Download Alienation, Consequentialism and the Demands of

Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Alienation, Consequentialism and the Demands of Morality
Dr. Clea F. Rees
[email protected]
Centre for Lifelong Learning
Cardiff University
Spring 2013
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Outline
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Alienation
John and Anne
Helen and Lisa
The problem
The paradox of hedonism
Subjective, objective & sophisticated hedonism
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
The paradox of (act) consequentialism
Subjective, objective & sophisticated (act) consequentialism
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Sophisticated Act Consequentialism
Railton’s Defence of Consequentialism
Demons
Objections & responses
Alienation & Moral Schizophrenia
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Outline
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
What is Railton’s main thesis or conclusion?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Alienation
What does Railton mean by alienation?
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
John and Anne
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Alienation
John and Anne
I
John cares for Anne
but not for her sake
I
John cares for Anne b/c he cares
about good consequences
I
Foot might say, his “heart is not
in the right place” (?)
I
John’s attachment seems to be
to good consequences rather
than to Anne
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Helen and Lisa
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Alienation
Helen and Lisa
I
Helen cared for Lisa
but not for Lisa’s sake
I
Helen cared for Lisa b/c she
cares about duties of friendship
I
Foot might say, her “heart is not
in the right place” (?)
I
Helen’s attachment seems to be
to the duties of friendship rather
than to her friend
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
The problem
Moral
Immoral
Alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Alienation
The problem
The psychologies of both John and Helen show inappropriate
distance between:
I
the ways in which they deliberate, decide, consider. . .
and
I
their emotional attachments, friendships, relationships. . .
i.e. their experience of the world is one of alienation
I
the basic problem is not really the distance between two selves
⇒ rather, it is the very existence of those two selves
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
The paradox of hedonism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
The paradox of hedonism
What is the paradox of hedonism?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
The paradox of hedonism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
The paradox of hedonism
1. An ideal hedonist always does what will bring about the
greatest happiness for herself.
2. If the ideal hedonist always decides to do what will bring
about the greatest happiness for herself, she will not do what
will bring about the greatest happiness for herself.
——
3. An ideal hedonist will not always decide to do what will bring
about the greatest happiness for herself. (1,2)
——
4. An ideal hedonist will not be an ideal hedonist?? (1,3)
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
The paradox of hedonism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
The paradox of hedonism
How does Railton suggest the hedonist escape the paradox?
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Subjective, objective & sophisticated hedonism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
The paradox of hedonism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
The paradox of hedonism
Subjective, objective & sophisticated hedonism
Subjective hedonism
One should always decide what to do by explicitly considering the
happiness various options will bring one, and one should then do
what will bring one the greatest possible happiness.
Objective hedonism
One should always do what (of one’s available options) will bring
one the greatest possible happiness.
Sophisticated hedonism
One is a sophisticated hedonist if one is an objective, but not a
subjective, hedonist.
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
How does Railton suggest the consequentialist avoid (morally
problematic) alienation?
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
The paradox of (act) consequentialism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
The paradox of (act) consequentialism
Compare:
1. An ideal (act) consequentialist always does what will bring
about the best consequences.
2. If the ideal (act) consequentialist always decides to do what
will bring about the best consequences, she will not do what
will bring about the best consequences.
——
3. An ideal (act) consequentialist will not always decide to do
what will bring about the best consequences. (1,2)
——
4. An ideal (act) consequentialist will not be an ideal
(act) consequentialist?? (1,3)
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Subjective, objective & sophisticated (act) consequentialism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
Subjective, objective & sophisticated (act) consequentialism
Subjective (act) consequentialism
One should always decide what to do by explicitly considering the
overall good one can bring about by the various options available to
one, and one should then do what will bring about the most good.
Objective (act) consequentialism
One should always do what (of one’s available options) will bring
about the greatest possible overall good.
Sophisticated (act) consequentialism
One is a sophisticated (act) consequentialist if one is an objective,
but not a subjective, (act) consequentialist.
