Download Major Ethical Theories - Michigan State University

Major Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism
Kantian ethics
Rights
A Major Misunderstanding
One must “declare allegiance” to one
ethical theory in order to “do” ethics
Arguments undermining all known ethical
theories collectively make it plain that
there is no theoretical basis for ethical
thought at all
A Better Understanding
A & S, p. 9
Human life and behavior is exceedingly
complex
To be workable as a theory or model,
must be simpler than real life
Therefore, any one theory will have gaps
and blind spots but may be good partial
description of the moral life
A Helpful Metaphor?
Approach each ethical problem as a job
Ethical theories are tools in your tool box
which you bring to the work
Part of job is picking the right tools to
perform that job well
Utilitarianism
Core Idea: Ethics should be
based on facts about the results
of our actions upon human
happiness and suffering in the
real world
Facts for Utilitarianism
What counts as human happiness or
unhappiness
Actual probability that a particular action
will produce a certain amount or type of
happiness or unhappiness
Utilitarianism as Ethics
Fact: Most of us act most of the time as if
we count for more than others
To be an ethical system,
utilitarianism must insist that
all count equally
Utilitarianism
Do what produces the greatest
net gain in happiness over
unhappiness (the greatest good)
for the greatest number of people
Crude Utilitarianism
A&S, p. 14: All right to kill one innocent
person if organs would save lives of five
others
Ignores long term consequences
Ignores subtle consequences
Ignores ripple effects
Classical Utilitarianism
J.S. Mill, 1840-1860
All human values or disvalues can be
reduced to happiness or unhappiness, and
these can be measured quantitatively
(“utilitarian calculus”)
Objection: Different human values seem
to be of radically different types, not
simply different quantities
Preference Utilitarianism
E.g., Peter Singer
What is right is to perform the act which
maximizes the value preferences that
are achieved for the greatest number of
people (I.e., the most people possible get
more of what they value)
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Do not show that it has no value
Instead show its natural and necessary
limits and weaknesses (I.e., for what jobs
it is less well suited as a tool of inquiry)
Major Criticisms
“One thought too many”
Utilitarianism as too weak an ethical theory
“Utilitarians can’t rent videos”
Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical
theory
Shogun Example
British sailor is being tortured alive
Japanese samurai stands in moonlit
garden and derives great gratification
(including sexual) from listening to
screams
Is what was done to British sailor
wrong?
Examples- cont.
Utilitarian father trying to decide whether
to rescue his child vs. any child at random
from an immediate danger
Bernard Williams: Father has had “one
thought too many” to be an ideally ethical
person
Conclusion
Utilitarianism seems especially weak in
capturing some of our most basic moral
intuitions about:
The injustice of sacrificing the interests of
the few for the many
The moral relevance of special
relationships
Can’t Rent Videos?
Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical
system if taken literally (so long as any
human misery exists anywhere in the
world)
How far removed from our everyday,
average standard of behavior can/should
an ethical theory be?
Kantian Ethics
Core Idea: We can use our
reason to discern that some
actions are wrong based on the
nature of the action and apart
from its practical consequences
Kant: What is ethics?
“If you want to get more of Y, then you
should do X” (hypothetical imperative)
“Do X” (categorical imperative)
Possible Sources for
Ethics (Kant)
FACTS
Changing, unstable
Yields only hypothetical imperatives
“PURE REASON” (Logic)
Eternal, universal
Gives rise to categorical imperative
Logic (pure reason)
Sam is unmarried
All bachelors are
unmarried
Categorical Imperative
“Act so as always to treat others as endsin-themselves and never as means only”
“Act so that you could will your action to
become universal law”
Two ways to express the same basic idea
(Kant)
Why are two the same?
Could one will the opposite of “treat
others as ends and never as means only”
to be universal law?
If so, I should treat others as means only
Then others should treat me as means
only
But I have willed this to be universal law
Why are two the same? (II)
But only an “end-in-itself” (possessed of
autonomous will) could will something to
be universal law
Therefore willing opposite leads to logical
contradiction
Therefore “treat others as ends…” is
categorical imperative
Illustration: Tell the Truth
Should I tell a lie?
Can I will lying to become universal law?
If lying were universal practice, “truth”
would no longer have any meaning
But if “truth” has no meaning neither does
“lying”
Logical contradiction as universal law
Common Terminology
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist
ethical theory
Kantianism is a deontological (dutybased) ethical theory
For Kant, source of duty is the concept of
autonomy and rational will (pure reason
as source of ethical duty)
Rights Theory
Dworkin: Rights as “trumps”
Nozick: “Side constraints”
Most of the time we are entitled to try to
maximize the good consequences of our
actions
A right takes priority over maximizing the
good (line you can’t cross even to get to a
good place)
Two Ways to Cheapen
Rights
Invoke your “rights” whenever anyone
interferes with your getting anything you
happen to want
Be willing to rescind the rights of others
whenever they act in ways that you
happen not to like
Libertarianism
Distinguish:
Positive right: a right to have or obtain
something (other people have to do
something)
Negative right: a right to be free of
something (other people have to not do
something)
Libertarianism
State power may be used only to protect
negative rights
Any state power to protect positive rights
is wrong, because it must violate
someone else’s negative rights to be free
of seizure of property
Critique of Libertarianism
Right to trial by jury
Requires that numerous services be
provided and that various institutions have
to be established
Most of these require support in terms of
salaries, maintenance costs, etc.
A great deal of tax money is needed
Critique of Libertarianism
This means a right to trial by jury is a
positive right
BUT: usually viewed as a negative right,
I.e. right to be free from unfair
imprisonment or punishment
Does whether it is positive or negative
determine how important or how basic
it is?
Critique of Libertarianism
Some positive rights may be absolutely
vital and well worth protecting
Some negative rights may be unimportant
or superficial and may not be worth
protecting
Some redistribution of resources among
people in society is an inevitable
function of the state