Download
1 / 142
1.42k likes | 1.44k Views
Explore ethics as a branch of philosophy, the relationship with religion, evaluation types, ethical terms, and reasoning in moral judgments.
E N D
To Get The PowerPoint Notes • Go to http://www.ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Long/long.htm • Left click on “ethics power point” to view or right click to save (recommended). • I tweak regularly so refresh the file weekly to insure that you have the latest version. • Print the slides covering the relevant material for the week as “handouts” (I recommend three to a page) and bring them to class to take additional notes on.
What Is Ethics? • Generally speaking, an ethic is a set of moral values or principles. • Some see ethics as primarily about one’s personal moral code while others see it as primarily about a social moral code. • Some people and societies base their ethics on religious beliefs. • Descriptive ethics is the historical, comparative, or psychological study of the various sets of values that people do in fact have. • Evaluative (prescriptive, normative) ethics is a critical enterprise concerning which sets of values people shouldhave. • It asks which sets are better or worse and why. • It is part of a branch of philosophy called moral philosophy. • Metaethics is another part of moral philosophy; it studies the concepts, methods of justification, and ontological assumptions of the field of evaluative ethics (like the meaning of moral language).
Ethics As a Branch of Philosophy • Philosophy asks fundamental questions about key areas of the human situation. • Philosophers (and philosophies) may be either systematic or piecemeal. • Philosophy emphasizes rationality and the importance of giving reasons for beliefs (but this doesn’t mean abandoning or ignoring emotions and feelings). • Nowadays philosophical ethics is primarily prescriptive and normative, but metaethical issues are still discussed.
Ethics and Religion • Religion grounds ethics in things like scripture and divine revelation, whereas philosophy seeks to ground ethics in reason and experience. • Divine command theory bases right and wrong completely on the will of god(s). • In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions this view by asking “Are things just (good/right) because they are approved by god, or does god approve them because they are just?” • Others have objected that it prevents atheists from having a morality, or having a reason to be moral or to be concerned to do the morally right thing.
Ethical and Nonethical Evaluation • Descriptive judgments (“empirical”) attempt to state what is the case. • Evaluative judgments (“normative”) attempt to state what should be the case in terms of general beliefs about what is good or right (norms and standards). • Moral judgments are only one type of evaluative judgment; Others are legal, aesthetic, practical etc. • The nature of the linkage between descriptive and evaluative judgments in ethics remains controversial (Hume’s notorious “is-ought” problem).
Ethical Terms • Right and wrong usually apply to doings (action) and there is usually no in-between. • Good and bad usually apply to beings (things or states-of-affairs) and there are usually degrees between. • Ought and obligation imply urgency but morally permissible does not. • Other terms are just and unjust, virtuous and viscous. • Often the ethical theory we advocate influences the terms we use and their precise meanings.
Ethics As a Rational Enterprise • Philosophical ethics requires that we provide reasons (premises)to support our moral claims (conclusions.). • To logically support the conclusion, such reasons must be both true (or well-grounded) and relevant to the conclusion. • We should try to avoid fallacies such as the ad hominem. • Because ethical issues are generally a mix of factual, conceptual, and evaluative issues, we must be prepared to argue on multiple fronts: facts, meanings, and values. • Analogical arguments are common in ethics and must be closely analyzed to see if they are apt. • Remember that giving reasons to justify a conclusion is not the same as explaining why one believes it.
Ethical Theory • An ethical theory is a systematic exposition of a particular view about the nature and basis of the good and the right. • It provides (and attempts to justify) reasons and norms for judging acts to be right or wrong. • It provides ethical principles based on these norms that can be used to decide what to do in particular cases.
Ethical Reasoning • There is an interesting relationship between ethical theories, the ethical principles they crank out, and the ethical judgments we make in particular cases. • Sometimes our particular judgments are so strong that no principles or theories that contradict them can be accepted. • On the other hand, sometimes an ethical theory or principle can work to illuminate or guide us in the judgments we should make in particular cases. • Dilemma: should I let a reasonable theory guide my particular judgments or my particular judgments guide my choice of principles and theory?
Types of Ethical Theories • Consequentialist (teleological) ethics focus on actual or intended results. • Nonconsequentialist (deontological, duty-based) ethics focus on something other than results, such as the intent or the inherent nature of the act. • Virtue ethics focuses not on acts but on having good character traits. • Natural law ethics bases good, bad, right and wrong with the norms found in nature; What allows our human nature to flourish is good, what corrupts it is bad.
