the samenumber or more weapons than another country, this will frighten the othercountry enough to stop them attacking first.

The MAD system - We have a system where we can detect a nuclear attackbut cannot stop it. All we can do is attack back and ‘achieve’ Mutually AssuredDestruction.

• Utilitarians would be against having a nucleardeterrent.Michael Palmer says that Utilitarians would condemnusing nuclear weapons as a threat for other countriesbecause in order for the threat to work, there has to bea real possibility of using them. Utilitarians, aspointed out above, would not agree with their use.

STUDENT INFORMATION


BENEFITS

Common feeling. Looks to the shortand long term consequences of goingto war and will onlyagree with war if the consequenceswill create greater happiness. Peopleusually only go war tocreate better circumstances.

Rules. Once committed to war,Utilitarianism allows for rules of war having to be obeyed.Although Utilitarianism involveslooking at caseson their merits, its concern withconsequences will not allow killingthat is disproportionate to the benefitsit will bring.The rules that Utilitarians will alloware also rules that will make sense to alot of people.

This is what RB Brandt says in‘Utilitarianism and the Rules of War’.He says that“people both impartial and rationalwouldchoose rules of war that wouldmaximise expectable utility”.

PROBLEMS

Calculating Consequences . it is verydifficult to tell exactly what theconsequences of war will be. Did theyforesee the atomic bomb being used inWorld War 2? Would not going to warreally be worse? Often the true results arenot known till years later.It is also very demanding in the sense thatconsequences have to be continuallymonitored in what is an ever changingsituation with new decisions having to bemade all the time – should ground troopsgo in? Should we use one nuclear bomb?Will this lead to retaliation?

What should the rules of war be? It iseasy to have humanitarian rules whichdon’t stop your military campaign e.g.don’t bomb hospitals, but it is harder forUtilitarians to make rules which do stopsome military actions. Again weighing upthe possible consequences is thedifficulty here.J Glover point this out in ‘Causing Deathand Saving Lives’Breaking the Rules. There will be somecases however rare, where breaking therules would suit Utilitarian principlesbetter than not breaking them and thismight allow acts people see as immoral –e.g. killing children.Rule Utilitarians could avoid thiscriticism with the idea that it willalways be better overall to keep rulesof war even if in individual cases theyshould sometimes be broken.

STUDENT INFORMATION


For Kantians to decidewhether war is right or wrong, theyhave to look at whether it will fit in with theCategorical Imperative.

On the whole, war does not seem to fit in with the 2 different forms of theCategorical Imperative, so the Kantian will probably be against it.

The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of warLook back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Why might war contradict theImperative?

• Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can beuniversalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.

Going to war cannot be a universal moral law because thousands, if notmillions of innocent people would die.

• Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations whichare moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They haveto be respected and valued.

Going to war does not treat people as ends because their country could beusing soldiers as a means to win the war.

Nuclear WarAs Michael Palmer points out in ‘Moral Problems’,the possible non-combatant casualties of a nuclear war could run into millions. Thisinvolves the death of innocent people and the Kantian principles above are againstthat. The Kantian would therefore be against nuclear war.

STUDENT INFORMATION


STUDENT INFORMATION

BENEFITS

Common feeling. The Kantian idea thatwe should never kill innocents fits wellwith the common idea that no matterwhat there are certain people whohave to be protected and certain thingswe should never resort to.T. Nagel in ‘ War and Massacre’ prefersthe idea of never killing innocentsbecause it is always morally wrongrather than because it has badconsequences, as a Utilitarian mightsay.

Rules. Once committed to war Kantianethics Provides clear and unbreakablerules.They fit in with the traditionalrules of war: that killing should be formilitary objectives and notdisproportionate to the aim. Intentionalkilling of innocents is not allowedeither. These rules are not subject toconsequences like Utilitarian rulesmight be.

