Philosophy 2030 Class #15 Deontology 4/28/16 Return Midterm Exams Chapter Seven , pp. 320-327.

1. Philosophy 2030 Class #15 Deontology 4/28/16 Return Midterm Exams Chapter Seven, pp. 320-327. Portfolios are due today.

2. Although it may appear correct to some degree, utilitarianism has many critics. • It 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.

3. 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 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.

4. But Is the Golden Rule Always Right? George Bernard Shaw wrote: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different." Baseball or opera tickets? But perhaps "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.

5. Is the Golden Rule Always Right? Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule such as: The golden rule requires that we treat others only as we would want to be treated if we were in their “situation.” But then perhaps you will use the golden rule to justify that you should help your friend rob banks because you would want him to help you if you were robbing a bank. Or should we not send criminals to prison because we would not want to go to prison if we were in their situation?

6. The Golden Rule Dr. Harry Gensler, Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University

7. Gensler’s Golden Rule • Thus, Harry J. Gensler suggests that the Golden Rule is more a pathway to help guide us through moral conduct than a guide or compass to how to conduct ourselves in a given situation. • He suggests that it is a means to test the consistency of our moral beliefs and values, not a “rule book” for how to live. • Thus, in this view, the “golden rule” functions within moral decisions much like we have proposed that critical thinking provides a guideline for philosophical discussion. • That is, it defines consistency between statements and a rationale for our discussions, but does not provide us the content in which to make moral judgments!

8. “The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.” Harry J. Gensler, Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University

9. The K.I.T.A. Principle What about the CEO who actually believes that he treats his employees fairly by paying them under the minimum wage and that they get just what they deserve because of lack of ambition. This is a problem of knowledge and imagination! Without proper knowledge and imagination, the golden rule cannot act as a moral principle. We must apply the Golden Rule with: 1) Knowledge 2) Imagination 3) Testing 4) Action

10. Is the Golden Rule Always Right? • But should we use the golden rule when dealing with evil or immoral persons or those with evil desires? Do I really think it is right to treat a terrorist as I would want him to treat me (even with KITA)? • But should we use the golden rule in dealing with children? Do I really think it is right to treat an 18-month child who is just about to put his fingers in a light socket based on how I want him to treat me? Or rather, “what is good for him?” • Who qualifies as an appropriate “other”?

11. Is the Golden Rule Always Right? If we want someone to do something for us, does this mean that we should do the same to them? Maybe this works fine if I just want my wife to scratch my back, but surely it is not a universal principle. If you want your boss to tell you that you are doing a good job, is the “right” thing to do really to tell her she is doing a good job when you know that she is not?

12. Immanuel Kant (1704-1824) Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy. Kant argued that fundamental concepts of the human mind structure human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that space and time are forms of our sensibility, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is unknowable.

13. 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 a deontological view. • 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 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.