Download Slide 1

Traditional Ethical Theories
Reminder
Optional Tutorial
Monday, February 25, 1-1:50
Room M122
Reminder
Showing of An Inconvenient Truth
Next Tuesday, February 26
3:00-5:00
MB305
(Philosophy Dept. seminar room)
Quiz on February 28
Section one (40%):
10 short answer questions, 4 points each. Largely definition
of terms and identification of philosophical positions with
the appropriate philosopher or belief system.
Section two (60%):
1) One medium-length answer to a question on “An
Inconvenient Truth” (20%)
2) One long answer to a question from a choice of two. The
two questions will be chosen from the following list of four.
(40%)
Long-answer questions
1)
2)
3)
4)
Is eating honey (i.e. stealing the product of the bees’ labor) a moral
issue? If not, why not? If so, is it justified or is it wrong, and 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
end, e.g. war
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), English philosopher
A form of consequentialism
An act is judged to be moral or immoral according to its
consequences.
Instrumentalist good vs. Intrinsic good
Instrumentalist good: good as a means by which to realize an
intrinsic good, e.g. medicine
Intrinsic good: something good in and of itself, e.g. happiness
Utilitarianism (cont.)
Happiness and the absence of suffering are the
ultimate intrinsic goods.
The goal of morality is to maximize happiness (“the
greatest good for the greatest number”)
An act is good if it maximizes the collective happiness
and minimizes the collective suffering.
Problems with Utilitarianism
Seemingly immoral acts can be judged moral, e.g. killing an
innocent person.
Consequences are often difficult or impossible to predict.
The morality of an act may depend on chance (how the
consequences happen to play out).
How can you calculate units of goodness (utiles)?
Happiness and lack of suffering may not be the only
intrinsic goods.
Varieties of Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism
– classic utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism
– aim to maximize the fulfillment of people’s
preferences, rather than happiness
Rule utilitarianism
– act in accordance with rules that, in the long run, tend
to maximize happiness/preferences
Exam question on An Inconvenient Truth
Are Gore’s arguments for valuing nature primarily
instrumentalist or intrinsic? Do you think his views could be
best characterized as conforming to virtue ethics, natural law
ethics, deontology or utilitarianism? Explain, with concrete
examples.
Readings for next time
Required:
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, chapters 1, 2 and 15, provided in handout
Optional:
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, chapter 16, “The Rumblings
of an Avalanche”, available on reserve (whole book) in
the Philosophy Department Office