Nonconsequentialist Theories of Morality Introduction Based on something

Nonconsequentialist Theories of Morality

Introduction Based on something other than the consequences of a person’s actions Unlike Egoism People should act in their own self-interest Unlike utilitarianism People should act in the interests of all those concerned Goodness of an action measured by how well it serves interests or creates good consequences Nonconsequentialists Consequences should not be considered Depends on whether they are right, people are good i. e. Divine Command Theory Must accept the consequences whatever they are

Act Nonconsequentialist Theories Reminder: Different than act and rule utilitarianism No general theories at all, must approach each situation individually Decisions are made intuitively, without rules If it feels good – do it. Do your own thing. Not based on reason Emotive Theory Ethical words do two things Express people’s feelings, Evoke certain feelings

Intuitionism Support of moral intuitionism Well-meaning people have immediate sense of right and wrong Human beings had moral ideas before philosophers existed Our reasoning upon moral matters is used to confirm perceptions Reasoning can go wrong, unlike intuition Criticism of moral intuitionism Hunches are difficult to hold to No proof we have innate ability to be moral Intuition immune to objective criticism Some humans do not possess moral intuitions

Criticisms of Act Nonconsequentialism How can conflicts between opposing intuitions be resolved? How do we know what we intuit will be morally correct? How can we know when we have sufficient facts? How can we be sure we are doing the right thing for anyone else involved? Can we really rely on nothing more that momentary intuitions? Can actions be justified in this way?

Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories Believe there are or can be rules that are the only basis for morality and that consequences fo not matter Various methods of establishing the rules Divine Command Theory Based on something higher, an all-good being who is supernatural and can communicate with humans Criticisms Inherent lack of rational foundation, are they trustworthy

Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories Various methods of establishing the rules Kant’s Duty Ethics Several Ethical Principles Good Will Ability to act in accordance with moral rules Establishing Morality By Reasoning Alone Possible to set up valid absolute moral rules on Logical, universal truths Universalizability the important part The Categorical Imperative Act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all humans Practical Imperative No human should be thought of or used for another’s end Duty Rather Than Inclination Must act on sense of duty

Criticism’s of Kant’s Duty Ethics Does not tell us which rules are morally valid Never tells us how to choose between conflicting duties Many rules of questionable moral value can be universalized without inconsistency Kant answered this by criterion of reversibility Golden Rule concept, if an action were reversed would a person want it to be done to him But this shows inconsistency, which Kant would not have approved of “Do not kill except in self-defense” and “Do not kill” are both universalizable What happens when duty and inclinations are the same?

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties Sir William David Ross agreed with Kant that morality should not rest on consequences Disagreed with unyielding absolutism We have certain duties we must always adhere to unless serious circumstances or reasons tell us to do otherwise Actual duty may be different than prima facie, “at first glance”

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties Examples of prima face duties Fidelity Reparation Gratitude Justice Beneficence Self-improvement Nonmaleficence Two principles Always do that act in accord with the stronger prima facie duty Always do that act that has the greatest degree of prima facis rightness over prima facie wrongness

Criticisms of Ross’ Theory How are we to decide on these prima facie duties Claimed we know them to be true Basing them on intuition Which duty takes precedence? Example?

Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories Can we, and indeed should we, avoid consequences when we are trying to set up a moral system? Is it entirely possible to exclude consequences from a moral system? What is the point of a moral system if not to do good for oneself, others, or to create a moral society? How do we resolve conflicts among moral rules that are equally absolute? Any system that operates on a basis of such rigid absolutes closes the door on further discussion.