Download Ethics & Nanotechnology Summer Bridge Program XXVI

Ethical Theories:
Conclusion
Nanoethics Lecture III
Roderick T. Long
Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
Utilitarianism



A consequentialist theory: standard for the
rightness of actions is beneficial
consequences
Differs from ethical egoism (another
consequentialist theory) in appealing to
beneficial consequences for everybody,
not just oneself
Claims the virtue of simplicity
Utilitarian Simplicity
We ordinarily think beneficial results are one
ethical consideration among others.
Utilitarianism offers to explain the same
range of ethical phenomena equally well
by appealing solely to such results.
This would make it a superior theory – IF in
fact it explains them EQUALLY WELL.
Does it?
Remember Our Problem
Case for Utilitarianism
Five patients need five
different organ transplants
 Should we kill healthy
patient and redistribute
organs?
 Clash between ethical theory (might seem
to say yes) and particular judgment (no)

Three Approaches to
Solving Conflicts
1. Top-down: stick with the theory no matter
what particular judgments it yields
Three Approaches to
Solving Conflicts
2. Bottom-up: stick with particular
judgments no matter what ethical theory
they imply
Three Approaches to
Solving Conflicts
3. Reflective equilibration: mutual adjustment
Whatever they may say, in practice
philosophers choose RE
Analogy With Science
Top-down science (sticking with theory no
matter what observations say) is bad
science
But bottom-up science is bad too:
freshman chemist gets boiling water at 90º
Mutual adjustment in science too
Difference: philosophy conceptual, not
empirical
Problem Case
for Utilitarianism
Three possible moves for utilitarian:
1. Reject utilitarianism (in favor of, say,
Kantianism – respecting persons as ends)
2. Bite the bullet (accept killing the patient)
3. Reformulate utilitarianism so as to avoid
the undesirable implication
Option 3
Distinguish act-utilitarianism from rule-utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism: choose each action in light of
social utility
Rule-utilitarianism: choose general rules in light of
social utility; then choose each action in light of
the rules
Rule-Utilitarianism
Sometimes more effective to
pursue goals indirectly
Example: referees in sports –
even if the purpose of the
game is to give pleasure to
the spectators, if the referee
makes calls based on what
will please the spectators,
the spectators will soon be
displeased
Rule-Utilitarianism
Another example: Francis Bacon on
“experiments of fruit” vs.
“experiments of light”
Value of science is technological
goodies, not general insight for its
own sake – but the best way to
get the goodies is to pursue the
insight
Act as though the end doesn’t justify
the means even though it does!
Rule-Utilitarian
Solution to ODC
A general policy of sacrificing few to many
would make all of society nervous
Make society better off by committing
ourselves to a principle prohibiting such
sacrifices
We produce better results by acting as if we
care about something other than results
Rule-Egoism
Incidentally, Ethical Egoists
can (and do) make this
same move – which is why
the conduct they
recommend is usually not
radically different from
ordinary morality
Rule-Egoism
Some ethical egoists
combine rule-egoism
with virtue ethics,
advising us to choose
the act that expresses
the virtues that it is in
our self-interest to
cultivate
More Moves for
the Anti-Utilitarian
Is rule-utilitarianism stable? If you try to
treat means as though they were ends –
well, do you really regard them as ends,
or don’t you?
 If you do, you’re no longer a utilitarian.
 If you don’t, what keeps you from sliding
back into act-utilitarianism?
More Moves for
the Anti-Utilitarian
Does rule-utilitarianism identify the right
reasons that killing the patient is wrong?
Even if killing the patient would
indirectly be bad for society, is that the
main reason it’s wrong?
Or is it what it does to the patient?
More Moves for
the Anti-Utilitarian
Does it even make sense for a benefit to
some people to make up for a harm to
others – when they’re different people?
Does utilitarianism treat society as though
it were on big person?
More Moves for
the Anti-Utilitarian
And so the dialectic
continues ….
Immanuel Kant
Perhaps the most
influential philosopher
of the 18th century
 A deontologist
 A leading opponent of
all forms of
consequentialism

Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant
 Morality
is a set of imperatives
(commands, instructions)
 There are two kinds of imperatives:
hypothetical (“conditional”) and
categorical (“unconditional”)
Hypothetical and
Categorical Imperatives
A hypothetical imperative is one that is
rationally binding on you only if you
happen to have a certain goal (example:
recipes, driving directions)
 A categorical imperative is one that is
rationally binding on you regardless of
what goals you happen to have

Hypothetical and
Categorical Imperatives


It’s part of the concept of morality that moral
imperatives are categorical: you can’t get off
the hook for a moral duty because you happen
not to care about a certain goal
But if consequentialism were true, then
morality would be a recipe for producing good
consequences – and so there’d be no reason
to care about morality if you happened not to
care about those consequences
Hypothetical and
Categorical Imperatives
1. If consequentialism were true, morality
would be a hypothetical imperative.
2. But morality is a categorical imperative,
not a hypothetical one.
3. Therefore: consequentialism is false.
So concludes Kant.
Immanuel Kant
Whenever I act for a given reason, I’m
showing that I regard it as OK to act that
way for that reason.
So I’m endorsing a general practice of
acting that way for that reason.
Suppose I lie to get money. I’m thereby
endorsing a general practice of lying to
get money.
Immanuel Kant
But the point of lying is to deceive
someone, and lying can be a successful
means of deceit only because truthtelling is the norm.
So in order to lie I have to want most
people most of the time to tell the truth.
Thus by lying I’m committing myself
simultaneously to lying being the rule and
lying being the exception.
Immanuel Kant
So by lying my will contradicts itself.
Self-contradiction is irrational,
regardless of what one’s goals are.
So a prohibition on lying is rationally
binding regardless of what one’s
goals are – it’s a categorical
imperative.
Immanuel Kant
In general: it’s contrary to reason to make
special exceptions for ourselves to rules
we expect everyone else to follow.
When you do that, you’re simultaneously
endorsing the rule and endorsing the
exception – and so contradicting
yourself.
Kant’s Answer to the ODC
If I seek the general welfare by
sacrificing individuals, I thereby
authorize anybody to do likewise –
I authorize sacrifice as a general
policy.
But it wouldn’t work as a general
policy – it would frustrate the goal.
Therefore killing the one patient is contradictory.
Kant’s Answer to the ODC
Note: what’s wrong with killing the one
patient is not that a general policy of doing
so would have bad results.
Kant’s moral theory doesn’t depend on the
goodness or badness of results.
Rather, what’s wrong with it is that there’s an
internal contradiction involved in willing it –
you simultaneously affirm two mutually
inconsistent principles.
Kant’s Answer to the ODC
Analogy: what’s wrong with believing that
2 + 2 = 5?
It’s not that believing 2 + 2 = 5 has bad
results (even though it probably would) but
rather that it’s inherently illogical, even
apart from its results.
Who’s Right?