Download The ring finger - Stijn Bruers, the rational ethicist

The
Moral
Hand
Stijn Bruers
Ghent University
Ethics and meta-ethics
• Ethics: which acts are good?
Formulate ethical principles
Ethical system
• Meta-ethics: which ethical principles and
systems are good?
Meta-ethical guidelines
Overview
• The meta-ethical hand: which ethical systems
are good?
– 5 guidelines to construct a coherent ethical system
– 5 principles of anti-arbitrariness (uniformity)
• The moral (ethical) hand: which acts are good?
– 5 basic principles of a coherent ethical system
– 5 principles of anti-dicrimination (equality)
The meta-ethical hand:
scientific theories
• A good scientific theory has
– Universal laws (no arbitrary exceptions)
– Best fit most reliable experimental data
– Mutual consistency and completeness
– Clarity (no ambiguity)
– Parsimony, simplicity
• Science versus pseudo-science
The meta-ethical hand: metaphor of
the crossword puzzle
Given description (yellow box) = moral intuition or value
White box = particular situation
Letter = final moral judgment about acts (all things considered)
Word = ethical principle
2) Correspondence with
basic information
3) Consistency and
completeness
4) Clarity (no ambiguity)
5) Parsimony
1) The same word
The meta-ethical hand
• The thumb: uniformity
– Not: “Who or what gets all rights?”
– But: “Which rights should we give to everything and
everyone?”
• The forefinger: compatibility and agreement with basic
information (moral intuitions)
• The middle finger: completeness and internal
consistency
1. We can eat someone (e.g. a pig)
2. We cannot eat someone else (e.g. a dog or mentally
disabled human)
3. We cannot discriminate
• The ring finger: clarity
• The little finger: parsimony
The meta-ethical hand: moral illusions
Moral illusion = obstinate moral intuition that is
inconsistent with a coherent system of mutually
supporting judgments and ethical principles
A
B
Three intuitions (spontaneous judgments)
1: A<B
2: length of measure stick remains constant -> A=B
3: erase arrowheads -> A=B
The meta-ethical hand: moral illusions
The meta-ethical hand: moral illusions
Moral value of black person
Moral value of white person
(Morally) irrelevant properties (e.g. skin color)
The meta-ethical hand: moral illusions
• Intuition 1: racism (white > black)
• Intuition 2: translation method (empathy)
• Intuition 3: deletion method (erasing
irrelevant properties)
1 versus 2 + 3 ?
-> Racism is a moral illusion
-> Speciesism?
1. kingdom (animals)
2. phylum (chordates and
vertebrates)
3. class (mammals)
4. infraclass (eutheria)
5. order (primates)
6. suborder (dry-nosed
primates)
7. infraorder (simians)
8. superfamily
(Hominoidea)
9. family (great apes)
10. genus (Homo)
11. species (Homo
sapiens)
12. subspecies (Homo
sapiens sapiens)
13. ethnic group (whites)
Common vertebrate ancestor
Australopithecus
Our common ancestor
Your grandfather
Your mother
You
Chicken
Ring species
•
•
All species are connected
through time like
populations of a ring
species are spatially
connected.
Is the accidental death of
intermediates morally
relevant?
The five meta-ethical fingers
Anti arbitrariness
• We should all construct our own coherent
ethical system using the meta-ethical hand
• When coherent systems are different: take a
“democratic average”
• Incoherent systems are not allowed in this
democratic procedure
The moral hand
The thumb: rule universalism
You must follow the rules that everyone (who is
capable, rational and informed) must follow in all
morally similar situations.
You may follow only the rules that everyone (who
is capable, rational and informed) may follow in
all morally similar situations.
We should give the good example, even if others
don’t.
What counts as similar situations?
Rule 1: eat nothing
Rule 2: eat kid
Rule 3: eat pig
Rule 4: eat carrot
Lifetime well-being=
• The value you would ascribe when you would
live and experience the complete life of
someone
• How much you prefer to live this life
• A function of all positive feelings that are the
result of the satisfaction of preferences, of
everything wanted by the individual
(subtracted by negative feelings of
dissatisfaction)
Distribution of lifetime well-being?
• Situation 1 (choose rule 1):
– person A: 100% (maximum well-being)
– person B: 10% (barely worth living)
• Situation 2 (choose rule 2):
– person A: 50%
– person B: 50%
• Situation 3 (choose rule 3):
– person A: 11%
– person B: 11%
2>1>3
• Trade-off between equality and efficiency
The forefinger: justice and the value of
lifetime well-being
Increase the lifetime well-being of everyone (all
beings alive in the present and the future),
whereby improvements of the worst-off
positions (the worst sufferers, the beings who
have the worst lives) have a strong (but not
absolute) priority.