Why Take Ethics? • To become a morally better person? (Plato). • To better appreciate specific moral problems. • To provide conceptual and critical tools to help us think better about in moral matters. • To help us form and critically analyze ethical arguments. • To increase our respect for opposing views. • To help us see the potential reasonableness in previously unconsidered viewpoints. • To satisfy our natural curiosity and test the limits of knowledge.
Challenging the Idea of a Universal, Objective Morality • Nihilism hold that there are no objective values of any kind. • Relativism holds that ethical values and beliefs are relative either to the individuals or the societies that hold them and thus there is no objective standard of right and wrong. • Egoism holds that right and wrong are based entirely on self-interest.
Descriptive Relativism • Descriptive relativism makes factual claims about what people believe to be right and wrong. • Personal descriptive relativism asserts that different people embrace different moral norms, values and beliefs. • Cultural descriptiverelativism asserts that different groups of people embrace different moral norms, values and beliefs. • Most anthropologists accept both.
Prescriptive (Ethical) Relativism • Ethical relativism makes evaluative claims about what really is right or wrong, based on the denial of the existence of objective ethical norms and values. • Personal ethical relativism holds that ethical norms and standards are relative to the individuals who hold them. • Cultural ethical relativism holds that ethical norms and standards are relative to the groups that hold them. • Both are subjective views in the sense that both see morality as a function of the moral beliefs that people have, not of some objective reality beyond them (moral objectivism.)
Morality Contrasted With Science • Science seems to be universally valid, admits of progress and follows agreed-upon objective methods of inquiry. • Ethics seems not to be universally valid, admits of no clear progress and lacks agreed-upon objective methods of inquiry.
Common Reasons for Ethical Relativism • It is implied by the existence of moral diversity. • It explains moral uncertainty, the great difficulty we have in knowing what is the morally right thing to believe or do. • It is implied by situational differences between individuals and between groups; It allows these situational differences to “morally matter.” • It promotes tolerance.
Objectivist Responses • Moral diversity: • It may not be as widespread and deep as imagined; much apparent moral diversity may be due to differing factual beliefs. • Mere diversity of belief does not prove relativism. • Moral uncertainty: • If anything, moral uncertainty supports moral skepticism, not moral relativism. • The uncertainty and seeming lack of progress compared with science may simply indicate that ethics is harder, not that it is non-objective. • Perhaps moral progress is less apparent because it is different than scientific progress and harder to detect. • Situational differences: • Moral objectivism needn’t entail with moral absolutism (“strong objectivism”). • While recognizing objective core principles, moral objectivism can still be situationally sensitive (“weak objectivism”).
Problems With Ethical Relativism • Cultural ethical relativism: • It is hard to define and identify a culture • It seems strange to think that morality itself changes with changes in “polling percentages”. • Personal ethical relativism: • it doesn’t seem to conform to how we actually react to situations of moral uncertainty. • It seems strange to think that an individual can make something right for her just by believing that it is right. • Both: • Neither necessarily encourage tolerance • Both encourage a kind of “moral laziness.”
Problems for the Moral Objectivist • What exactly is the objective alternative to ethical relativism? • How do we defend moral realism,the view that there is a moral reality whose existence and nature are independent of those who know it? • Is the objective good defined by this moral reality one or many, and how do we come to know it?
G. E. Moore on Goodness • If it is a real property, how do we sense, observe or know it, and is it one or many? • G. E. Moore’s objectivist view: • Goodness is a specific quality that attaches to people or acts. • However, because it is simple and unobservable by sense perception it cannot be analyzed in terms of parts or defined in terms of the natural properties employed by science. • Thus, although real, it is a nonnatural property of things whose presence we somehow intuit with a special moral sense. • Others have held that moral properties like goodness are relational or supervenient properties.
Mary Midgley on “Moral Isolationism” • Moral diversity leads some to hold that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it. • Midgley criticizes M.I. On the following grounds: • It isn’t forced on us. • It isn’t a respectful attitude (respect requires understanding.). • It falsely implies that other cultures can’t criticize us. • The isolating barrier of blocks praise as well as blame. • If we can’t judge other cultures, we can’t judge our own. • M.I. Leads to a general ban on moral reasoning (=immoralism.). • If there were an isolating barrier, our own culture could never have been formed.
