Download Lecture 9, Traditional Ethical Theories, Kant

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Natural law wikipedia , lookup

Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup

Antinomianism wikipedia , lookup

Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup

Jurisprudence wikipedia , lookup

Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup

Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup

Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup

Cosmopolitanism wikipedia , lookup

J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup

Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup

Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup

Medical ethics wikipedia , lookup

Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup

Morality wikipedia , lookup

Emotivism wikipedia , lookup

Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup

School of Salamanca wikipedia , lookup

Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup

Virtue wikipedia , lookup

Aristotelian ethics wikipedia , lookup

Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup

Business ethics wikipedia , lookup

Clare Palmer wikipedia , lookup

Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup

Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup

Ethics wikipedia , lookup

Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup

Jewish ethics wikipedia , lookup

Secular morality wikipedia , lookup

Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Traditional Ethical Theories
Optional Tutorial
Monday, February 27, 3-3:50
Quiz on February 29
Section one (50%):
10 short answer questions, 5 points each. Largely
definition of terms and identification of philosophical
positions with the appropriate philosopher or belief
system.
Section two (50%):
2) One long answer to a question from a choice of
two. The two questions will be chosen from the
following list of four. (50%)
Long-answer questions
1)
2)
3)
4)
Is cutting down a tree a moral issue? If so, why? If not, why not? If so, is
it justified in some circumstances? Why? Discuss in relation to at least
two belief systems that we have studied.
What belief system that we have studied is most likely to result in an
environmentally sound and sustainable society? Compare your choice
with at least two other belief systems.
Is it better for people to live a more natural way? Explain what you mean
by “more natural”. If it is not better, why not? If it is better, for whom is it
better (i.e. for the individuals living the natural lifestyle, for people in
general, for future generations, for sentient animals in general, or for the
earth/nature as a whole), and why?
What has intrinsic value? Discuss in relation to at least two belief
systems that we have discussed.
Note: belief systems that we have discussed include Aristotelian teleology,
virtue ethics, natural law ethics, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism,
deontological ethics, utilitarianism and the scientific world
view/evolutionary theory.
Virtue Ethics (review)
Aristotle
Virtue consists of realizing our natural human potential as
rational animals (our telos).
The cultivation of human virtues
Kindness, courage, honesty, justice, etc.
Focus on motivations for actions, rather than consequences
Problems with virtue ethics:
Do people really have a telos? If not, how can the virtues be justified?
Is cultivating the virtues really the best way for an individual to maximize
his human potential?
People can do the wrong thing for the right reasons (e.g. ignorantly kind)
Natural Law Ethics (review)
Thomas Aquinas
What is natural is good because God made nature and God is good.
God gave us the innate ability to know what is good.
Morality is universal and objective: it is a law of nature.
Problems for virtue ethics:
Depends upon belief in God.
Without belief in God, there is no justification
for believing that what is natural must be good.
Deontological Ethics
Kant (1724-1804), German philosopher
Rightness of actions is independent of consequences.
The Categorical Imperative defines our moral duties.
Moral duties, e.g.
not to kill or harm innocent people
not to lie
to keep promises
to respect the rights of others
The Categorical Imperative can be understood through reason.
Deontological Ethics (cont.)
The Categorical Imperative can be worked out through the principle of
universalizability:
"Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can
at the same time will", and is the "only condition under which a will can
never come into conflict with itself…"
(Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)
Rational beings have an intrinsic worth and dignity.
The end (purpose) of morality is in preserving the well-being and dignity of all
rational agents:
“Act with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another)
so that it is an end in itself in your maxim…“
(Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)
You must never treat a person as a means, but always as an end.
Problems with deontological ethics
Problem of justification for Categorical Imperative
– where does it come from
Not all good actions can be universalized
Rigid
e.g. if we have a categorical imperative not to lie,
it is wrong to lie even if by lying to a mad gunman,
we can save an innocent person’s life
It is not always possible never to treat a rational agent as an
means, not an end, e.g. war
Readings for next week
Required:
Des Jardins, Environmental Ethics (2001),
Chapter 2, on reserve in the Main Library