Trolley dilemma 1
Trolley dilemma 2
The middle finger: the mere means
principle and the basic right to bodily
autonomy.
Never use someone’s body as merely a means to
someone else’s ends, because that violates the right
to bodily autonomy.
The two words “mere means” refer to two conditions:
1) if in order to reach an end you force someone to do
or undergo something that the being does not
want, and
2) if the body of that individual is necessary as a
means for that end,
then you are not allowed to treat that being in that
way.
Right to bodily autonomy
• Do not use someone’s body against their will
• You own your body. No-one else can claim
your body against your will
• Equally applies to everyone and everything
(no arbitrary exceptions)
• A strong right, but not absolute (what if a
million would die if…?)
Transplantation dilemma
Predation dilemma
Biodiversity =
• The value of an ecosystem
• The diversity of life forms that are the direct result of
natural evolution
• Cfr. lifetime well-being as the value of a sentient being:
the collection of positive feelings that are the result of
preference satisfaction
Naturalness=
• Behavior that is the direct consequence of natural
evolution, and contributes to biodiversity
• Cfr. consciousness of a sentient being
• Natural: a direct consequence of spontaneous
evolution
• Normal: frequent
• Necessary: important for the survival of
sentient beings
3-N conditions
• A normal, necessary and natural behavior is
related to biodiversity just as an intense,
positive and conscious experience is related to
well-being.
• The valuable biodiversity would drastically
decrease if a behavior that is natural, normal
and necessary would be universally prohibited
The ring finger: naturalness and the
value of biodiversity.
If a behavior is natural, normal and necessary, it is
permissible (even if it violates rights and wellbeing), because a lot of biodiversity depends on
that behavior
Everyone is equally allowed to do natural, normal
and necessary behavior
Permissible:
Predation
Moving (killing insects)
Procreation
Burning house dilemma
The little finger: tolerated partiality
and the value of personal relationship
When helping others, you are allowed to be a
bit partial in favor of your loved ones (with
whom you have a personal relation), as long
as you are prepared to tolerate similar levels
of partiality of everyone else.
The five moral fingers
Anti discrimination
(equality)
Principles of equality
• The thumb: the formal principle of
impartiality. We should treat all equals equally
in all equal situations. We should not look at
arbitrary characteristics linked to individuals.
• This is a formal principle, because it does not
say how we should treat someone.
Principles of equality
• The forefinger: prioritarian equality of lifetime
well-being (the principle of priority for the
worst-off). If total lifetime well-being is the
same in situations A and B, then the situation
which has the most equal distribution of wellbeing is the best.
Principles of equality
• The middle finger: basic right equality. All
beings get an equal claim to the basic right
not to be used as merely a means to someone
else’s ends.
Principles of equality
• The ring finger: naturalistic behavioral
fairness. All beings have an equal right to a
behavior that is both natural, normal and
necessary (i.e. a behavior that contributes to
biodiversity).
• E.g. if the zebra is allowed to eat in order to
survive, a lion is allowed to do so as well (even
if it means eating the zebra).
Principles of equality
• The little finger: tolerated choice equality. If
you choose to help individual X instead of
individual Y, and if you tolerate that someone
else chooses to help Y instead of X, then X and
Y have a tolerated choice equality (even if X is
emotionally more important for you than Y).
Application to animal rights and
veganism
The forefinger
• Compare loss of lifetime well-being
– Livestock animals and captured fish
– Humans who are no longer allowed to eat animal
products
• Livestock animals and captured fish are worseoff than vegan humans.
Application to animal rights and
veganism
The middle finger:
• Animals for consumption:
– Their bodies are used for meat, eggs, milk,
leather,…
– They are forced to do or undergo things against
their will.
• Violates the mere means principle.
Application to animal rights and
veganism
The ring finger
• Well-planned vegan diets are not unhealthy
(according to the Academy of Nutrition &
Dietetics)
• Vegan farming is possible
• Animal products are not necessary for humans
• Biodiversity will not decrease when we would
stop consuming animal products
• The value of biodiversity cannot be invoked to
justify the consumption of animal products
Application to animal rights and
veganism
The little finger:
• We would never tolerate the degree of
partiality that is required to justify livestock
farming and fishing.
• Tolerated partiality cannot be invoked to
justify the consumption of animal products.
Application to animal rights and
veganism
The thumb
• Veganism is a good moral rule
• give the good example, even when other
people continue consuming animal products.
Questions?
• http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com
• [email protected]