330 likes | 335 Views
Philosophy 2018-2019 Jelle de Boer. Lecture 1. This lecture , today. Practical matters Introduction Values Wellbeing , happiness Subjectivism Relativism. Grade components. Multiple Choice Exam : 60% Duo Essay: 40%
E N D
Philosophy2018-2019Jelle de Boer Lecture 1
Thislecture, today • Practical matters • Introduction • Values • Wellbeing, happiness • Subjectivism • Relativism
Grade components • Multiple ChoiceExam: 60% • Duo Essay: 40% • Multiple ChoiceExam is abouttheprescribedliteratureandthelecture slides. • Duo essay, 1000-1500 words: ethicalreflection on a suitable subject fromyour bachelor thesis or on somethingelse.
Literature • The Elements of MoralPhilosophy, Rachels – book, tobebuyed • An IntroductiontoDecisionTheory, Peterson – Canvas • SocialCost Benefit Analysis - Canvas • The Distribution of Responsibility, Van de Poel & Royakkers – Canvas • Values in Science, Staley - Canvas
Programme – 6 lectures • Introduction, Values, Wellbeing; SubjectivismandRelativism • DecisionTheoryand Game Theory • ConsequentialismandUtilitarianism • Deontology; Social Contract Theory • AppliedEthics: SocialCost-Benefit Analysis; Distribution of Responsibility; TBA • Values in Science, ScientificIntegrity
What is ethics? • Discipline in philosophythat studies morality - ethics = moralphilosophy • Moralitycanbestudied in different ways: • Descriptively (psychology, sociology, anthropology, history): how do peoplebehave, whatcausestheirbehavior, what are themechanisms? • Normatively: howoughtpeoplebehave, howtojustifytheirbehavior? • Meta-ethically: what kind of statements are moral statements, do they have truthvalues; what are moralproperties?
Somemoral issuesSelfdrivingcars • Whatifan accident happens, andtheonly options are: steertotheleftandkillonepedestrian or steertothe right and crash, therebykillingthetwopeople in thecar? • Whatif a fatal accident happensbecausethecar does notrecognizesome vehicle forwhatit is? Who is responsible? The carowner, themanufacturer, the designer?
Protest againstonline censorship • Europe: Techplatforms like Facebook,Youtube must restrictsharing ofmusic, art, journalistic content, illegaldownloading • Block illegal content by uploadfilters That is censorship! protest in thestreets, March 23 • Axel Voss, German Euro parliament: “Google and Facebook spread disinformation anduseyoungpeople as a mere means.” • What does Vossmeanwiththis? Andwhatexactly is so bad aboutthis?
Machine learning • Predictcriminalbehavior; prevent terrorist attacks; hirethe best workers; diagnose illnesses; legal analysis • Amplifybiasesagainstblacks, muslims, women; enhancediscrimination • Whatvalues are at stake? How tounderstand these values? How toweighthem?
Scientificconduct • How touse data? • Canyouleave out certain data? E.g. outliers? • Must yourstudybereplicable? • Whatto do if a senior collegueasksyoutocommitscientificfraud?
Values How do these valuesrelatetoeachother? • Monism: the different valuesreducetoonefundamentalintrinsicvalue. E.g. happiness or wellbeing; theothervalues are onlyinstrumental. • Pluralism: the different values are irreducible; they are allintrinsic. Freedom Knowledge Friendship Love Beauty Equality Happiness, wellbeing …
Focus on Wellbeing/happiness • E.g. how do social media affect people’slives? • Somebodylikesyourmessage or photo dopamine. Isn’tthatnice? • Or is itharmful? In what sense? • Todetermineanswers tot these questions one must first have a concept of wellbeing/happiness
Theories of wellbeing/happiness • Hedonism: wellbeing = sum of pleasure – pain • Preferencesatisfaction: wellbeing = satisfaction of preferences • Objective list: wellbeing = items on an objectieve lijst
Hedonism • Hedonism: wellbeing = sum of pleasure – pain feeling, psychological state • Epicurus (341 v.C. – 270 v. C.), Bentham (1748 - 1832) , Mill (1806 - 1873) • Source of wellbeing is irrelevant
Hedonism – objections • Wellbeing does notalwayscome down toaninner feeling. E.g. whenyou look at a beautifulpainting, or whenyoutryto master somethingdifficult. • The experience machine of Robert Nozick: do you go in? According toNozick: Surelynot! Sincepeople want: • to live a real life (compare Charles de Bovary) • tobe a person (instead of a mereheap of organic matter) • todothings (instead of merelyexperiencingthem)
Wellbeing has distinctforms. Wellbeing [dancing] ≠ Wellbeing [write a book] ≠ Wellbeing [bewithfriends] John Stuart Mill: some of these are better: It is bettertobe Socrates unhappythanpig happy. Jeremy Benthamdisagreed: Pushpin (a simple board game) is just as good as poetry.
