Justice, Crime, and Ethics (Braswell): Chapter 2

1. Utilitarianism vs. Deontology JCE Chapter 2

2. From last class…. • Context of Criminal Justice (CJ) is complex (overlapping contexts) • CJ practitioners need automatic but reflective judgment (sympathy) • Goals of CJ are to tune and calibrate one’s “wholesight” In sum, the class helps you to deal with the complex overlapping contexts of criminal justice with a sympathetic, automatic judgment.

3. …To this class • All ethical inquiry (business, environmental, cj, etc.) is influenced by two central ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontological duties. • Deontology—Good is in a “good will” of a rational being satisfying the duty of the greatest maxim: to only act as if my action were to be made a universal law. (i.e. you must treat others as ends unto themselves.) • Utilitarianism—Good is the maximization of pleasure (happiness) and the minimization of pain.

4. Context: Ethics

6. Mill’s “Utilitarianism”

7. Mill’s “Utilitarianism”

9. Problems for Mill Objection1: Pleasure gain and pain avoidance is not a legitimate end. Objection 2: Pleasures are not quantifiable, and thus not maximizable, because they admit of different incomparable kinds and types (e.g. rational, physical, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.) Objection 3: Leads to seemingly inhumane claims, like aborting/killing severally disabled infants. (see Singer)

10. Problems for Mill Objection1: Pleasure gain and pain avoidance is not a legitimate end. Objection 2: Pleasures are not quantifiable, and thus not maximizable, because they admit of different incomparable kinds and types (e.g. rational, physical, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.)

11. Problems for Mill Objection1: Pleasure gain and pain avoidance is not a legitimate end. Objection 2: Pleasures are not quantifiable, and thus not maximizable, because they admit of different incomparable kinds and types (e.g. rational, physical, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.) Objection 3: Leads to seemingly inhumane claims, like aborting/killing severally disabled infants. (see Singer)

14. Where does the “good” reside? Kant: By thought alone (a priori), we recognize that a good will is infinite. Anything that is infinite is an end in itself. So, good will is an end in itself. Since all people have a good will (out of which they have a duty to act), all people are ends unto themselves and should never be treated as a means.

15. Compare: For Mill, pleasure is both the good and the motivation Mill: By experience alone (a posteriori) we recognize that pleasure is the greatest end. Whatever is the greatest end, is the greatest good. So, pleasure is the greatest good. All things, people and objects, exist to as a means for increasing pleasure overall.

16. Where does the “good” reside? Kant: Good is in a “good will” of a rational being satisfying the duty of the greatest maxim: to only act as if my action were to be made a universal law.

17. How do we find good will? Reason! “In the preceding analysis the moral law led to the practical task that is set by pure reason alone and without the aid of any sensible incentives, namely that of the necessary completeness of the first and principle part of the highest good, morality. The relation between morality and thought. We desire to act morally. What is moral is determined by thought alone. So, our desired actions are determined by thought alone.

18. Problem for Premise 1 Problem: 1 is false—we do not desire to act morally: Many do not have moral desires—addicts, masochists, etc. So, their desires are not determined by thought alone. Response: 1 is true, first order desires are not determined by thought (e.g. eating pizza), but second-order desires are (e.g. eating healthy for a good life). Masochists follow their first order desires and need to follow their thought-based second-order desires.

19. Fixing Premise 1 New Premise for Kant: 1*) “Our “second-order” desires are to act morally.” • Our “second-order” desires are to act morally. (‘We desire to desire to be good.’) • What is moral is determined by thought alone. • So, our second-order desired actions are determined by thought alone.

20. Problem for Premise 2 • What matters are beliefs (or intentions), not actions or outcomes. Example: Famine Relief After a recent typhoon in the Philippines many people, in ‘good will,’ sent out charitable donations that caused harmful consequences.

21. Problem for Premise 2 • What matters are beliefs (or intentions), not actions or outcomes. Example: Famine Relief For Kant, sending teddy bears was a good thing: even though the consequences were bad, the intentions were good.

22. Biggest problem: Kant cannot deal at all with moral dilemmas.

24. Sum: Utility vs. Good Will • Utility (Mill) cares about consequences of greatest happiness. • Good Will (Kant) cares about the intentions of ones actions directed at treating others as ends.

25. Applications: Telephone Bugging • WWMillD? • WWKantD?

26. Application: Telephone Bugging • WWMD? One need only weigh the possible positive and negative consequences of an act to determine if one should do it. If the perceived positive consequences of wire tapping outweigh the negative, then it is a good thing to wire tap. (…says every cop show) • WWKD? Would YOU, a citizen with rights to privacy, want to have your phone tapped….or any citizen to whom you respect? If not, then wire tapping is wrong in every instance.

27. Applications: Telephone Bugging • WWYouD?