Download Class #10 - 5/14/12

Philosophy 1010
Class #10
Chapter 7
Ethics
Final Exam & Final Essays are due
Next week
Hints for Taking Final Exam
Re-read chapter summaries –
Chapters 1-5 & 7
Practice Quia Activities! Don’t just memorize the
answers. Understand the questions & answers.
Review textbook, powerpoints, your lecture
notes as necessary to answer your questions.
Come relaxed but prepared to finish the exam
without a break!
When taking the exam, read the question and all
possible answers carefully before you decide which
answer is best.
It is often suggested that we all pretty
much know what is right and wrong
and the issue of ETHICS and
MORALITY is finding the will and
resolve to ACT or behave correctly
when perhaps it is “easier” to do
something else.
Making Good Moral
Judgments is Hard!
We often will not agree on what is right.
Contrary to what you may have thought,
determining what is right will often be
the primary issue.
Is Morality more of an issue about
character or conduct?
That is, does one do the right thing because
one has a virtuous character, or does one
have a virtuous character because they
consistently do the right thing?
Or, saying this another way, in studying ethics
should we focus on acts of conduct and
determine what makes an act moral, or
should we focus on virtue to determine what
makes a person good, such that guarantees
that her actions will be good.
Principles of Ethics
•
According to the first approach specifically, Ethics
investigates the problems and the questions that are
posed about values as they relate to human
conduct.
•
A value judgment is a choice between what is good or
bad. What is a good movie is a value judgment, but
not an ethical or moral judgment. It is an aesthetic
judgment.
•
Thus, all moral judgments are value judgments, but
there are many value judgments that are not moral
judgments.
Principles of Moral Reasoning
•
Please note that your view on whether God exists
or not is not an ethical judgment, but a view you
should allow God (assuming you believe in God)
to direct your conduct is an ethical judgment.
•
If you assert that God exists, that is a belief that is
either true or false, but not a value. If you believe
that God exists and that you should “follow his
commandments” (for example), then you have a
belief and a value. You have made a judgment
about what you should do in response to what you
believe is true or false.
•
In an argument, a value judgment is a normative
claim. A normative claim asserts what “ought to be”
or “if something is good” as opposed to “what is” (a
factual claim).
Moral Issues & Subjectivity
•
When addressing moral issues, the claims we
make and the premises we give often appear
somewhat subjective. (Remember that if a claim
is totally subjective, no argument for it (or against
it) can be given.)
•
Always remember that to the extent the
premises for a claim are subjective, they
provide no support for your argument.
•
But morality is not generally a mere matter of
subjective opinion and it is possible (although
perhaps difficult) typically to put forward reasons
to believe a moral claim.
•
Furthermore, moral issues and moral judgments
are frequently too important to ignore or avoid.
Approaches to Morality:
Relativism & Subjectivism
•
Moral or ethical relativism is the view that what is right or
wrong depends upon one’s group or culture.
•
This claim is different than the claim of cultural relativism
that what is believed to be right or wrong depends upon
one’s group or culture. Be on guard for someone arguing
for the first claim but only supporting it with premises and
evidence for the second claim.
•
For a moral relativist, however, is abortion right or wrong in
the U.S. today? Presumably it depends if society thinks so,
but what to say when society is fundamentally divided on
the issue?
•
Moral subjectivism is the claim that all moral judgments are
subjective, that if one thinks something is right or wrong
then it is so for that person.
Moral relativism suggests that:
• There are multiple systems of
morality, and with possible
contradictions between them and
without any means to resolve
their differences from outside.
• Thus, all moral systems should
respect the values inherent in
other systems
• Moral values are relative to
time and place.
Argument For Moral Relativism:
P1. Ethical beliefs and practices differ profoundly
from one culture to another.
P2. It is difficult to judge the ethical beliefs
and practices of others (especially when they have
good reasons for their moral claims).
C. Therefore, the fundamental principles governing
what acts are morally right or wrong vary from
culture to culture.
One Argument Against
Moral Relativism
P1. People once believed that the earth was flat and
thus by relativism, we would have concluded that
at that time, the world was flat.
P2. The world is not flat and was not flat at any time.
C. By analogy, morality and ethics are not dependent
upon one’s culture.
What might be good or right about
Moral Relativism?
1.
Although it might not be the only way to foster tolerance
between cultures, it definitely does encourage tolerance
and teaches us to have restraint from imposing our
values on cultures that do not accept them.
2.
It often helps us to reduce bigotry and force us to expand
our own understanding beyond previously held, narrow
points of view.
3.
It seems to encourage psychological and sociological (i.e.
scientific) explanations of behavior that we did not
previously understand.
4.
It seems to help each of us engage our fellow humans
(who may be outside our “own group”) with more respect,
admiration, and appreciation.
5.
It recognizes that though we often think we make moral
judgments that are universal, in fact the values that we
relied on to make this argument was riddled with cultural
biases and values.
Now, what are some problems
with moral or ethical relativism?
If moral relativism is true,
1.
We would appear to have no basis to judge another
culture for anything they do, including slavery, the
holocaust, genocide.
2.