PROBLEMS

What counts as innocence? In war it isoften said to mean ‘currently harmless’but in modern warfare it is hard todecide whom this includes. What aboutthe mechanics who service thetechnological weapons? What about thefactory workers who produce them?What about the people who support thegovernment who declared war - are theytruly ‘innocent’? What about childsoldiers?

Breaking the Rules. Never breaking therules might allow atrocities which arefar worse than breaking them.T. Nagel points this out in ‘War andMassacre’.

Conflict of Duties. The CI gives noguidance about what to do when wehave to choose between 2 immoral actsand this might be a common scenario inwar e.g. killing an enemy soldier who isabout to find a group of hiding children.This is a conflict between the duty of notkilling and protecting the innocent.


Why Punish? Reasons from the Past.

Primitive Society: Crime was an insult to the Gods andthe Gods had to see that it was being dealt with.Social solidarity: Some people think that punishingcrime brought society together.To keep the poor down: Some people thoughtpunishment was imposed by the ruling classes to make sure they kept their privileges.

STUDENT INFORMATION


COMMON PUNISHMENTS CRIMES

STUDENT TASK


The Aims of Punishment

Read the 5 main aims below and then look back at the punishments yourecommended for different crimes. Which aims are covered by eachpunishment?

PROTECTION: To protect society from someone’s anti–social behaviour.

RETRIBUTION: If someone does something wrong then theyshould receive a punishment which fits the crime.

DETERRENCE: Seeing that people are punished from crimes willput other people off committing a similar crime. It will also(hopefully) stop the criminal doing it again.

REFORM: The punishments should be of a kind that will makethe criminals become responsible citizens.

VINDICATION: Punishment must be given when people breakthe law so that the law will be respected.

STUDENT INFORMATION


The Ultimate Punishment

A just society is recognised by mostpeople as one that gives its citizensthe right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. It has also beenaccepted for centuries that those individuals who violate this right must paythe ultimate penalty.

• Society must protect civilians and those who fight crime, from people whocan’t control their violent impulses.

• Anyone who has taken a life deserves to have his or her life taken. This isjustice.

• The death penalty is the only sort of deterrent that some criminals willunderstand.

• Some criminals much prefer to be executed than to spend the rest of theirlives in jail.

• There have been miscarriages of justice. Innocent people have beenhanged.

• The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Murders are stillcommitted in places with the death penalty.

• It is a violation of the sanctity of life, which the state is supposed to protect.• It could make convicted terrorists into martyrs.

STUDENT INFORMATION

Is it morallyright for me tosentencesomeone to

Arguments for Capital Punishment

Arguments against Capital Punishment


STUDENT TASK

Read the following quotes aboutcrime and punishment. What doyou think? Why?Have your say but beprepared to justify youranswers!

How can the law be fair? How doyou fine a person who can earnmore in a week than the averageguy earns in a whole year?

“Prisons are academies wherethe apprentice criminals canlearn their trade” (Former Home

Secretary.Douglas Hurd.)

(Punishment) – the methods used onlycreate more problems, more suffering,more distrust, more resentment, moredivision. The result is not good foranyone.

The DalaiLama.


The Utilitarian theory of punishment favours the idea of deterrence.This is the idea that punishing the criminal will send a message to thosewho are thinking about committing a crime, a message that committingthe crime would be a bad idea. Punishing a criminal will hopefully detercriminals from committing crimes.This theory has two parts to it:1. SPECIFIC - To prevent the actual criminal who is being punished from

committing crimes again.2. GENERAL - As a warning to potential criminals.

In ‘An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation’ Bentham talksabout punishment. He says ….

The idea of deterrence is not the only aim of punishment which fits in withUtilitarianism. Joseph Grcic points out that Utilitarians believe that punishments likeprison sentences should be an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate the criminal sothat he/she can contribute to society (Reform). .James P. Sterba says thatUtilitarianism also fits in with the idea that we have to protect society from anti socialbehaviour (Protection) and that we have to use punishment as a way to make sure thatthe law will be respected (Vindication).

