Philosophy

1. Philosophy The Problem of Relativism and Morality

2. Moral Philosophy What are we morally required to do? What moral principles should we use to justify our actions and make correct moral judgments? Can we produce a unified moral theory to explain all of our moral principles? What is that unified moral theory?

3. Which Are Moral Judgments? That car is beautiful. He shouldn�t have walked that batter. Is was wrong for him to lie. George is a courageous individual. George is a great pianist. She had good motives. His action was murder.

4. Doing Theory Normative Ethics Naturalistic Fallacy Find Justifications (not causes of belief) Reflective Equilibrium Consistency with moral life Workable Theory

5. Normative (Prescriptive) Ethics The attempt to identify the principles we should use to make correct moral judgments. Distinguish from Descriptive Ethics: What principles people, in fact, use to make moral judgments. (psychology, sociology, and anthropology)

6. Naturalistic Fallacy Deriving an �ought� (normative principles) from an �is� (description of facts). The belief that incest is wrong is hardwired into our genes. fallacy Incest is morally wrong.

7. Naturalistic Fallacy In almost all cultures, women are subservient to men. Women should be subservient to men.

8. Logical Justifications Find logical justifications for believing a moral theory, not causal explanations.

9. Avoid Causal Explanations I was always taught to believe it. cause I believe that women should be subservient to men.

10. Reflective Equilibrium Consistency between: Theory (principles) ?? Data Data = your considered moral judgments about particular cases

11. Consistency with Moral Life Theories must fit these experiences in our everyday moral life. We make moral judgments We get into moral disputes We act immorally

12. Find A Workable Theory A theory is not good if it does not work in real life. We want a workable way to know what would be the morally right thing to do in certain situations.

13. Summary: Doing Theory Normative Ethics Naturalistic Fallacy Find Justifications (not causes of belief) Reflective Equilibrium Consistency with moral life Workable Theory

14. Moral Relativism Moral Relativism: There is no universal morality that applies to all people at all times. Subjective Relativism Subjective Absolutism Cultural Relativism Emotivism

15. Subjective Relativism Right and wrong is relative to individuals. What makes an action right for someone is that it is approved by that person. The same action can be both right and wrong. What is right for one person, may be wrong for someone else.

16. Subjective Relativism Has Some Bizarre Consequences Each person must be morally infallible. Moral disputes are impossible. It sanctions obviously immoral actions.

17. Subjective Absolutism What makes an action right is that one approves of it. Leads to contradictions: one action is both right and wrong.

18. Emotivism Moral utterances using moral terms are neither true nor false. They are merely expressions of emotion. Objections to emotivism: There can be no moral disagreements. Everyone�s reaction to a situation is just as appropriate as everyone else�s.

19. Cultural Relativism What makes an action right is that it is approved by one�s culture. There is no universal morality that applies to all people at all times.

20. Objections to Cultural Relativism Cultures are infallible. It sanctions immoral actions and practices. All moral reformers are wrong. Moral disputes are really about whether society approves of the action. Unworkable: there is no way to identify one�s true culture. It reduces to subjective relativism�make my own culture of one person. No universal human rights. It does not guarantee tolerance any more than intolerance. The anthropological argument fails to support cultural relativism.

21. Anthropological Argument for Moral Relativism People in different societies make different moral judgments about the morality of the same action. (A) They must accept different moral standards. (B) There are no universal moral standards.

22. Objections to Inference (A) Can people have the same moral standards but give different moral judgments about some action? Suppose people believe in the principle that murder is wrong. Can they disagree about whether a particular action is a murder? Suppose people believe in the principle that equals should be treated equally. Could they still disagree about whether women should be treated equally with men? Yes, people just disagree about the facts. (We do not know any societies is which bravery is despised, generosity is a vice, and ingratitude is a virtue.)

23. Objections to Inference (B) If people accept different moral standards, does that mean there are no universal moral standards? Suppose that society P believes that slavery is wrong, and society Q believes that slavery is right. Could it be that society P has a correct universal moral standard, and society Q is just mistaken? Yes, it seems that there can be universal moral standards, even though cultures believe in different standards.