It would appear that whatever the majority of a culture
wishes must be moral and any attempt to improve the
culture (through civil rights, for example) is actually
immoral.
3.
It would appear that actions become moral or cease to
be moral based on changing “polls.”
4.
then it would appear that acts become moral or cease to
be moral based on who you admit into your “culture.”
Does the U.S. have one culture or many? Is culture a
matter of ethnicity, religion, or ???
5.
then it would appear that even the idea of tolerance
might not be a shared common value
Other Approaches to Morality:
Absolutism or Universalism
•
Though moral values are at times somewhat
subjective or relativistic, not all moral values are.
Many moral values can be addressed at least partially
with objective principles and by fundamentals of critical
thinking.
•
The opposite of the moral relativist is the moral
absolutist who would argue that fundamentally only
one and only one correct morality exists. What is right
for Americans in the 20th century is what would have
been right for all nations throughout history.
•
Although this view may seem too strong to argue on
the basis of all moral judgments, it does seem
somewhat reasonable in regard to certain fundamental
moral judgments, e.g. slavery, pedophilia, etc.
Note that Moral (or Ethical) Relativism
and Universalism agree that:
• There is right and wrong and we can have
agreed upon standards of determining one
from the other.
• Thus, both of these views differ from
other views which cannot provide any basis
for common ground in developing ethical
guidelines, such as subjectivism.
Video:
Does Morality Depend Upon
One’s Culture?
(#18)
Approaches to Morality:
Utilitarianism
•
Utilitarianism is the view that what is right or wrong
depends upon the consequences of actions and
decisions.
•
The view is associated with the philosophers Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
•
According to this view, what is right is what will
produce the greatest value (perhaps happiness) for
the greatest number.
•
Intentions are irrelevant to whether or not an act is
right!
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarians generally are arguing a normative
claim. A utilitarian may accept the view that we
often act from psychological egoism, but would
say that when we do so, we may be acting
unethically.
• Note that Utilitarians are hard absolutists.
• The principle of utility is sometimes referred to
as the greatest happiness principle.
• Utilitarianism is similar to but should be
distinguished from the view held by Machiavelli
that the means justifies the ends which may
promote an Egoist objective. Utilitarianism does
always advance the common good.
Jeremy Bentham
(1748 – 1832)
• The classical view of utilitarianism was
expressed by Jeremy Bentham.
• When choosing a course of action, always pick
the one that maximizes happiness and
minimizes unhappiness for the maximum
number of people
• Bentham insisted that each individual must
decide for themselves what provides pleasure
and each person’s pleasure counts equally.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• Bentham is suggesting that what is good is
that which is pleasurable and what is bad is
what is painful.
• Thus, his view is known as hedonistic
utilitarianism.
• However, this classic view of utility does
understand that pursuing short-term pleasure
may actually be a bad thing. But the reason is
because exercising immediate and short-term
pleasures may not be a rational approach for
achieving maximum pleasure for all (or even for
oneself)
Problems with Classical Utilitarianism
1. The Problem of Sheer Numbers!
If we are applying the greatest happiness principle,
would it be moral then to abuse a few individuals for
the enjoyment or welfare of the many?
Human experiments?
Animal experiments?
Stem cell research?
Snuff films?
Dog fights?
Human Torture? Abu Ghraib?
2. The Happiness Paradox
We often found happiness only when we are searching
for something else. The more we seem to value
pleasure for itself, the more it seems to elude us.
John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873)
The Utilitarianism approach of Bentham and the greatest
happiness principle is deeply flawed. “Ask yourself
whether you are happy and you cease to be so.”
In response to Bentham, John Stuart Mill claims that
happiness is an intellectual achievement, not merely
pleasure. Mill argued that you cannot simply identify
pleasure with good and evil with pain.
Mill proposed a version of utilitarianism that did not fall
back on hedonism. There are higher and lower
pleasures. Intellectual values drive us to
the higher pleasures.
John Stuart Mill
A Revision of Utilitarianism
• Bentham’s view does not adequately inform us as
to what pleasure and pain is.
• The greatest pleasures are “acquired tastes” and
derive from achievement -- the joy of solving a
mathematical problem, of writing an opera, of
playing a violin, etc.
• “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied.”
John Stuart Mill’s
Higher & Lower Pleasures
• Humans will prefer pleasures that maintain some
form of dignity. Maximizing pleasure for the
common good depends on social equality, but
such cannot be achieved without proper education
• Thus, Mill emphasized the necessary role of
education for all. Social equality is achieved by
providing opportunity for all to achieve the highest
pleasures, not everybody settling for the lower
pleasures.
• Mill’s Harm Principle states that no mentally
competent adult should be forced to be subject to
other’s tastes, even if they are not in the majority,
as long as they do no harm to others.
John Stuart Mill’s
Harm Principle
•
This view may appear contradictory with his earlier view
of general education, but it is not.
•
What Mill is saying is that we should educate all to give
them the opportunity to achieve, but ultimately if they
choose not to have the values that their education
encouraged them to have, no compulsion should be
advanced to make them live by any values other than
the ones they choose for themselves.
•
Thus, Mill would likely argue on the matter of “same sex
marriage” that we (even if we are the majority) should
“mind our own business!”
