Download Lecture

EVIL IS STILL A PROBLEM!!!
ETHICS SLIDES
© Robert Barnard 2006
Ethics and Morality
• Morality – from the Latin (mores) for conduct
-Right vs. Wrong
-Focuses on acts
• Ethics – from the Greek (ethos) for character
-Good vs. Bad
-Virtue vs. Vice
-Focuses on states of affairs or persons
Moral Intuitions vs. Moral Principles
Moral Theories try to bring our moral principles into
line with our intuitions.
Moral intuitions are our immediate intuitions
about the moral status of something
Moral principles are the rules established by the
moral theory.
Moral Theories (have parts)
Theory of Value
Theory of Moral Value
Theory of non-Moral Value
Theory of Right Conduct
Inter-definability…
Deontic Status of an Action
RIGHT
WRONG
OBLIGATORY PERMISSIBLE
FORBIDDEN
Interdefinability…
Divine Command Theory
A useful theory to start with….
DCT = An action A is morally wrong iff God
commands not-A; an action A is morally
right if God commands A or if God permits
A
• Theory of Right Conduct
• Theory of Value
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Assume that A is good just in case God
commands A
Why does God command A?
Does (i) God command A because A is
Good? Or (ii) Is A good because God
commands A?
Euthyphro Dilemma (2)
If (i) God commands A because A is
Good, then God is not the explanation
for why A is Good. DCT fails as an
account of morality.
If (ii) A is good because God commands
A, then either (iia) God has a reason or
(iib) God has nor reason to command
A.
Euthyphro Dilemma (3)
If (iib) then God is not Rational and classical
theism is flawed. [At worst, God’s
commands are arbitrary and morality can
change moment to moment]
If (iia) God is rational, but God’s reason
(e.g. the goodness of A) is the real
explanation. [Thus, back to (i)]
Euthyphro Dilemma (4)
ED is a problem for Classical theists
DCT is motivated by theism
But ED shows that DCT requires either that
a) God is not Rational or b) God not the
source of morality.
Moral Objectivism and Relativism
• Moral Objectivism – The view that there
are universal moral standards that apply in
all cases. [There is a single correct answer
to moral questions]
• Moral Relativism
--Cultural Relativism – moral standards are
relative to ‘culture’.
--Subjectivism – moral standards are
relative to the individual
An Argument for Subjectivism
[S]
1. Morality is supposed to motivate and
guide conduct.
2. I can only be motivated by what is
part of my individual psychology.
3. My subjective moral intuitions are part
of my psychology, moral principles
are not.
-----------------------------------------------4. Therefore, morality is subjective.
Critical Evaluation of [S]
a) Not every motivation is moral. Just
because someone is motivated to do X,
when X is what moral intuitions require,
does not mean that X was motivated by
the moral intuition.
b) Individual intuitions may tend to
converge upon objective moral
principles
Argument for Cultural Relativism
[CR]
1. If there are objective facts about X, then
there should not be persistent
disagreement about X.
2. There is persistent disagreement (as
between cultures) about morality.
-------------------------------------------------3. Therefore, there are no objective moral
facts.
Evaluation of CR (1)
• Same Principle / Different Practices
• Moral Judgments lack significance/moral
Criticism impossible
• Moral Progress becomes difficult
Evaluation of CR (2)
Relativists in Theory are not
relativists in practice.
Even if you think
torture is OK, I
would never
agree that your
view makes it
OK to torture
me.
Objectivist Moral Theories
•
There are three main objectivist moral
theories
1) Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
(Bentham and Mill)
2) Deontological/Non-consequentialist
(Kant)
3) Virtue based ethics
(Aristotle)
Duty Based vs. Outcome Based
Moral Theories
Moral theories are usually divided
according to whether the
theory aims to require a certain
kind of conduct (duty-based) or
to recommend a specified end
or goal (outcome-based).
Outcome-Based Theories
• Teleological Theories
(Telos: Gk. goal, aim, or purpose)
• The Outcome is a state of affairs – the nature of
the good is specified. Duty is then defined
relative to good. This is sometimes called a
consequentialist theory
• The Outcome is a state of character for a
person. Goodness is specified with a certain
way of living a human life. Rightness is a
function of living that life. This is sometimes
called a virtue based theory.
Duty based Theories
• Deontological Theories (Deon: Gk. Duty
or obligation).
• Deontological theories determine duty
(what is required or forbidden of a person)
without regard to the consequences of the
actions or to what sort of person is
involved.
Right vs. Good
A Useful Distinction?
• Consider:
a) She did the right thing for the wrong
reason.
b) He is a good person who did a bad thing.
c) He did the right thing, but the result was
bad.
Consequentialism
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill
THIS IS BENTHAM’S REAL HEAD
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
• The Greatest Happiness Principle:
Humans only act for the sake of
pleasure and to avoid pain. The good
is pleasure.
• The Hedonic Calculus – calculate utility of
each possible action
HEDONISM
• Both Bentham and Mill are “Hedonistic
Utilitarians”
• Hedonism has two versions that we must
attend to:
Psychological Hedonism – The claim that
human action is motivated by
pleasure/pain.