STUDENT INFORMATION

If it ought at all to be admitted,it ought to be admitted in as faras it promises to exclude somegreater evil.

Hopefully thispunishmentwill preventothers fromtrying it…


Where does the Utilitarian view come from?

The Greatest Happiness PrincipleFor Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the

greatest number of people.* Remember that happiness for the Utilitarian is pleasure and the absence of pain.* Remember that the results of any action have to be good and Utilitarians decideabout this by looking at the 3 underlying ideas of the GHP

• CONSEQUENCES: Decide whether an action is good or bad by looking at theconsequences. If you punish criminals are the consequences likely to be good?The pain of actual punishment, that fact that it deters them and others, keepssociety safe, makes sure the law is respected.

• HEDONISM: The idea that pleasure is the only inherently good thing and painthe only bad thing. Will punishment result in more happiness and less pain? Youhave to look at the pain of the criminal versus the happiness of society. Whenthey are protected from criminals will the crime rate go down because people aredeterred from committing crimes?

• EQUITY: The pleasure and pain for everyone is equally important. Look at theeffect on those involved in the specific crimes the criminal, the victim/ theirfamily.

This explains the Utilitarian view of what the limits of punishment should be but itdoesn’t explain why they think punishment is a good idea in the first place.

Remember that Utilitarians have to look at a wide range of consequences to decidewhat to do and they argue that the good consequences of punishment will outweighthe bad. Punishment itself is not a good thing, it is only good for the consequences itbrings. It is a necessary evil.

Punishment in itself seems tobe evil – it increases pain.How can this be justified?

STUDENT INFORMATION


Capital Punishment FOR or AGAINST?

Looking at the consequences of capital punishment, there are differentpossibilities for Utilitarians.

Jonathan Glover points out that some of the possible bad consequenceshave to be taken into account. The number of lives saved through deterringothers might not be more than the number of executions. Consider the pain ofthe criminal waiting to be executed, their family who know their loved one willbe killed versus the family of the victim who only had to find out later. There isthe possibility of executing an innocent person, the fact that this might lowerthe value we put on human life.

J S Mill argued for Capital Punishment in a speech to Parliament in 1868. Thespeech was entitled ‘In Favour of Capital Punishment’ and the main pointswere

• It should only be for those who will not be reformed by any otherpunishment.

• It is more humane to the prisoner – they suffer and lose all hope in prisonand this doesn’t even deter others.

• Capital Punishment will not deter hardened criminals but it might deterothers.

• We will not devalue human life by executing people – we devalue life byinflicting suffering through prison which does not deter others properly andwill not reform some criminals.

• An innocent person being executed is rare and the threat of the deathpenalty will make the courts even stricter about the evidence they need.

STUDENT INFORMATION


A Satisfactory view?

STRENGTHSFits in with common feelings.The idea that we have to look atwhat will be best for everyone aftersomething horrible like a crime fitsin with what people want. Mostpeople want something good tocome from bad situations.Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Deathand Saving Lives’ says thatpunishment has to be more than justpointless suffering, it has to be tryingto make something positive comeout in the end.

It is a practical theory.There are lots of categories of crimesand within each category there arelots of different circumstances.Utilitarianism allows thesecircumstances to be reflected in thepunishment. Punishment does nothave to be given just because a crimewas committed. In some cases, itmight be better not to punishsomeone e.g. in the case of theabused wife who uses violence.

Utilitarianism also recognises thatcriminals cannot all just be got ridof. We can’t lock them all up andthrow away the key. Criminals docome back into society and it makessense to try and make sure that theybecome better people when they do.Utilitarianism recognises this bysupporting the idea of reform.

