Religious Ethics Religion provides us with ethics but

Religious Ethics Religion provides us with ethics, but we are selective about what we follow (no death for working on the Sabbath, for example) Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say that it is good because it is good? –Plato Give and take between personal values and what religion says. Limitation: What about the

Duty Ethics is simply performing one’s duty and fulfilling obligations. But how does one know his or her duties? Religion? How do we know it’s justified? Can we simply take a duty at face value? Intuition? Some people have conflicting intuitions

Kant says… Duties are derived from reason. Can you consistently generalize your duties? What would happen if everyone did x? A negative answer means that you have a duty to NOT do x. No special pleading and double standards allowed

Kant says… We need to think of ourselves in dual roles: Me One among others Reason dictates we have to at least try to be impartial and follow the golden rule

Kant says… No individual should be discriminated against or sacrificed for the common good. Because an individual is both one among others AND me, the needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few

Role of motives Moral value of an action is determined by the motives behind the action Therefore, while you might do something to get something in return, or for sympathy, only doing something out of duty has moral value

Criticisms of Kant can’t Avoid moral absolutism or rule worship; Kant’s approach to ethics is too inflexible, e. g. lying Instead, we need to exercise some judgment when following a moral rule

Criticisms of Kant can’t Avoid conflicts of duty because of the me vs. me among others E. g. Your wife is dying of a rare disease and you can’t afford the drugs. Are you justified in stealing them? How do we rank our duties to make an informed and moral decision?

Criticisms of Kant can’t Avoid moral coldness and instead sacrifices feelings in the name of relying on reason Taking feelings out of moral decisions leads to heartless ethics, i. e. we do something because it’s our duty rather than out of love or care “The hand of compassion was faster than the calculus of reason. ”

Utilitarianism Maximize happiness! The only thing that is good in itself is happiness Actions are right that increase happiness, and bad that decrease happiness

Utilitarianism What’s nice about it… Simple and coherent; just follow what would have greatest effect on Gross National Happiness Democratic b/c everyone’s happiness taken into account in GNH Takes into account both long and short term consequences, e. g. smoking Egalitarian, e. g. can be used to justify redistributing funds to poorer

Criticisms of Utilitarianism What’s not so nice about it… How can we even measure happiness? Constant happiness doesn’t mean a happy life, e. g. bored rich people Can’t always know long-term consequences of our actions

Criticisms of Utilitarianism What’s not so nice about it… Bad, malicious, or empty pleasures that come from suffering of others, e. g. sadism or gorging on chocolate Conflict in judging: maybe it’s not the consequence (as utilitarianism says), bur the motive that matters (as Kant says) No room for respecting moral obligations or human rights; allows for too much flexibility, e. g. lying whenever it makes you happy