24. Is there evidence forUniversal Moral Standards? Why be moral? What is its purpose? Is there moral progress? See �Moral Children� page 364. Children seem to have an innate understanding of morality. Self-evident moral standards? Equals should be treated equally. (Justice) Unnecessary suffering is wrong. (Mercy) Bambrough�s proof for the existence of moral knowledge, p. 365. Existence of God?

25. Universal Moral Standards Divine Command Theory Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism Kant�s Moral Theory Virtue Theory

26. Divine Command Theory What Makes an action right is that God commands it to be done.

27. Divine Command Theory Benefits Easy to understand Lots of spiritual texts to know what God commands Highly motivated to obey: can�t get away with not obeying � punishment and reward

28. Divine Command Theory Problems Which holy scripture is the true word of God? How do we interpret God�s word? The Bible seems to sanction immoral acts. (see p. 362) Many moral issues are not addressed in the Bible. Is it morally wrong to clone people or patent the human genome? Does God follow a standard or not? If not, then his commands are arbitrary and not worthy of worship. If God follows a standard, then an action will be good regardless of whether God commands it or not. Things are not right because God commands them.

29. Two Main Kinds of Ethical Theories Consequentialist (Teleological): The rightness of an action is determined by its consquences, or its outcomes; that is, what happens as a result of it. Formalist (deontological): The rightness of an action is determined by its form, or the kind of action that it is.

30. Consequentialist or Formalist Judgments? Billy did me wrong because he broke his promise. Sam was wrong to drive drunk because he hurt people in an accident. Physician-assisted suicide can never be right because it involves killing yourself. What Herb did was wrong because he violated one of God�s commandments. Jimmy was wrong to lie about Sue because it got her fired and cost her a lot of money. Frank shouldn�t have lied because when he lied, he did not tell the truth.

31. Consequentialist Theories:Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism The right action has an outcome that maximizes intrinsic value (intrinsic goodness). What is intrinsically good? Who gets this good?

32. Egoism Psychological Egoism: Whenever people act, they always act to maximize their own good, to satisfy their own selfish interests. Psychological Hedonism: The only thing that moves people to action is the desire to increase their own happiness. (p. 370) Are these views true? Can you think of counterexamples? (See Feinberg�s Single-Minded Hedonist, p. 372)

33. Ethical Egoism An action is right if and only if it promotes one�s own best interest or maximizes one�s own good. (This is not the same as doing what you want to do.) The only interests that count morally are your own interests, no one else�s.

34. Ayn Rand�s Egoism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism Ayn Rand (see p. 372) promoted the idea that one�s highest moral purpose is to promote one�s own happiness without violating others. (Rational Egoism) ��man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself for others nor sacrificing others to himself.� �the rational interests of men do not clash� that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.� Libertarianism: individuals should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn�t interfere with the rights of others.

35. Possible Objections to Ethical Egoism It doesn�t treat equals equally (justice) Why are my interests the only ones that count? It is unfair to discriminate against others because they are not you. So it violates the Golden Rule Sanctions immoral acts Doesn�t recognize morally right actions

36. Act-Utilitarianism Altruistic theory: other people�s interests count morally and count equally. Happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good or valuable. Maximize the total amount of happiness in the world. What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness, everyone considered.

37. Utilitarian Calculus Hedonism: Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. Add up the pleasures minus the pains. The act that maximizes pleasure over pain is the morally right action. (p. 374) Bentham�s calculus: measure intensity, duration, probability, propinquity, fecundidty, and impurity. (p. 374)

38. Some practical effects of Utilitarianism Helped reform conventional moral beliefs that produced much harm Women�s rights Liberalization of laws for sexual activity Abolished debtor�s prison Reform of prisons: they are for deterrence, not punishment Humane treatment of animals: Bentham argued that what makes a being worthy of ethical consideration is that it can suffer. Animals can suffer, so their happiness should be taken into account.

39. Mill: Quality of Pleasure CountsNot Just the Quantity 1. Exercising regularly. 2. Working in a job that pays well. 3. Eating in good restaurants. 4. Owning a big house. 5. Having friends. 6. Helping people in need. 7. Having children. 8. Writing a diary. 9. Watching TV. 10. Being politically active in a community. 11. Watching movies. 12. Having a lover. 13. Playing Bach on piano professionally. 14. Getting drunk.