WEAKNESSESSeems to allow for punishingthe innocent.Utilitarians say that punishment ischiefly to deter others and theyfocus totally on the consequencesto see whether an act is good.This seems to make it possiblethat there could be a situationwhere the best consequences willcome from punishing someonewho is innocent.John Rawls criticisesUtilitarianism because it couldjustify punishing the innocent.

Punishment could be veryharsh or very light; it alldepends on the consequences.Because the whole aim ofpunishment looks to theconsequences, sentences coulddiffer widely in each case if thatwas what the circumstancesrequired. If punishing someonereally harshly would set anexample and really deter othersthen a Utilitarian may have toallow this e.g. really long jailterm for not paying for a parkingspace. Or if punishing someonedoes not seem to benefit society,should criminals get away with ite.g. not paying for a parkingspace. This doesn’t seem fair.

STUDENT INFORMATION


Kant’s theory of punishment is retributive. This is the idea that the criminal has taken something unfairly from society and justicedemands that they should suffer for it. This kind of theory seescriminals as parasites on society – who want to share in the good thingsof society but are not willing to abide by the rules we need to keep society going.

This theory says that the only reason necessary for punishment is that the personactually committed the crime. It also says that the punishment should fit the crime. (Itshould be an eye for an eye, not two eyes and an arm!).

In ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ Kant talks about punishment. He says ….

From the quote you can see that Kant is FOR capital punishment . He believed thatcriminals were only to be punished because they deserved it, If you killed, youdeserve to be killed. It also meant that he thought every sentence of capitalpunishment had to be carried out for justice to be done. Kant gives an example of anisland community which has decided to split up and go and live elsewhere. Kant saidthat before they left, it was their duty to execute every last murderer.

STUDENT INFORMATION

When someone who delights in annoying and vexingpeace loving folk receives at last a right good beating,it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it andconsiders it as a good in itself, even if nothing furtherresults from it.

If you strike anotheryou strike yourself; ifyou kill another youkill yourself.


Where does Kant’s view come from?

The second part of the Categorical Imperative:Treat people as ends not means

* Remember Kant believed that humans have an intrinsic worth. Remember also thathe believed this because he thought that we were rational beings – beings that couldmake our own decisions by using our reason.

• If you put criminals in prison for the good of society - you are, according to Kant,using them as a means to an end, you are using them being in prison as a way tomake society safer.

• Trying to rehabilitate and reform criminals is also treating them as means ratherthan as ends in themselves because you are not letting these people be their trueselves. You are trying to mould them into the way society wants them to be.

This explains Kant’s view of what the limits of punishment should be but it doesn’texplain why he thinks any kind of punishment is a good idea in the first place .

Remember what we said above that, for Kant, to treat someone as a means rather thanas an end is to treat them as a rational being. This means treating them as people whoare responsible for their own actions.If you are responsible for your actions, you can be held accountable for them – youcan be praised or blamed for them.Punishment is the way to make sure people are held accountable for their actions.

How is punishingsomeonerespecting them aspeople?

How can executingpeople be treatingthem with respect?

Karl Marx liked Kant’s ideas. He said ‘ There is only one theory ofpunishment which is compatible with human dignity and that is thetheory of Kant’ (1853)

STUDENT INFORMATION


A Satisfactory view?

STUDENT INFORMATION

STRENGTHSFits in with common feelings ofwhat justice isThe idea that criminals DESERVEto be punished and that only peoplewho have actually committed crimesshould be punished, fits in with howpeople feel.It is common to hear victims ofcrime saying things like ‘ They onlygot what they deserved’ when theyhear the punishment given to thecriminal.Also people do not like to hear ofpeople being in prison for thingsthey didn’t do. If they didn’t mindthis, we would not need the hugeamount of evidence to convictpeople which we need now.James Rachels in ‘MoralPhilosophy’ says that Kant has aview of punishment which is a verycommon view.

