Ethics: Theory and Practice

Ethics: Theory and Practice Jacques P. Thiroux Keith W. Krasemann

Chapter Two Consequentialist (Teleological) Theories of Morality

Two Viewpoints of Morality • Consequentialist (teleological) • Morality is based on or concerned with consequences • Nonconsequentialist (deontological) • Morality is not based on or concerned with consequences

Two Major Consequentialist Ethical Theories • Ethical Egoism • Utilitarianism • Both theories agree that human beings ought to behave in ways that will bring about good consequences • The theories disagree on who should benefit from these consequences • Ethical egoism  act in self-interest • Utilitarianism  act for the interests of all

Psychological Egoism • Psychological egoism is not an ethical theory but a descriptive or scientific theory having to do with egoism • Two forms: • Strong form: people always act in their own self-interest • Weaker form: people often, but not always, act in their own self-interest

Psychological Egoism • In its strong form • Does not refute morality • In its weaker form • Does not provide a rational foundation for ethical egoism • What about circumstances in which people do unselfish things, even though they do not want to do them?

Ethical Egoism • Ethical egoism is a philosophical-normative, prescriptive theory • Three forms: • The individual form (everyone ought to act in my self-interest) • The personal form (I ought to act in my own self-interest, but make no claims on what others should do) • The universal form (everyone should always act in his or her own self-interest)

Problems with Universal Ethical Egoism • Universal ethical egoism is the theory most commonly presented, but still has problems • Inconsistency • It is unclear whose self-interest should be satisfied

Problems with Universal Ethical Egoism • What is Meant by Everyone • The term “everyone” is unclear • Everyone’s interests create conflicts and inconsistencies • Difficulty in Giving Moral Advice • It is difficult to determine how to give moral advice

Problems with Universal Ethical Egoism • Blurring the Moral and Nonmoral Uses of Ought and Should • Supporters of egoism tend to blur the moral and nonmoral uses of ought and should • This makes universal egoism highly impractical and, at worst, creates conflicts and inconsistencies

Problems with Universal Ethical Egoism • Inconsistent with Helping Professions • Ethical egoism in any form does not provide the proper ethical basis for people in helping professions • Some people in helping professions do so out of self-interest • Others do so to help others • A highly self-interested attitude would not serve one well in a helping profession

Advantages of Universal Ethical Egoism • It is easier to determine self-interest • It is easier for individuals to determine what their own interests are • It encourages individual freedom and responsibility • It works when people operate in limited spheres, isolated from one another, which minimizes conflict

Limitations Of Universal Ethical Egoism • It offers no consistent method of resolving conflicts of self-interests • While individuals operate in limited spheres, it is much easier to maintain self-interest • As soon as individual or limited spheres start to overlap, individual self-interests will start to conflict • Some principle of justice or compromise must be brought in to address that conflict

Ayn Rand’s Rational Ethical Egoism • Ayn Rand was the foremost exponent of universal ethical egoism (which she called rational ethical egoism) • Self-interests of rational human beings, by virtue of their being rational, will never conflict • That theory does not address the very real conflicts that do actually arise in our crowded and interdependent societies

Utilitarianism • Utilitarianism maintains that everyone should perform that act or follow that moral rule which will bring about the greatest good (or happiness) for everyone concerned

Act Utilitarianism • Act utilitarianism says that everyone should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good over bad for everyone affected by the act • One cannot establish rules in advance to cover all situations and people because they are all different

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism • It is difficult to determine the consequences for others • What may be a good consequences for you may not be equally, or at all, good for another • How are you to tell unless you can ask other people what would be good for them?

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism • It is impractical to have to begin anew for each situation and to have to decide what would be moral for that situation • Is each act and each person completely and uniquely different? • An act utilitarian might argue that there are many similarities among people and their behaviors that would justify the laying down of certain rules

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism • It is difficult to educate the young or uninitiated in acting morally without rules or guides to follow • The only guide would be: Each person must assess what would be the greatest good consequences of each act for each situation that arises

Rule Utilitarianism • Rule utilitarianism states that everyone always should follow the rules that will bring the greatest number of good consequences for all concerned • There are enough similar human motives, actions, and situations to justify setting up rules that will apply to all human beings and all situations

Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism • It is difficult to determine consequences for others • It would be difficult to be sure that a rule can be established to cover the diversity of human beings, which will truly and always bring about the greatest good for all • It is difficult to educate the young and uninitiated

Cost-Benefit Analysis • Creates problems for utilitarianism: • Danger of trying to determine the social worth of individuals • The greatest good is often interpreted as the “greatest good of the majority,” with possible immoral consequences to the minority • Does even a good end justify any means used to attain it, or should we also consider our means and motives?

Difficulty with Consequentialist Theories in General • Consequentialist theories demand that we discover and determine all of the consequences of our actions or rules • That is virtually impossible • Do consequences or ends constitute all of morality?

Care Ethics • Established by Carol Gilligan, sometimes called “feminist ethics” • There are fundamental differences between men and women: • Men’s moral attitudes have to do with justice, rights, competition, being independent, and living by the rules • Women’s moral attitudes have to do with generosity, harmony, reconciliation, and working to maintain close relationships

Criticisms of Gilligan’s Theory • Gilligan’s theory raises “female values” over “male values” • It replaces one unfair system with another • The theory seems to prescribe more traditional gender roles to men and women • I.e. Men are most concerned with justice, so only men should be judges

Ethics: Theory and Practice