Major Ethical Theories Utilitarianism Kantian ethics Rights A

Major Ethical Theories Utilitarianism Kantian ethics Rights

A Major Misunderstanding z. One must “declare allegiance” to one ethical theory in order to “do” ethics z. Arguments undermining all known ethical theories collectively make it plain that there is no theoretical basis for ethical thought at all

A Better Understanding z. A & S, p. 9 z. Human life and behavior is exceedingly complex z. To be workable as a theory or model, must be simpler than real life z. Therefore, any one theory will have gaps and blind spots but may be good partial description of the moral life

A Helpful Metaphor? z. Approach ethical problem as a job z. Ethical theories are tools in your tool box which you bring to the work z. Part of job is picking the right tools to perform that job well

Utilitarianism z. Core Idea: Ethics should be based on facts about the results of our actions upon human happiness and suffering in the real world

Facts for Utilitarianism z. What counts as human happiness or unhappiness z. Actual probability that a particular action will produce a certain amount or type of happiness or unhappiness

Utilitarianism as Ethics z. Fact: Most of us act most of the time as if we count for more than others z. To be an ethical system, utilitarianism must insist that all count equally

Utilitarianism z. Do what produces the greatest net gain in happiness over unhappiness (the greatest good) for the greatest number of people

Crude Utilitarianism z. A&S, p. 14: All right to kill one innocent person if organs would save lives of five others z. Ignores long term consequences z. Ignores subtle consequences z. Ignores ripple effects

Classical Utilitarianism z. J. S. Mill, 1840 -1860 z. All human values or disvalues can be reduced to happiness or unhappiness, and these can be measured quantitatively (“utilitarian calculus”) z. Objection: Different human values seem to be of radically different types, not simply different quantities

Preference Utilitarianism z. E. g. , Peter Singer z. What is right is to perform the act which maximizes the value preferences that are achieved for the greatest number of people (I. e. , the most people possible get more of what they value)

Criticisms of Utilitarianism z. Do not show that it has no value z. Instead show its natural and necessary limits and weaknesses (I. e. , for what jobs it is less well suited as a tool of inquiry)

Major Criticisms z“One thought too many” y. Utilitarianism as too weak an ethical theory z“Utilitarians can’t rent videos” y. Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical theory

Shogun Example z. British sailor is being tortured alive z. Japanese samurai stands in moonlit garden and derives great gratification (including sexual) from listening to screams z. Is what was done to British sailor wrong?

Examples- cont. z. Utilitarian father trying to decide whether to rescue his child vs. any child at random from an immediate danger z. Bernard Williams: Father has had “one thought too many” to be an ideally ethical person

Conclusion z. Utilitarianism seems especially weak in capturing some of our most basic moral intuitions about: z. The injustice of sacrificing the interests of the few for the many z. The moral relevance of special relationships

Can’t Rent Videos? z. Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical system if taken literally (so long as any human misery exists anywhere in the world) z. How far removed from our everyday, average standard of behavior can/should an ethical theory be?

Kantian Ethics z. Core Idea: We can use our reason to discern that some actions are wrong based on the nature of the action and apart from its practical consequences

Kant: What is ethics? z“If you want to get more of Y, then you should do X” (hypothetical imperative) z“Do X” (categorical imperative)

Possible Sources for Ethics (Kant) z. FACTS y. Changing, unstable y. Yields only hypothetical imperatives z“PURE REASON” (Logic) y. Eternal, universal y. Gives rise to categorical imperative

Logic (pure reason) z. Sam is unmarried z. All bachelors are unmarried

Categorical Imperative z“Act so as always to treat others as endsin-themselves and never as means only” z“Act so that you could will your action to become universal law” z. Two ways to express the same basic idea (Kant)

Why are two the same? z. Could one will the opposite of “treat others as ends and never as means only” to be universal law? z. If so, I should treat others as means only z. Then others should treat me as means only z. But I have willed this to be universal law

Why are two the same? (II) z. But only an “end-in-itself” (possessed of autonomous will) could will something to be universal law z. Therefore willing opposite leads to logical contradiction z. Therefore “treat others as ends…” is categorical imperative

Illustration: Tell the Truth z. Should I tell a lie? z. Can I will lying to become universal law? z. If lying were universal practice, “truth” would no longer have any meaning z. But if “truth” has no meaning neither does “lying” z. Logical contradiction as universal law

Common Terminology z. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory z. Kantianism is a deontological (dutybased) ethical theory z. For Kant, source of duty is the concept of autonomy and rational will (pure reason as source of ethical duty)

Rights Theory z. Dworkin: Rights as “trumps” z. Nozick: “Side constraints” z. Most of the time we are entitled to try to maximize the good consequences of our actions z. A right takes priority over maximizing the good (line you can’t cross even to get to a good place)

Two Ways to Cheapen Rights z. Invoke your “rights” whenever anyone interferes with your getting anything you happen to want z. Be willing to rescind the rights of others whenever they act in ways that you happen not to like

Libertarianism z. Distinguish: z. Positive right: a right to have or obtain something (other people have to do something) z. Negative right: a right to be free of something (other people have to not do something)

Libertarianism z. State power may be used only to protect negative rights z. Any state power to protect positive rights is wrong, because it must violate someone else’s negative rights to be free of seizure of property

Critique of Libertarianism z. Right to trial by jury z. Requires that numerous services be provided and that various institutions have to be established z. Most of these require support in terms of salaries, maintenance costs, etc. z. A great deal of tax money is needed

Critique of Libertarianism z. This means a right to trial by jury is a positive right z. BUT: usually viewed as a negative right, I. e. right to be free from unfair imprisonment or punishment z. Does whether it is positive or negative determine how important or how basic it is?

Critique of Libertarianism z. Some positive rights may be absolutely vital and well worth protecting z. Some negative rights may be unimportant or superficial and may not be worth protecting z. Some redistribution of resources among people in society is an inevitable function of the state