Ethical Theories

Ethical Theories Virtue Ethics  Egoism  Utilitarianism  Deontology  Relativism  Virtue Ethics again?

What is morality about? Importance! Good / Bad (value) Right / Wrong (conduct) Obligatory / Forbidden (conduct) Virtue Punishment Duty Honor Vice Reward Fairness Praise Justice Blame Merit So on… Desert Cruelty Forgiveness Mercy Kindness Vengeance

Greek Philosophers (500BC – 200BC) Timeline The Great Three Plato, 20, meets Socrates, 60 Aristotle, 17, meets Plato, 62 Plato (429 - 347) 500 BC 200 BC Socrates (469 - 399) Aristotle (384 - 322)

Ancient & Medieval Goodness:Plato and Aristotle through Aquinas The Good = Being … = God? Angels Humans Animals Plants Rocks Mud? Formless Matter The Great Chain of Being Actuality Potentiality

Moral Virtues (And One Intellectual Virtue) • Courage • Temperance • Generosity • Magnificence (generosity with wealth) • Magnanimity (proper pride) • Right ambition • Good temper • Friendliness • Truthfulness • Wit • Justice Aristotle identifies 11 moral virtues, all governed by one intellectual virtue, prudence—good deliberation—which brings the virtues from potentiality to actuality or into existence Actuality Potentiality

How are Moral Virtues Acquired? We use prudence to find the mean, or • the right amount of an action, • the right time for an action, • the right goal for an action, • the right person for an action, • the right manner of acting, etc.

Prudence = Skillful Deliberation

Age of Discovery (1415-1700) Timeline England Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) 1400 1700 Columbus (1451-1506) Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) Spain Portugal Prussia, Italy For comparison Copernicus (1473-1543) Galileo (1564-1642)

Hobbes Tries to Modernize Ethics Hobbes wants us to consider the relations that emerge among human beings in light of our common human nature, prior to there being any society or government imposing rules upon us. In doing this, he hopes to show • why we need government • the character that government must have • what our duties are to our government In doing this, Hobbes is rejecting the Great Chain of Being and with it, the Divine Right of Kings as the rational basis for governmental authority.

The Sovereign Because we are all fundamentally selfish, the Social Contract must be enforced through terror! “…covenants of mutual trust, where there is fear of not performance on either part, … are invalid.” “… before the names just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishments greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant … such power there is none before the erection of a commonwealth.”

Egoism Read about Egoism at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/ Hobbes endorsed both these forms of Egoism: • Psychological Egoism: Every human act is motivated solely by self-interest • Ethical Egoism: Every human act ought to be directed toward self-interest

Ethical Egoism underlies Social Contract Theory Ethical Egoism (EE) says every human act ought always to be directed toward self-interest. 4 Reasons to Accept Ethical Egoism • Strongest possible connection between acting morally and acting rationally. • EE, for Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, others, focuses on the indignity of being subservient to others. • Acting selfishly makes for a better world; altruism creates dependency. • Ethical Egoism does not really differ in content much from Standard Moral Theories (SMT)—Mill, Kant, Aristotle

Ethical Egoism Reason 4 is defended with “The Cooperation Defense” Being kind, generous, friendly, etc., leads to long-term “self benefits,” and so EE is basically the same as conventional morality or SMTs. Ask yourself, on Ethical Egoist grounds, • What reason do I have to give to the homeless person at the stop light? • Why will I not cheat on my spouse? • Etc.

Criticism of Ethical Egoism A failing of the cooperation defense: You are rowing a boat to safety after your cruise ship sank and a desperate man a few yards off is calling for help. There are no other survivors, the man has no chance without you, and you have no interest in saving him. EE suggests you have no duty to save the man since any such duty would have to be grounded in your having a reason to act, and, as we’re supposing, you have no interest in saving the man. Could an ethical theory be correct and permit such an action to count as permissible?

England Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873) 1700 1900 Mozart (1756-1791) Kant (1724-1804) Germany America For comparison Jefferson (1743-1826) Lincoln (1809-1865)

Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is the first notable figure endorsing “the principle of utility.” That principle states: an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question Bentham is famous for identifying happiness with pleasure, and providing a “hedonic calculus” for determining the rightness of an action.

Criticism 1 of Utilitarianism Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice? The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl heading to the Mexico border. The man was desperate for money and shot the teller at the bank while robbing it. He is 50 yards from the border and the Marshall has to decide whether to let him go or shoot him from a distance. If the Marshall lets the man go, let’s suppose the man will live a good life, raise a family, and be a good husband. The killing was out of character, and the money will allow him to live well with his neighbors. What should the Marshall do? According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best consequences seems to be letting the man go. Everyone will be happy: • the Marshall doesn’t enjoy killing, • the man wants to live, • the woman loves him, • the Teller had no family, no one much liked him anyway. Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?

Criticism 2 of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate people’s rights on occasion. A car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to the emergency room, each needing a different vital organ to survive. The doctor looks at you or me, in for a hangnail. Should he or she put us under and remove our organs for the Prize winners? That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to clearly be the best option in terms of producing the most good for the greatest number.

England Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873) 1700 1900 Mozart (1756-1791) Kant (1724-1804) Germany America For comparison Jefferson (1743-1826) Lincoln (1809-1865)

The Categorical Imperative The Moral Law: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law” Kant offers the ‘Humanity Formula’ to connect this very abstract moral law to our feelings…

Humanity Formula “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” How do we treat the cashier as an end and not merely or only as a means? This formulation resulted in a common phrase used in moral reasoning often today: Respect for Persons

Respect for Persons… Does ‘Respect for Persons’ permit the marshal to ignore the Justice owed to the teller? Does it permit the doctor to take your organs for the Prize Winners?

Criticism of Kant… Justice claims and Individual Rights claims don’t seem to always succeed: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness … all are commonly thought to be ‘alienable’ in various circumstances … _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________

Ethical-Cultural Relativism Ethical-Cultural Relativism = Moral rules are valid only for the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes something right or wrong, respectively. ECR is a theory of morality that developed as Anthropologists noted the diversity of moral practices around the world. Text books suggested (and many still do) that disagreement about morality around the world shows that no one is “right” or “wrong” in their moral views … moral views are “cultural.”

Culture / Society seems an Arbitrary Source of Value What is special about cultures / societies? • Why not make the relevant social group conferring value a club? • Why not make it the family? • Why not make it a gang? Ethical-Cultural Relativism = Moral rules are valid only for the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes something right or wrong, respectively.

ECR Makes Moral Advance Definitionally Impossible If only society’s norms make actions right or wrong, then trying to improve society makes no sense (look again at the definition of ECR). • Every violation of a current rule is wrong. • The end of slavery was no advance. • The end of the holocaust was no advance. Ethical-Cultural Relativism = Moral rules are valid only for the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes something right or wrong, respectively.

On ECR, Moral Disagreement within a Culture Removes All Morality and Immorality What constitutes right action when there is no consensus? • Without consensus, child murder, rape, torture of innocent people, as well as kindness, love, and friendship … all are neither good nor bad … one is as good as another Ethical-Cultural Relativism = Moral rules are valid only for the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes something right or wrong, respectively.

ECR Justifies Intolerance Ethical-Cultural Relativism = Moral rules are valid only for the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes something right or wrong, respectively. ECR is often credited with supporting or encouraging tolerance. If, however, a given culture does not approve of tolerance, tolerance literally has no value there.

Aristotle Anyone?

Ethical Theories