40. Objections to Act-Utilitarianism Can�t measure people�s happiness At what time do we measure? (p. 377) Problems with rights (p. 377) Duty: Promises (p. 378) Duty: Special Obligations Problems with justice (p. 380) Pleasure doesn�t define the good (p. 384) No Time to Calculate Supererogatory Acts Are Required Future People

41. Rights objection Problem: Rights don�t seem to be absolute. They can be overridden if they do not maximize happiness.

42. Rights Objection Rights-based objections: Let�s say that there are three people in a hospital. They are going to die (within six months to a year). We cannot save two of them, but we can save the third person (i.e., he will live another 50 years) if we kill the other two and harvest their organs right now. There are no other options to save the third person. Utilitarianism says that we should kill the other two people to save the one person. But it is wrong to violate innocent people�s right to life. Back

43. Promises Objection Utilitarianism says that what makes keeping a promise morally right is that it produces more happiness than breaking it. So if breaking a promise produces more happiness, then one should break it. But that is incorrect. What makes keeping a promise morally right is the fact that we have promised, not that it produces more happiness.

44. Promises Example Example 1: Let�s say that you sincerely promised to pay back $100 to a friend who loaned it to you. But it turns out that more happiness would be produced if you broke your promise and didn�t return the money. Imagine that you would be much better off keeping the $100, and your friend would hardly miss it because a family crisis has made him forget that he loaned you the money, and he is not poor. Utilitarianism implies that you should break your promise. Is this right? What would you do?

45. Promises Example Example 2: An elderly woman is living alone and is dying, and you are at her bedside. She draws your attention to a small case under her bed. She asks you to take the case and to promise to deliver its contents after she dies to her nephew living in another state. Moved by your affection for her, you promise to do as she asks. After a tearful good-bye, you take the case and leave. A few weeks later the old woman dies, and when you open her case you discover that it contains $50,000. No one else knows about the money or the promise that you made. Now suppose further that the nephew is a compulsive gambler and heavy drinker and that you know -- that if you were to give him the $50,000 as promised -- he would rapidly squander the money. What would a utilitarian do in this situation? What would you do? What is morally required? Back

46. Special Obligations Objection Utilitarianism also has problems incorporating our special obligations as professionals, parents, siblings, or relatives into our moral thinking. Suppose you are the parent of a beautiful 3-year-old son. You are cruising the Atlantic on an expensive cruise ship. Disaster strikes. The ship sinks. You somehow manage to get on a life�boat with a motor. All around you, people are drowning and crying for help. You see your son 100 yards away. He is frantically trying to stay afloat. In order to save your son you must immediately drive the lifeboat to him. However, just as you are about to do that, you see that three children are about to drown 20 yards away in the opposite direction. What would utilitarianism require you to do? What do you think is the morally right thing to do? Back

47. Justice Objections Unjust distribution: Utilitarianism implies that an unjust distribution of benefits and burdens is morally right if it produces the most happiness. Imagine that we have a choice between two taxation schemes for a society made up of equal numbers of men and women who all work: (a) Tax everyone equally at 10%. (b) Don�t tax the men, and tax the women at 20%. Imagine that these two schemes produce the same revenue, and equal amounts of happiness result. Other things being the same, utilitarianism says that there is no moral difference between (a) and (b). But there is a moral difference because it violates justice, equal treatment, to tax the women at a greater rate simply because they are women.

48. Justice Objections Just Punishment: Utilitarianism says that we should punish someone for wrongdoing only if this would produce more happiness in the world than doing something else. But doesn�t a person simply deserve punishment for the wrong they have done, and the consequences of punishment are irrelevant or have secondary importance? Back

49. Mill�s response to the No-time-to-calculate objection It is not necessary to use the principle of utility for every act. We live with the experiences of the whole past duration of the human species. We are all brought up to learn a common morality (secondary rules). This common morality gives us the correct moral intuitions to guide us in our everyday lives. The only time one needs to use the principle of utility is to correct the common morality or to resolve conflicts in common morality. Common morality is sometimes based on unjust social relations and relations of domination (e.g., slavery and the subjugation of women). Back

