Utilitarian and Virtuebased Ethics Based on Kernohan A

Utilitarian and Virtue-based Ethics Based on Kernohan, A. (2012). Environmental ethics: An interactive introduction. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, Chapters 5 & 6. Prepared by D. G. Ross, Auburn University. Images copyright D. G. Ross, unless otherwise noted.

Ethical situations generally involve (1) a moral agent, (2) an action or series of actions, (3) consequences, and (4) a recipient of the consequences. Consequence 1. Moral Agent: Responsible for action (the doer, or the actor, to which praise or blame is typically assigned) 2. Action: Something that occurs as a results of the moral agent’s decisionmaking process 3. Consequences: Result from action 4. Recipient: Receives the consequences of the moral agent’s action(s) Agent Action OW! Recipient D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Three overarching ethical theories directly relate to the four primary elements of an ethical situation: • Virtue Ethics: Relate to the moral agent’s character • Deontological Ethics: Relate to the agent’s duties and obligations in any given situation • Consequentialist Ethics: Are concerned with the outcome of an agent’s choice of action and what that means for (the) recipient(s) Virtue of? Obligation to? D. G. Ross, Auburn University Consequences of?

Utilitarian ethics are consequentialist (consequence based). When considering utilitarian ethics, remember that: 1. They cause 2. The maximum 3. Total (aggregate) 4. Utility for the considered recipients of action. Total Utility Agent Action creates consequence D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Note that utilitarian ethics do not consider best possible outcomes for all recipients, but instead a computation of total utility. Utility is abstract. Under utilitarian ethics, we want to maximize total utility, but we must first define utility. D. G. Ross, Auburn University

The way we define “utility” depends on the model of utilitarianism to which we subscribe. Hedonism: Utility is defined in terms of pleasure. Preference-satisfaction: Utility is defined in terms of the satisfaction of wants and desires. What is the difference between attaining pleasure, and satisfying wants and desires? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

John Stuart Mill (author of Utilitarianism) writes that “the Greatest Happiness Principle” is: An existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and selfobservation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation. (p. 11) Mill, J. S. (1940). Utilitarianism, liberty, and representative government. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton & Co, Inc. D. G. Ross, Auburn University

The way we apply utilitarianism depends on the way we want to define our world. • Act Utilitarianism: Uses maximization of utility as a decisionmaking process (Direct Utilitarianism) • Rule Utilitarianism: Uses utilitarianism as a standard for rightness by which societal rules for right-conduct are defined (Indirect Utilitarianism) • Actual-value Utilitarianism: Judges action based on after-the-fact consequences • Expected-value Utilitarianism: Judges action based on expected consequences D. G. Ross, Auburn University

There are many potential positives to utilitarianism: • All agents under utilitarianism are considered equally important. No agent should count for more than one agent. • Moral standing may be equated to animals. • We can actually “compute” an answer to ethical problems. D. G. Ross, Auburn University

