80 likes | 293 Views
SUMMARY: Characteristics that a moral theory needs to “work” Needs to help resolve moral issues in manner acceptable to society at large. The functions of a moral theory To keep society from falling apart To diminish human suffering To promote human flourishing
E N D
SUMMARY: • Characteristics that a moral theory needs to “work” • Needs to help resolve moral issues in manner acceptable to society at large. • The functions of a moral theory • To keep society from falling apart • To diminish human suffering • To promote human flourishing • To resolve conflicts of interest in just & orderly ways • To assign praise & blame: responsibility
CHARACTERISTICS of Moral Theories Moral Theories should provide for 1. STABILITY: constant, consistent • decisions not made on whim or caprice. 2. UNIVERSALITY: Principles or practices applied fairly/equally [same playing field ] • not different rules for different people in the same situation. 3. IMPARTIALITY: avoid inclinations/each person counts for one • showing favoritism for a friend or yourself. 4. OBJECTIVITY: Make decisions on a verifiable basis, apart from inclinations/emotions • decisions made on non-verifiable basis, or according to personal preference. 5. [Compassion?]
How do our philosophers provide for STABILITY • Hobbes: contract irrevocable/absolute ruler. • Mill: decide on the basic of publicly verifiable consequences – may lack stability because nothing is absolutely wrong • Kant: based in human reason, with all inclination and personal preference removed. • Aristotle: moral actions flow from people of good moral character.
How do our philosophers provide for UNIVERSALITY • Hobbes: all men agree to the covenant made. • Mill: be sure to consider the consequences for all those affected by an action • Kant: the moral law consists of universalizable principles. [1st Cat. Imp.] • Aristotle: assumes all persons seek the good.
How do our philosophers provide for IMPARTIALITY • Hobbes: the covenant covers everyone in society -- no “opt-outs” • Mill: consider the consequences for all affected by an action, your interests count for only one in that calculation • Kant: acting from reverence for the law – acting from principles, not from inclinations or emotions. “mere means” • Aristotle: the role of practical reason.
How do our philosophers provide for OBJECTIVITY • Hobbes: individual morality is relative to our desires & aversions, thus we need the covenant and the absolute ruler to override that. • Mill: consequences are publicly verifiable. • Kant: no inclinations and no material considerations. Both formulations of the categorical imperative • Aristotle: the form of the good as encountered in the world.
How do our philosophers provide for COMPASSION • Hobbes: nope! • Mill: believes that we have sympathy for others and that our happiness depends on the well-being of others. • Kant: not morally valuable. • Aristotle: “fine” [able to make small distinctions] emotions part of identifying & resolving moral dilemmas.
RAWLS Being in the original position behind a veil of ignorance would lead us to pick rules that are fair to everyone. If we resolve moral dilemmas using those rules the characteristics will be fulfilled. STABILITY -- UNIVERSALITY IMPARTIALITY -- OBJECTIVITY QUESTION: Can you get the RESULTS of Compassion without engaging the emotions?