The Alan/Edna Debate • Factual (and conceptual) question: are people basically self-centered or selfish? • Factual question: what are the implications or consequences of such self-centered or selfish behavior? • Evaluative question: is such behavior a good or bad thing?
Psychological Egoism • This is a factual (descriptive) theory that holds that people are naturally self-interested. • Self-interested may be understood as narrow and short-range (“selfish”) or as broader and longer-term. • Under the latter, we need to take the interests of others into account, but our concern for others need not be genuine, only apparent. • It seems false to claim that people always act in their own best interests, but perhaps they always do what they think is in their own best interests. • Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a psychological egoist and a moral contractarian.
Is Psychological Egoism True? • Believing in the jury system versus serving on a jury. • Abraham Lincoln and the piglets. • Is self-interestedness innate or learned? • Is there a gender difference re self-interestedness? • Theories about motivation, while apparently empirical, are difficult, if not impossible to prove. • Mother Theresa cases: if we are to argue for P.E., It isn’t enough to argue that she got satisfaction out of doing what she did; We have to show that her aim was the obtaining of the satisfaction. • Paradoxically, we may have a better chance of obtaining happiness if we do not aim primarily at happiness.
Ethical Egoism • This is a normative (prescriptive) theory about how we ought to behave. • Individual ethical egoism is the view that I (the speaker)ought to look out only for my own best interests and have no concern for others unless it impacts me (no advice for others). • Universal ethical egoism is the view that everyone should look out only for their own best interests; The interests of others should concern them only when it affects them.
Is Ethical Egoism True? • Does it follow from psychological egoism? • Is IEE even a morality? • Is UEE even consistent? • Is EE justified by laissez faire capitalism? • Does EE conform with common sense?
Falk’s Moral Point of View • The egoist stresses prudence as the essence of morality. • But a moral education is not the same thing as a prudential education since. • Morality requires occasionally seeing beyond ourselves and our own interests. • Morality requires occasionally seeing things from others’ points of view. • Morality requires occasionally being impartial. • Morality requires occasionally restricting self-interest.
Why Be Moral? • The most common reason seems to be fear of reprisal. • Plato’s story about the ring of Gyges raise two questions: • Do we value morality or just the appearance of morality? • Why not be a free rider? • One response is that being moral is to one’s own positive advantage, either internally (e.G., Plato: being moral leads to a healthy soul which is essential for true happiness) or externally (e.G.,Ben Franklin’s adages in poor Richard’s almanac). • An eastern perspective: morality is connected with honor and nobility, which are essential to the good life.
Have You Considered A Philosophy Major or Minor? • Open up new universes of thought! • Meet interesting and exciting people! • Form your own “weltanschauung”! • Be the hit of the party with witty philosophical repartee! • Learn Plato’s real name! • Become rich and famous! (Well, maybe not, but did I mention new universes?) • Not for the intellectually squeamish or lazy! • See your nearest philosophy department for details - why not TODAY?
Utilitarianism: The Basic Idea • We all should strive to produce the most happiness we can while reducing unhappiness to a minimum (the utilitarian principle.). • Ethical issues should be decided by comparing the benefits and costs to all of each available alternative and doing that which has (or appears to have) the greatest net benefit. • Everyone’s happiness and unhappiness (benefits and costs) counts the same; We mustn’t play favorites..
Characteristics of Classical Utilitarianism • Consequentialist • Hedonistic • Democratic • Progressive and reformist • Empirical • Optimistic
Two Versions of the Utilitarian Principle • The morally better or best act is that which produces the greatest net utility (e.G., Happiness, pleasure, preference satisfaction, benefits over cost). • Do that which produces the greatest good (utility) for the greatest number.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) • The same principle applies to both personal and social morality: maximize group happiness or pleasure and minimize group unhappiness or pain. • Bentham makes no distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures;He insists that, if the quantity of pleasure produced is the same, “pushpin is as good as poetry”.
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Good • Classical utilitarians viewed happiness or pleasure as the only thing good or desirable for its own sake. • They viewed all other goods (e.G. Money, health) as simply means to happiness or pleasure.