Hedonistictredmill: • Habituation: same stimuli providelesspleasure (recallthe dopamine) • Seeking of stronger stimuli
Measurementproblem i): howtomeasureone’shedonic state? Important drive for development of preferencesatisfaction approach. (But currentlythere are revivals: thehappiness indicator industry) • Measurementproblem ii): howtocomparehedonisticstatesbetweenpeople?
Preferencesatisfaction Wellbeing = preferencesatisfaction n.b.: do notinterpretthishedonistically! Satifying as in satisfyingrequirements. → modern theory: preferencesatisfaction = utility (Decisiontheory, Lecture 2). howtodeterminethis: ordinalscale, Von Neumann Morgenstern interval scale
Criticismanddiscussion • Uninformedpreferences. E.g. you take a medicineunaware of the side effects. Youuse Facebook unaware of itspossiblyaddictive effect. • Adaptivepreferences. Preferencesthatadapttothecircumstances. • Happy slaves. • Tred mill, as forhedonism. • Modification: onlyrationalandinformedpreferencescount. (tendstowardsobjective list).
Malevolentpreferences. Shouldsadisticpreferencescountforsomeone’swellbeing? • Experiencematters. E.g. stranger in the train. • Are all types of preferencesatisfaction on equalfooting? preferencesatisfaction [dancing] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [mathematicalproof] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [play tennis] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [collectingbottle caps] • Measurementproblemhowtocompareutility/wellbeingamongpeople?
Objective list • Objectieve list of Basic Needs, e.g. • food • drink • income • shelter • social relations • Objective list of thingsthat make peopleFlorish, e.g.: • education • culture • sport • freedom • have a voice • clubs
Objective list of Capabilities = whatpeoplecan do – Sen, Nussbaum • Physical health • Bodilyintegrity • Making use of senses • Imaginationandthought • Express emotions • Practical reasoning • Social relations andself respect • Live in nature andamonganimals • Laughingandplaying • Politicalandmaterial control over environment
Illustratedifference • Basic needs – income: everybodysameamount • Capabilities – making use of senses: someonewith bad eyesgets extra money tobuyglasses Objectivelists - in general: • No intrapersonal, no interpersonalmeasurementproblem • Relatively easy tousefor policy makers
Objections • Are the items on the list the correct items? • How tojustifythe items? • Bysayingthatpeople want them? = preferencesatisfactiontheory • The items do notconstitutewellbeing, they are sources of wellbeing. • People have authority over theirwellbeing. • Notsensitivetodifferencesbetweenpeople.
Subjectivism • Moral statements are mereexpressions of personal opinion or taste. • They do notconveymatters of fact. • They do not have truthvalues: theycannotbetrue or false. In Meta ethics, thepositionthatmoral statements do not have truthvalues is more commonlyknown as: non-cognitivism Early (andsimple) version: emotivism
Emotivism • Moral statements are expressions of emotions: approval & disapproval • “This is morallygood” = hooray! • “This is morally bad” = booh! • These statements do not have truthvalues. • Moraldisagreement is a conflict of attitudes. • Explainswhysomedisagreements run deep, hard toreconcile. • Difference in moraljudgementsexplainedbyvariety of attitudes. • Moralitymotivates: difficultyforcognitivists, notforemotivists
Emotivism - objections 1. Moralreasoningbetweenpeople is an exchange of arguments, not attitudes. Moralreasoning does not look like a combination of expressions of emotions, e.g. • Murder is morally wrong • Ifmurder is morally wrong, theneuthanasia is morally wrong • Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong Because, howto construct this in anemotivist way? • Booh! [murder] • Hooray! [booh! (murder) & booh! (euthanasia)] • Booh [euthanasia] The “conclusion” does notnecessarily follow. Does notreflectthelogicalstucture. (Frege-Geachproblem)
2. How todistinguishmoral statements fromotherevaluative statements, e.g. estheticones? In a non circular way? Modern non-cognitivism • More sophisticated • Norm expressivism (Alan Gibbard) • Quasi realism (Simon Blackburn)
Relativism • Culturalrelativism: different cultures vary in systems of moralnorms • Does it follow thatthere is no culture independent universalmorality? • No, notnecessarily: • Perhapsthere is andsomehow no culture has dicoveredthis system of universalnorms • Or varying cultures andtheir systems of norms are somehowrooted in a more (fundamental?) system of universalnorms
Moralrelativism • Variant of cognitivism. • Moral statements have truthvalues, they are true or false. • They are true or falserelativeto a specific culture.
Moralrelativism - objections • Certainvaluesandnormsare common toall cultures. • No objectivestandpointtocriticizethemorality of a specific culture. Or todecide a moraldiscussionbetween members from different cultures. • The idea of moralprogressstillpossible?
Normativerelativism? • “each culture should have itsownmorality” • “oneshouldbe tolerant of different cultures” • These are universal claims. • And do not follow frommoralrelativism. A moralrelativistcanalso say thatoneshouldnotbe tolerant.