Gives people responsibility fortheir actions.On the whole people believe thatyou can and do control your actions.Kant’s ideas about punishment treatspeople with respect by recognisingthat they are in control of what theydo. If they want to say they are incontrol of what they do, they have totake responsibility for what they do.This is why criminals deserve to bepunished.Karl Marx (in notes on Kant andPunishment) says Kant treats people

WEAKNESSESIt is a very Harsh Theory to follow.The ideas that we only need to payattention to the fact criminalsDESERVE to be punished means thatthere are no exceptions to the rule.We see this in Kant’s island examplewhere all the criminals on death rowhave to be executed before thecommunity splits up. Even an 80 yearold dying of cancer anyway would haveto be executed.It also means that mitigatingcircumstances cannot be taken intoaccount either. If a wife kills after shehas been subject to years of abuse forexample, this does not matter, she hasstill killed. John Rawls says that Kant'stheory may allow too much punishmentbeing given out.

Doesn’t look to what will happen inthe future.This theory looks backward and onlyconsiders the act and what punishmentfits with the crime. Kant’s theory doesnot take account of what will happen inthe future. He does not take account ofthe consequences of the punishment - itdoes not matter whether it deterscriminals or not, it does not matterwhether it will actually help a criminalreform himself or whether it willdamage a criminal and lead him or herto commit worse crimes.


Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics

‘Woe to him who creeps through theserpent windings of Utilitarianism todiscover some advantage that maydischarge him from the justice ofpunishment’

STUDENT INFORMATION


Euthanasia comes from the Greek eu = well, thanatos = death and isusually used as a term meaning bringing about a death which is for the goodof the person dying.

Euthanasia has become a bigger and bigger current moral issue thanks toadvances in medical technology. People are living longer and they can bekept alive for longer too. They are also, in some cases, suffering for longer. Itis now possible to keep people alive when, in the past they would have died.

This has raised moral questions about whether we should keep people aliveas far as technology will let us? People also ask whether we should helppeople who want to end their lives but are too frail to do so?

The questions often arise when talking about the very old, terminally ill, inincurable pain. But these are not the only possible cases.

Before we can talk about the morality of euthanasia we need to look at thedifferent types of euthanasia.

Euthanasia or mercy killingis the dilemma of thedecade.

If dying people experience muchphysical distress, have nocompanionship, feel nounderstanding, there will be quite afew who will ask for voluntaryeuthanasia.

E. Udall The Independent 7/12/94

John Hinton, Professor of Psychiatry,Middlesex Hospital

Typical of philosophy,we’ve only just startedand already it’s gettingcomplicated!

STUDENT INFORMATION


VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

• Euthanasia is performed becausethe dying person has asked for it.

NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

• Euthanasia is carried out whenthe views of the dying personcan’t be known.

INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

• This contrasts with voluntary andis where the person dying isunwilling or not asked for anopinion, even though they couldgive one.

PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

• Withholding or withdrawingtreatment needed to keep theperson alive E.g. switching off alife support machine.

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA

• Something is done to actuallycause death e.g. giving a lethalinjection.

• A young girl has cancer.Doctors give her a drug thatwill kill her.

• A patient with cancer asks hisdoctor to give him pills, whichwill end his life.

• A teenage boy in a coma afteran accident is being kept aliveon a life support machine,which is switched off.

• An 80-year-old man is givenan overdose of sleeping pillsin his tea. These kill him.

• Doctors give pain-killing drugsto a man dying from cancerbut they stop all othertreatment.

STUDENT TASK


DISCUSS

It is possible to mix the methods of euthanasia. Active and passive euthanasia canbe combined with voluntary, non- – voluntary and involuntary. Possible mixes arepassive voluntary, Active voluntary, passive non-voluntary, active non-voluntary, passive involuntary, active involuntary.Try and think of you own examples for the differentcombinations.

It is hard sometimes to tell thedifference between active andpassive euthanasia. Is switching alife support machine off, doingnothing to prevent death (passive)or actively causing death(active)?