Ethical Hedonism – The claim that pleasure
is good and pain is bad/evil.
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity (The relative strength of the
sensation)
2. Duration (how long it lasts)
3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the
sensation is to follow the act)
4. Propinquity or remoteness (how immediate is
the sensation)
5. Fecundity (likelihood of producing further utility
effects)
6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or is it
mixed?)
7. Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY
POINT, NOT JUST YOU]
Bentham’s Moral Theory
Bentham’s Theory of Value: The good is
pleasure. Each action has an objective
value determined by the hedonic calculus
Bentham’s Theory of Right Conduct: every
agent is morally obligated to perform the
action which will maximize pleasure
overall for everyone involved.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Mill defends and extends Bentham’s view
against criticisms.
There are subtle changes which make Mill’s
view superior
These changes result from the attempt to
answer specific objections.
Mill’s Moral Theory-Right Conduct
•
The creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of
pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by the theory, much more
requires to be said; in particular, what things it
includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to
what extent this is left an open question.” (Mill
Util, II, para 2)
“
Mill’s Theory of Right Conduct
• TRC-U: actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure,
and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness, pain, and the
privation of pleasure.
Mill’s Moral Theory- Value
• “But these supplementary explanations do not
affect the theory of life on which this theory of
morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and
freedom from pain, are the only things desirable
as ends; and that all desirable things (which are
as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other
scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure
inherent in themselves, or as means to the
promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
pain.” (Mill, Util, II, Para 2).
Mill’s Theory of Value
• TV-U: Pleasure and freedom
from pain are the only things
desirable as ends.
The Objections:
• Mill formulated his version of Utilitarianism
in response to specific objections which
had undercut Bentham’s version
• These objections either attacked
utilitarianism for denying that humans
were special or by denying that it was
practical.
The Doctrine of Swine Objection
1. Util. assumes that pleasure is the good (Moral
Hedonism)
2. Util. assumes that we only act for the sake of
pleasure (Psychological Hedonism)
3. This is how animals behave, not humans
4. Thus, Util. requires that humans be like
animals (like swine).
5. Hence we should reject Util. because humans
are not swine.
Types of Pleasure Reply
a) So What. If Psychological Hedonism is
true then it is true.
b) Two Types of Pleasure: Higher and
Lower
c) Higher Pleasures are superior (the
comparison proof)
Too High for Humanity
Objection
1. Util. requires that we act for the sake of the
greatest good.
2. This might require a human to act to their own
disadvantage or death.
3. This is an unrealistic expectation, most
humans are constitutionally incapable of
altruism (ought implies can)
4. Therefore, Util. requires more from humans
than they are capable of.
5. Therefore, Util. cannot be the correct account
of human morality.
Individual Goods comprise the
General Good Reply
a) The good of all is the same as the sum of
all individual goods
b) Individuals can always pursue their own
goods
c) If every individual pursues their own
pleasure that is the same as pursuing the
good of all.
d) [Economic Analogue?]
Lack of Time Objection
1. Util. requires that we calculate the value of
every possible act and chose the best.
2. Such a calculation is beyond the ability of
human beings
3. Such calculations would take a great deal of
time
4. We must therefore either act without
calculating or calculate in place of action – we
lack time to do both.
5. Therefore, we cannot fulfill our obligations
under Util.
Rule of Thumb Reply
a) Not every action requires a new calculation
b) The history of humanity provides adequate
evidence of general rules of utility
c) Traditional morality reflects these general rules
d) Obeying traditional morality yields the same
basic result that would result from calculation
Mill’s Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity (The relative strength of the
sensation)
2. Duration (how long it lasts)
3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the
sensation is to follow the act)
4. Propinquity or remoteness (how immediate
is the sensation)
5. Fecundity (likelihood of producing further
utility effects)
6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or
is it mixed?)
7. Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY
POINT, NOT JUST YOU]
8. Type (higher or lower?)
Mill’s Moral Theory
The basic gist of Mill’s moral theory is this:
Human beings pursuing their own happiness
(primarily intellectual happiness) will over
time produce a world that contains the
greatest net amount of happiness.
Therefore, each person has a moral
obligation to maximize their own pleasure
(or at least to structure their life so as to
permit the pursuit of pleasure).
General Objections to Mill’s
Utilitarianism
•
•
•
•
Immoral to Promulgate
Illegitimate Aggregation of Goods
Cannot Quantify Utility
Allows the ends to justify the means
-Lives for Headaches
-Innocent Spelunker
-Dying Promise Case
A Complication…
• Act-Utilitarianism: The rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined
through case-by-case calculation
• Rule-Utilitarianism: The rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined by
rules that generally tend to promote overall
utility
A Question
(or two, to keep in mind)…
• If Act utilitarianism is too complicated
consequentialists must be rule utilitarians.
• BUT How do we determine the moral
rules?
• And is there any difference between ruleutilitarianism and Kantian ethics?
Is Utilitarianism Correct?
The factors in favor of consequentialism
generally seem less than conclusive.
What are the other options?
-Morality based on Rules/Principles
-Morality based upon Character