* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ethics - Lagemaat - TOK-eisj
Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Paleoconservatism wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Value (ethics) wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Utilitarianism wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
John McDowell wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
ETHICS Useful tools for helping us to think about and make sense of our values Controversial social questions which force us to think about our values • • • • Is abortion ever justified? Should drugs be legalized? Are there limits to free speech? Is there such a thing as a just war? ? They do not always seem to have a straightforward answer….. Overview: • 1. Nature and limitations of moral reasoning. • 2. Two threats to ethics – relativism and self-interest theory. • 3. Relativism claims that there is no such thing as moral knowledge and self-interest theory believes that we are incapable of acting on it. • 4. The threats are not as serious as they appear. • 5. Three theories of ethics: religious ethics, duty ethics, and utilitarianism. Moral reasoning • Some people are sceptical about the possibility of moral knowledge claim that moral values and judgements are simply matters of taste. • We expect people to justify their valuejudgements and support them with reasons. • A simple model: Commonly agreed moral principle. • Cheating on a test is wrong • Tom cheated on the test • Therefore what Tom did was wrong. • When we argue about ethical questions, there are two things we often look at: 1. Whether people are being consistent in their judgments, (Trying to see whether or not someone is being consistent is complicated by the fact that they might not only apply moral rules inconsistently, but also hold inconsistent principles) 2. Whether the alleged facts on which those judgments are based are true. • Facts: All kinds of facts are likely to be relevant to our moral judgments, and many arguments that initially look like disputes about values turn to be disputes about facts. • E.g: If we are arguing about whether or not Smith behaved badly at the party on Saturday night, our disagreement may turn on to the question of whether or not Smith punched Jones on the nose. • Arguing about the pros and cons of capital punishment, our disagreement may turn on the question of whether or not it is an effective deterrent. Moral relativism • Our values are determined by the society we grow up in, and there is no universal values. • Moral values are simply customs or conventions that vary from culture to culture. • ‘Ethics’ and ‘morality’ are both derived from words that originally meant ‘custom’. Arguments for moral relativism • 1. The diversity argument – The sheer variety of moral practices suggests that there are no objective moral values. E.g: keeping slaves, burning widows, cannibalism, etc. • 2. The lack of foundations argument – • There does not seem to be an independent ‘moral reality’ against which we can test our values to see if they are true or false; and this suggests that they are simply the result of the way we have been brought up and conditioned by society. Arguments against moral relativism • 1. Despite appearances, there are infact some core values that have been accepted by all cultures. There is evidence to suggest that every society has some kind of rules to limit violence, protect property and promote honesty. • 2. We can infact justify our values. Self-interest theory • Human beings are always and everywhere selfish. • Selfish behaviour is usually seen as the opposite of moral behaviour, this theory suggests that, even if there are objective moral values, we are incapable of living up to them. Arguments for self-interest theory • • • • 1. Definitional argument 2. Evolutionary argument 3. Hidden benefits argument 4. Fear of punishment argument Utilitarianism • Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. • Maximise happiness. • by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham • We are unclear about what constitutes "the greatest good." • Mill defined "the good" in terms of wellbeing (Aristotle's eudaimonia). Objections • • • • • 1. It is not always clear what the outcome of an action will be, nor is it always possible to determine who will be affected by it. Judging an action by the outcome is therefore hard to do beforehand. 2. It is very difficult to quantify pleasures for cost/benefit analysis (but since this only has to be done on a comparative scale, this may not be as serious an objection as it at first seems). 3. The calculation required to determine the right is both complicated and time consuming. Many occasions will not permit the time and many individuals may not even be capable of the calculations. 4. Since the greatest good for the greatest number is described in aggregate terms, that good may be achieved under conditions that are harmful to some, so long as that harm is balanced by a greater good. 5. The theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that could not be violated for the sake of the greatest good. Indeed, even the murder of an innocent person would seem to be condoned if it served the greater number. • In response to objections, some proponents have proposed a modification of the theory. • Let us call the original form: • Act Utilitarianism-each individual action is to be evaluated directly in terms of the utility principle. • The proposed improvement is: • Rule Utilitarianism- behavior is evaluated by rules that, if universally followed would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. (Rule utilitarianism could address the fourth and fifth objections) Student Assignment • • • • • Graded on: Clarity Critical Thought Content Descriptors Task: Explore the problem presented, come up with possible courses of action, and then reach a reasoned judgment supported by a good argument for the course of action which you perceive as the most ethical Essay • 1000 word essay