50. Supererogatory Acts AreRequired Objection Supererogatory acts are (1) very good but (2) go beyond what is required. These are heroic acts. For example, imagine a fireman saving a person when it is much too dangerous to try. A second example would be the case of a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save the lives of others. Utilitarianism requires these acts. Back

51. Future People Objection It is unreasonable not to take into equal consideration the effects of our actions on people who will live in the future. (Or we should at least use a discount rate, where we count future people for something, but for less the more distant they will live in the future.) Back

52. DUTY-DEFINED MORALITYIMMANUEL KANT(1724-1804)

53. Duty-Defined Morality Formal �Deontological� theory Human Reason gives us the moral law Have a good will Good intentions (motives) make good wills Must be able to universalize (and reverse) your motives The Categorical Imperative (the moral law) Respect Autonomy

54. Deontological Kant�s theory is called a deontological theory (as opposed to a teleological theory like Utilitarianism) because what is important is acting for the sake of duty alone, not for the sake of producing good consequences.

55. Human Reason Reason is the internal authority that allows each one of us to determine what is right and wrong independently of any external authority. Reason gives us necessary laws and duties that apply to everyone universally. As we will see, the authority of reason is what makes one�s will good, and having a good will is what makes one morally good. Emotions and feelings are morally irrelevant.

56. Have a Good Will To be morally good, one must act with a good will. A good will is the only thing that is good without qualification. Kant maintains that happiness is not the ultimate good. Happiness is not necessarily connected to moral goodness. A happy person may be a morally corrupt person who does bad things that produce much happiness for him. Other things that are usually taken to be good qualities, like courage, intelligence, beauty, success, and wealth may all be used for bad purposes.

57. Good Intentions Good intentions (Good Motives) make our wills good. What makes us moral is not what we accomplish, because we may fail no matter how hard we try, but the fact that we intend to do good. All of our (deliberative) actions are connected to motives. If the motives behind our actions are morally good, then our will is good.

58. The Categorical Imperative The Categorical Imperative is the ultimate principle that we would want to issue to everyone and tell them to follow it at all times. Categorical Imperative: Act only on that maxim (motive) through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

59. What Is a Maxim? A maxim is a generalized formulation (or a principle) of a motive. Every action has an implicit maxim like the following: I should never do anything that hurts other people�s feelings if I can avoid it. I should always be loyal to my friends. I should never act in a way that makes my parents ashamed of me. I should always tell the truth. I should always pay my bills on time.

60. Universalizable and Reversible Maxims A morally acceptable maxim is one that can be universalized; everyone can act on it. It can be generalized, for everyone, everywhere, regardless of the particular circumstances and interests of individuals or different societies. Everyone acting on it does not generate a contradiction. A morally acceptable maxim is one that is reversible. You must be willing to have everyone act on the motive. This is similar to the Golden Rule test.

61. Practice: State the Maxim Sally is a juror at a criminal trial. She thinks that the defendant is innocent. She votes for the defendant�s innocence. Possible Maxim?

62. Practice: State the Maxim A police car is trying to pull Bill over. Bill pulls off on the side of the road and stops. Possible Maxim?

63. Kant�s 4 Famous Cases Suicide Lying Promises Neglecting Your Talents Helping Others

64. Suicide Case Kant�s Case of Suicide. Let�s see if we can universalize the suicide maxim: I should shorten my life when its longer duration would likely produce more evil than good for me. Suppose that you are ravaged with cancer and are in extreme pain constantly. You can no longer walk, feed yourself, or talk. You decide that it would be better if you were to end our life. Can your maxim be universalized? What does Kant say?

65. Kant�s Case of Making a Lying Promise Let�s see if we can universalize the liar�s maxim: When I need money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know I can never do this. Kant asks if this maxim can be universalized. To universalize it, imagine that everyone follows this maxim. Is it reversible?

66. Can�t Make a Lying Promise Kant would say that you cannot universalize this maxim because it results in a contradiction. The practice of lying about making a promise whenever you can get away with it would never work if everyone did it.

67. Neglecting Your Talents The Maxim: I should neglect the development of my natural gifts. ��he cannot possibly will that this should become a universal law of nature or should be implanted in us as such a law by a natural instinct. For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his powers should be developed, since they serve him, and are given him, for all sorts of possible ends.�

68. Not Helping Others The Maxim: I should not help others in need even if I could easily do so. �it is impossible to will that such a principle should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will which decided in this way would be in conflict with itself, since many a situation might arise in which the man needed love and sympathy from others, and in which, by such a law of nature sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all hope of the help he wants for himself....