Bentham’s Purely Quantitative “Hedonic Calculus” • First we factor in the net happiness or pleasure produced by a contemplated action; This is the total pleasure produced minus the total pain produced. • Next, we factor in the intensity of pleasure or pain produced in each individual. • Then we consider the duration of the pleasure or pain produced in each individual. • Then we add a factor representing the fruitfulness of the pleasure or pain produced in each individual (which is a measure of the tendency of that pleasure or pain to produce or set the stage for future pleasures or future absences of pain.). • Finally, we add a probability figure to the entire calculation that indicates how likely are our predictions of the future consequences of each alternative action.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Quality Over Quantity • Mill believed that some pleasures (notably, the pleasures of the mind) are qualitatively superior to other pleasures (such as the pleasures of the body.). • He writes, “better a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” • Mill claims that the empirical test for quality is the preference of the equally experienced.
Evaluating the Theory • Isn’t it too complex to use? • Isn’t it contrary to our common moral beliefs? • It assumes that the happiness of strangers is as important as the happiness of family and friends. • It implies that the end (general happiness) always justifies the means (e.G., Executing the innocent). • It seems unjust that the interests of some can be sacrificed for the interests of the many.
Act Versus Rule Utilitarianism • Act: consider the consequences of this particular act and do that act which has the best results. • Rule: consider the consequences of a certain practice and then do that act which falls under the practice that would have the best results if generally followed.
Mill’s “Proof” That Pleasure Is Desirable for Its Own Sake • Just as the proof that something is visible or audible is that it is seen or heard, so the proof that something is desirable is that it is desired. • Everyone desires pleasure for its own sake, so pleasure is desirable for its own sake. • Problem: “audible” means “can be heard” but “desirable” means “should be desired”.
Contemporary Versions • Preference utilitarianism: do that act (or follow that rule) that satisfies the preferences of the greatest number. • Cost-benefit analysis: do that act (or follow that rule) that leads to the greatest benefit over cost ratio.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and His Three Big Questions • What can we know? (Understanding is limited by the forms of the mind) • What is real? (Reality is the intersection of “inner” mental forms “shaping” sensations that come from “outside”) • What should we do? Read on…
What Gives an Act “Moral Worth”? • The intent to do the right thing for the right reason (because it is right) is what gives an act moral worth (“duty for duty's sake”). • Kant says that thismotive (the good will) is the one thing in the world that is good for its own sake. • It is not the consequences that matter since. • These aren’t always under our control and. • It gives humans only use value, not inherent value.
Two Kinds of Oughts • Hypothetical commands express duties that are based on individual goals, so these oughts are conditional. • But moral commands express duties that are categorical; They are based on our common personhood as rational, autonomous beings so these oughts are unconditional.
What Is My Moral Duty? • All moral duties flow from a single duty that is purely formal and lacks content, the categorical imperative. • Kant gives two main forms which he regards as equivalent: • Act only on that maxim which you can rationally will as a universal law. • Always treat humanity (self and others) as ends-in-themselves, never merely as mere means.
Evaluating: The Appealing Aspects of Kant’s Theory • It stresses fairness and consistency. • The emphasis on respect for all persons contrasts favorably with utilitarianism. • For Kant, morality is both clearly real and strictly binding.
Problems With the Categorical Imperative • Which maxim do we use? • I can universally will things that aren’t moral duties. • Some things that I can’t universally will aren’t morally wrong. • Isn’t Kant just a rule utilitarian in disguise? • When is coercion or deception present?
Other Potential Problems • The theory is too strict, too absolutist. • It gives us no help in resolving conflicts of duty. • Stressing moral equality and impartiality ignores morally relevant differences of gender, race, age, and talents between persons and groups. • Rationality may not be the same for all. • Too male-oriented; Kant ignores feelings.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties • For Kant, a perfect duty is absolute; It is owed by all to all at all times (like the duty not to murder.) • An imperfect duty is one that is only owed by some to some on some occasions (like the duty to be charitable.)
Ethical Naturalism: Good As a Function of the Way Things Are. • Natural law theory: the moral law is based on human nature. • Natural rights theory: human rights are claims whose recognition by others is essential to our natural functioning as human beings. • Virtue ethics: ethics is about developing and retaining good habits and character traits that allow us to function well as human beings.
Virtue Ethics • The morally good person is the virtuous person. • A virtue is a good inner trait or habit. • The emphasis is on “what should I be?” Not “what should I do?”