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Subjective, objective & sophisticated (act) consequentialism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Consequentialism & the problem of alienation
Subjective, objective & sophisticated (act) consequentialism
How does Railton use the case of Juan visiting Linda rather than
contributing his airfare to Oxfam to support the claim on 159?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Railton’s position:
I
I
sophisticated act consequentialism
complex conception of ‘good’
I
Railton suggests
a pluralistic approach in which several goods are
viewed as intrinsically, non-morally valuable — such
as happiness, knowledge, purposeful activity,
autonomy, solidarity, respect, and beauty. These
goods need not be ranked lexically, but may be
attributed weights, and the criterion of rightness for
an act would be that it most contribute to the
weighted sum of these values in the long run.
(149–50)
b
Virtue
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
ible
iss
Sophisticated Act Consequentialism
Im
per
m
al
hic
Moral
Immoral
l
ica
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Un
et
V i ce
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Sophisticated Act Consequentialism
A sophisticated act consequentialist e.g. Juan
I
is directly attached, committed,
emotionally engaged. . .
I
is not so committed “no matter what”
I
is morally reflective (barring exceptional
circumstances)
would cease to be so committed if
convinced continuing commitment was
immoral
I
I
subject to various qualifications
i.e. it is not quite this simple
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Sophisticated Act Consequentialism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Sophisticated Act Consequentialism
A sophisticated act consequentialist:
I will seek to develop the sort of character, dispositions, “rules
of thumb” etc. which will typically lead her to act in ways
which are for the best
i.e. the agent does not have to rely on intuition, instinct etc.,
although these might, of course, provide a starting point. . .
I
does not act on the relevant counterfactual condition
⇒ the counterfactual condition simply has to be satisfied
Note that:
I Railton sticks to the formulation “will do the greatest good”,
“will result in. . . ”, “will. . . ”
but this is intended only to simplify
I he suggests that a formulation based on expected
consequences could be defended in a similar way
b
Per
mi
Et
h
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Im
per
m
Un
et
V i ce
Railton’s Defence of Consequentialism
Virtue
ble
ss i
Moral
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Features of Railton’s consequentialism
Railton’s Defence of Consequentialism
Railton’s defence of consequentialism, then, involves
I
a qualified defence of alienation
I
acceptance of alienation as a genuine problem
I
consideration of different forms of alienation
arguing that
I
I
I
I
I
I
sophisticated act consequentialism is less alienating than critics
suggest
some degree, and forms of, alienation are morally appropriate
alienation can, and should, be reduced
sophisticated act consequentialism is no worse off than
Kantian approaches in many ways
sophisticated act consequentialism fares far better than
Kantian approaches in other ways
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Immoral
Demons
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Demons
Railton:
I
Consequentialism can respond better to a
Kantian demon than Kantian ethics can to a
consequentialist demon. . .
I
Is it consequentialism?
given conception of good. . .
given this multi-level business. . .
but why insist consequentialism must be a decision
procedure?
I
I
(call it something else if you like. . . )
b
Virtue
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Immoral
l
ica
Objections & responses
Un
et
V i ce
Objections & responses
How does Railton understand the objection raised by Williams and
discussed on 154?
How does he reply to it?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Objections & responses
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Objections & responses
How does Railton respond to Williams’s claim that
consequentialism is too demanding (160–3)?
How does Railton respond to Williams’s claim that
consequentialism is too disruptive (160–3)?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Objections & responses
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Objections & responses
What is the problem of “alienation from morality itself” (164)?
How does Railton recommend responding to it?
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Objections & responses
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Objections & responses
How well does Railton deal with the various objections he raises
e.g. from Bernard Williams?
I misleading re. ‘negative responsibility’
b/c ignores what worries Williams most when talking about this
i.e. responsibility for others’ wrong-doing
but it is still addressing a concern about negative responsibility in
consequentialism more generally
b
Virtue
ble
ss i
Per
mi
Et
h
Im
per
m
Immoral
ible
iss
al
hic
Moral
Alienation & Moral Schizophrenia
l
ica
Theories of Right Action & Their Critics
Un
et
V i ce
Alienation & Moral Schizophrenia
Does Railton’s sophisticated consequentialism avoid moral
schizophrenia?
b