69. Categorical Imperative:Another Version: Respect for Persons 2. Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in yourself or in others, as an end in itself, never merely as a means. (You must respect the autonomy of other people.)

70. When an action is right for Kant (1) It is universalizable and reversible. (2) It treats everyone as ends in themselves.

71. Easy Rescue p. 399. Do you have a duty to save a drowning child from drowning?

72. Broad�s Typhoid man p. 398 Sometimes treating people as means is unavoidable.

73. Two Cases to Consider William�s South American Showdown, p. 387. Compare Thomson�s Trolley Problem with Thomson�s Transplant Problem, p. 388. If you save 5 in one, but not the other, what is the difference?

74. Examples to discuss You next door neighbor comes to your door. She is crying and hysterical. She asks you if she could hide in a backroom closet immediately. You let her do it. Her husband comes to the door with an angry, crazy look on his face carrying a bat. He asks you if you have seen his wife or know where she went. What do you say?

75. Hare�s Nazi Fanatic (p. 393) Is the maxim �Kill the Jews� universalizable and reversible?

76. Ross� Good Samaritan (p. 394) Is it possible that in certain situations promises should be broken; for instance, to save a life?

77. Problems for Kant�s Ethical Theory (1) It seems implausible to hold that consequences are never relevant for deciding the moral worth of an action. Is it always our duty to tell the truth, as Kant would insist � no matter what the consequences?

78. Problems with Kant (2) Duties may conflict, and Kant does not offer any way to resolve conflicts. I may have a duty to tell the truth and to protect innocent people from unjust harm. But I may have to lie to protect an innocent person.

79. Problems with Kant (3) How can I ever know the correct maxim of my action? What is the true motive of my action? Is it always easy to tell?

80. Ross� Pluralistic FormalismPrima Facie Duties Resolve conflict of duties by ranking our prima facie duties. What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest-ranked duty. But ranking our duties is an art and requires intuition. p. 399 Fidelity Reparation Justice Beneficence Nonmaleficence Gratitude Self-improvement

81. John Rawls: Justice as FairnessContractarianism Contractarianism: the morally right action is the one that follows principles established by an ideal social contract. Rawls tries to solve the problem of Distributive Justice Goods are distributed by �basic structures,� the political, legal, economic and social institutions. How should society�s benefits and burdens be distributed? What are the principles of justice?

82. Rawls: Procedural Justice Find the principles of justice through a fair procedure � an ideal social contract. Suppose that you are one of 6 people starving in a prison. You are each in your own cell, and you don�t know anything about the others. Your captors have a big uncut pie. They tell you that each prisoner will be chosen randomly one at a time to take a single piece of pie to eat. But the pie has to be cut first. They give you the opportunity to cut the pie into pieces of any size that you want. How would you cut the pie?

83. Rawls: The Original Position: Fair Social Contract Imagine that you will be a member of a society. But you do not know anything about yourself. You could be rich/poor, intelligent/dull, beautiful/plain, male/female, and religious/atheist. You could be any race. You don�t know anything about the other people in this society. You are behind a �veil of ignorance� along with everyone else. It is up to you and others to decide what the principles of justice will be for this society that you are about to enter. How would the benefits and burdens be distributed in this society? You are concerned with the basic goods that anyone would want regardless of their circumstances � basic liberties, opportunity, and wealth.

84. Rawls: The Principles of JusticeLexically Ordered 1. The principle of equal liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. 2. The principle of fair equality of opportunity: Offices and positions are to be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. 3. The difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons. See Thought Probe, p. 405.

85. Robert Nozick�s Libertarianism Rawls� principles would require us constantly to violate people�s rights. We must uphold noninterference. Let people make the transactions that they choose to make with others. See Nozick�s Basketball Player, p. 405. People are entitled to whatever they acquire fairly and squarely. If they do not violate anybody�s rights in the process of obtaining something, it is theirs to keep and do with as they please, even if it violates the difference principle. Any attempt to take it away from them would violate their rights.