Some people argue that involuntaryeuthanasia is just like murder andshouldn’t be called euthanasia atall. Can you think of exampleswhere people are killed againsttheir will but for their own ‘good’?

STUDENT TASK


1.Read and discuss the case of Jim.

2. Let everyone in your group say whether they think euthanasia isthe right thing to happen and what their reasons are.Then, as agroup, rank the reasons in order.1 would be the statement thegroup agrees with most down to the one that the group agrees withleast. Give reasons for your order. * The person who gave theargument can expand on what they said to try and make their casemore convincing*

STUDENT INFORMATION

NOTEThis exercise will help you think about how good thearguments for and against euthanasia are.


Jim’s Story

• Jim’s story is taken from ‘The Right to Die’ by D. Humphry and A. WickettThe Bodley Head Ltd (London 1986)

Jim was lying in a hospital bed,suffering from Alzheimer’sdisease. His brain cells had seriouslydeteriorated and he was unable to speakor care for himself. He was being kept alive by food andwater being fed through a tube into his nose and stomach.Jim was a retired army officer who had fought in the SecondWorld War. He was now 75 and his family accepted that hisdeath was only a matter of time.

Jim had contracted Alzheimer’s not long after he had retiredand he knew that it would cause helplessness and eventually hisdeath. Well before it got to this stage, Jim had written a letter tohis doctor saying that he wanted the doctor to put him to sleepforever, if he got to a stage of total helplessness and dependenceon others.

Given the legal position, however, the doctor could not carry thisout.

Jim’s younger brother, Sam, another retired army officer visitedregularly. There was only 3 years age difference and thebrothers had always been very close. One day Jim, was verydistressed and kept making mouth movements as if he wastrying to say something. A few minutes later, Sam went to his carand came back with his pistol. When Jim saw this, he nodded.Sam fired 3 shots through his brother’s head and another intohis stomach. Calmly he put the gun down and waited for thepolice to arrive.

STUDENT INFORMATION


For the Utilitarians to decide whether euthanasia is right orwrong, they have to look at whether it will fit in with theGreatest Happiness Principle.Utilitarians will only support euthanasia if it will increase thegreatest happiness for the greatest number.

The greatest happiness principle and the issue ofeuthanasiaLook back at your notes on the Greatest Happiness Principle.The following ideas might influence a Utilitarian’s view.

• Utilitarians will look at the short term and long term consequences ofallowing euthanasia.

James Rachels says that killing a hopelessly ill patient who is ingreat pain, at his or her own request would decrease misery. Hesays this would give the patient relief from pain and dignity intheir final days. He calls this argument the argument frommercy.

Jonathan Glover points out possible bad consequences.It could lead to a situation where patients feel under pressurenot to be a burden and ask for euthanasia even if they actuallywant to live. It could also mean that care for the dying goesdownhill.

Rule Utilitarians would look for rules to cover euthanasia as a whole.This is not easy to do – the cases of euthanasia vary enormously.

STUDENT INFORMATION


A satisfactory view?

STUDENT INFORMATION

STRENGTHSFits in with common feelings.Having to judge whether euthanasiawill bring about the greatest happinessfor the greatest number seems rightbecause the whole point of allowingeuthanasia is to bring about relieffrom misery. Looking at whethereuthanasia fits with the GHP seems agood way to judge.James Rachels in his article ‘TheMorality of Euthanasia’ says that theutilitarian argument which supportseuthanasia is a common one. The ideathat we should be bringing about relieffrom pain is agreed by a lot of people.

Is a practical theory.There are lots of differentcircumstances where euthanasia mightbe considered. Utilitarianism allowsthese circumstances to be a part of thediscussion when they are consideringwhether it is right or not.Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Deathand Saving Lives’ says that theUtilitarian view of euthanasia allowsthe short and long term consequencesto be considered and acknowledgesthat there are possible badconsequences e.g. where patients feelunder pressure not to be a burden andask for euthanasia.