•
But what about the teenage girl who wishes to commit
suicide because she is pregnant? Should we “mind our
own business” on this, or should we intervene on the
basis the she is committing harm to others?
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
•
Utilitarians after John Stuart Mill have clarified Mill’s
position by differentiating Act Utilitarianism from Rule
Utilitarianism.
•
Act Utilitarianism says that one should always do
whatever act will create the greatest happiness for the
greater number of people.
•
Act Utilitarianism seems to suggest that it would be
right to abuse individuals for the the common good.
•
Rule Utilitarianism says that one should always do
whatever type of act or follow the rule that will create
the greatest happiness for the greater number of
people. Thus, rule utilitarianism suggests that a
pattern or rule of abusing individuals for the sake of the
common good is not right.
Video:
Do Consequences Make
Actions Right?
(#19)
Although it appears correct to many of us,
utilitarianism has many critics. Two
major issues are:
1. Utilitarianism seems not to account for the
importance of duties and obligations and intentions.
Consider the case of a man who attempts to shoot
his friend out of rage and jealousy and misses and
hits instead a sniper who is about to shoot a rifle
into a crowded mall. Did this man act morally? If
only consequences matter, we would probably
have to say that he did.
2. What are consequences anyway? They
only happen after we take action. They are
hypothetical.
Thus, an action cannot be said to be moral
or not until the consequences are known.
Remember, intentions don’t count.
But how long do we have to wait? With
many moral choices, all the consequences
are not ever known.
Thus, can we ever say if the act is good or
not?
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Many argue against utilitarianism that what makes an action
moral is the intention under which it is done. A moral act is
done because it is the right thing to do.
•
But what is the right thing to do? Such a view can be
interpreted many ways and may even appear to beg the
question.
•
Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule which is
stated quite explicitly by many early Greek philosophers & in
the New Testament
-- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you, for this sums
up the Law and the Prophets."
This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism,
Confucianism, and Taoism.
Problems Even With the Golden Rule
•
But how does one know how others want to be treated?
You may not be able to ask them because they do not
have the relevant experience.
•
"Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto
you. Their tastes may not be the same."
…George Bernard Shaw
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which
emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation
•
Thus, Kant’s view is called Deontology.
•
In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is
not just because it is done with a good intention.
•
It is the right thing to do if it is is done out of an intention to
follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or
obligation.
•
Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical
imperative.
•
A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a
conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this
class, you should study for the final exam.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is
done out of the categorical imperative which does
not depend on circumstances or conditional wants or
desires. The act is done for the sake of the principle
of doing the right thing.
•
Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are
truly acts of good will and thus, the person who
does so has a good will.
•
To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that
our own intentions ought to applied as a general law
for everybody.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, another way of stating the
categorical imperative is that we should treat all
persons as ends in themselves, never as means to
an end. Treat someone as they agree to be treated.
•
This second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative is essentially the same principle as the
first because the categorical imperative
universalizes your maxim. Both formulations are
basically saying do not treat yourself as an
exception!
•
Both formulations capture the essence of seems to
be the wisdom of the golden rule!
Video:
Can Rules Define Morality?
(#20)
Other Approaches to Morality
•
A popular view of morality of course is the view that
moral duty is set by a divine being.
•
But does anyone here remember Socrates?
•
But is an act right simply because God has
commanded it, or does God command it because it
is right?
•
In the first view, is God’s commandments arbitrary?
That doesn’t seem right. In the second view, is
there a criteria for morality which we can study
independent of God’s approval of certain acts?
Thus, many suggest that the Divine Commandment
view “begs the question.”
Rather than focusing on ethics as a matter
of what to do, another view focuses on
how to be.
In this view, known as virtue ethics, a
moral issue is not one of single actions but
is a matter of good character. It is a way of
living. In this view, ethics arises out of the
nature of a good person.
This approach is what was largely
accepted by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Plato & Socrates:
What is the Nature of a Virtuous Character?
What then makes an Act Moral or Good?
What is the Good Life?
How Should We Live?
What Makes Life Worth Living, that is, Good?
Aristotle:
What is a Virtuous Person?
•
Aristotle suggests to be virtuous is to act with
excellence, that is to live your life well according to
its purpose
•
Each person has both an individual purpose (what
you do best?) and a human purpose.
•
Man’s universal, human purpose is to reason, to
think rationally. In so doing, he will develop a
rational character which is moral goodness.
•
There are two forms of virtue:
1) When our soul controls our desires, we
engage our moral virtues.
2) When our soul contemplates intellectual or
spiritual matters, we engage our intellectual
virtues. (“sophia”)
Aristotle:
What is a Virtuous Person?
•
Virtue thus responds to each situation at the right
time, in the right way, in the right amount, for the
right reason.
•
Thus, a virtuous person will act with “moderation.”
•
This view is called “The Golden Mean” (and should
be carefully distinguished from “the golden rule.”)
•
Aristotle would cite the example of an artistic
masterpiece from which nothing can be added or
subtracted without harming the work’s “excellence.”
•
Only by following such a life of moderation will a
person achieve important virtues such as happiness
or courage.