WEAKNESSESSeems to allow for euthanasia evenif the patient does not want it.Utilitarians say that we can alloweuthanasia for someone in great painbecause it would reduce the amountof pain in the world. But what if thepatient does not actually want to beput out of their misery?A Utilitarian could counter thisobjection by saying, overall thateuthanasia in this case would notbring about the best consequences.

It is not such a practical theory:Difficult to work outconsequences.Because the cases of euthanasiadiffer so greatly and the possibleconsequences are so wide it is hardto work out what will bring about theGHP. This is a problem withUtilitarianism in general but isespecially important when talkingabout euthanasia because you haveto spend time thinking aboutconsequences for the patient, family,doctors, society etc but the personwho is affected the most (the patient)is only counted equally with the rest.Surely the patient’s wishes should bemore important?


For Kantians to decide whether euthanasia is right or wrong, they have to lookat whether it will fit in with the Categorical Imperative. They can also look atwhat Kant says about suicide because this is something he talks specificallyabout.

Kant believes suicide does not fit in with the first form of the Categorical Imperative.Euthanasia also seems to go against the second formulation so the Kantian willprobably be against it.

NOTE: There are problems with whether Kant’s arguments work but we will dealwith that later.

The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of Euthanasia –Arguments AGAINST Euthanasia

Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative.Euthansia is supposed to contradict the Imperative in the following ways.


Committing suicide goes against the universal moral law of acting out of themaxim of self-love. Kant believed that to say ‘I’ll kill myself because to keepgoing would bring more evil than good is self-contradictory. To show youlove yourself, you have to try and improve your life.

• Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations whichare moral are those which allows people to act as rational human beings. Theyhave to be respected and valued.

It is our duty not to kill people because this does not show respect towardsanother person.

But also see Kantian Ethics – Arguments FOR Euthanasia

STUDENT INFORMATION


Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Euthansia can actually fit inwith the Imperative in the following ways.


Committing suicide could be said to fit in with the universal moral law ofacting out of the maxim of self-love. To show love for yourself, might it notmake sense to shorten a totally unbearable life?

• Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations whichare moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They haveto be respected and valued.

It is our duty not to kill people because this does not show respect towardsanother person. But what about respecting someone who wishes to die?Wouldn’t going along with their wishes show that we value them asindividuals who can make their own choices?

STUDENT INFORMATION


A satisfactory view?

STUDENT INFORMATION

STRENGTHS

Common feeling. The Kantian idea thatwe should never kill innocents fits wellwith the common idea that no matterwhat there are certainacts which are always wrong.

Gives clear Guidelines.Seems to give a definite answer to amoral problem which is very complexand varies widely from case to case.There are also reasons to back this pointof view (followingour duty and obeying the categoricalimperative).This is helpful for people trying to decideon what is a difficult moral issue.

WEAKNESSES

Ignores the relevance of consequences.For the Kantian, consequences are notmorally important. In cases of euthanasia,however, it seems to be that we should belooking at the consequences. Euthanasia isdealing with people often in pain andagony and it is often the idea that they willbe put out of their misery which makespeople believe that euthanasia is the rightthing. This is an appeal to theconsequences.

Kant’s own arguments don’t work welland seem to allow for euthanasia.When talking about suicide, he says it doesnot make sense to make it a universalmoral law be cause it is self-contradictory.Kant says you would be doing it out ofself-love and self-love involves trying toimprove life. To apply this to euthanasia,you could say love of others involves youtrying to improve their life.Euthanasia also seems to fit in with thesecond formulation of the CI – treat othersas rational autonomous beings. If you weregiven the choice of dying in no pain at 80or in agony at 80, in a few days mostwould choose the second idea and thiscould involve euthanasia. Being able tochoose this would fit with the second formof the CI.James Rachels points out that thoughKantians are opposed to euthanasia, theCategorical Imperative seems to sanctionit.


Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Philosophy · Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and...

Documents