With these models, we encounter many potential problems. With hedonism, we must consider problems of: • Comparison: how do we compare our different versions of pleasure? • Measurement: How do we measure pleasure? • Quality: Are all pleasures equal? • Sadism: Can we consider pleasure in another’s pain a legitimate pleasure? • Accumulation: Does aggregate pleasure/pain count person, or in toto? (See Torturer’s Problem) D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Preference-satisfaction utilitarianism leads us to these problems: • • How do we compare intensity of preference? Without total knowledge of the world (and the ultimate impacts of our actions, as utilitarianism is consequence-based), how do we adequately assess the consequences of fulfilling our preferences? When measuring greatest preference-satisfaction, how do we account for obligational (deontological) elements, like the obligation to not hurt others? (See Transplant Case) Do we account for virtue ethics (which are not consequence based, but motivation based) in our actions? (See Kidnap Case or Axe Murderer Case) Do we consider the “preferences” of non-humans? Can non-humans have preference? How do we consider those with unequal preferences? Given an equality gap, for example we may have rich people and poor people in our equation. Even considering preferences for dinner (contingent on knowledge of types of food, wine, etc. ), satisfying preferences equally means that those with more power/money/knowledge get more that those lacking. This refers to adaptive preference—the idea that we adapt our wants and needs to our surroundings (see Amartrya Sen). If we satisfy all preferences, do the accumulative consequences ultimately do more harm than good? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Hmmmm… let’s weigh the accumulated pros and cons of a generally utilitarian approach: Pros/Benefits • All agents under utilitarianism are considered equally important. No agent should count for more than one agent. • Moral standing may be equated to animals. • We can actually “compute” an answer to ethical problems. • Concerned with happiness/pleasure, and/or the satisfaction of desires Cons/Potential Problems • Comparison: how do we compare our different versions of pleasure? • Measurement: How do we measure pleasure? • Quality: Are all pleasures equal? • Sadism: Can we consider pleasure in another’s pain a legitimate pleasure? • Accumulation: Does aggregate pleasure/pain count person, or in toto? (See Torturer’s Problem) • How do we compare intensity of preference? • Without total knowledge of the world (and the ultimate impacts of our actions, as utilitarianism is consequence-based), how do we adequately assess the consequences of fulfilling our preferences? • When measuring greatest preference-satisfaction, how do we account for obligational (deontological) elements, like the obligation to not hurt others? (See Transplant Case) • Do we account for virtue ethics (which are not consequence based, but motivation based) in our actions? (See Kidnap Case or Axe Murderer Case) • Do we consider the “preferences” of non-humans? Can non-humans have preference? • How do we consider those with unequal preferences? Given an equality gap, for example we may have rich people and poor people in our equation. Even considering preferences for dinner (contingent on knowledge of types of food, wine, etc. ), satisfying preferences equally means that those with more power/money/knowledge get more that those lacking. This refers to adaptive preference—the idea that we adapt our wants and needs to our surroundings (see Amartrya Sen). • If we satisfy all preferences, do the accumulative consequences ultimately do more harm than good? This is, of course, a false dichotomy (to some extent). But can we actually apply the pros and cons of utilitarian approaches to utilitarianism itself? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

To some extent, utilitarian ethics force us to consider virtue ethics. • Virtue Ethics: Relate to the moral agent’s character • Consequentialist Ethics: Are concerned with the outcome of an agent’s choice of action and what that means for (the) recipient(s) When we start considering pleasure, or preferencesatisfaction, we often find ourselves considering motivation… How (and why) should a moral agent act? Total Utility Agent Action creates consequence D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Virtue ethics consider what it takes for a moral agent to live a virtuous life. Aristotle lists the following as virtues of character (from Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Chapter VII): • Courage, also called bravery • Temperance • Liberality, also called generosity • Magnificence; Greatness of Soul, also called magnanimity • a nameless virtue concerned with appropriate concern for honor, defined in excess as ambition, and in deficit as unambitious, where the virtue lies in the middle • Gentleness, also called mildness • Truthfulness • Wittiness • Friendliness • Modesty, or proneness to shame • Proper, or righteous, Indignation (Aristotle, 1975, pp. 97 – 105). (Aristotle. (1975). The Nicomachean Ethics. (H. Rackham, Trans. ) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ) D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Kernohan lists the following as virtue/vice comparisons (p. 76): Virtues Honesty Courage Compassion Generosity Loyalty Integrity Fairness Self-Control Prudence Vices Dishonesty Cowardice Insensitivity Selfishness Disloyalty Sleaziness Unfairness Self-Indulgence Short-sightedness D. G. Ross, Auburn University

So let’s end by considering the following: “SIMPLE” SAMPLE CASES D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Derek Parfit’s Harmless Torturer problem (Kernohan p. 60) “The victim is hooked up to a torture machine. The machine has a dial with 1000 clicks. Turning the dial by one click causes an imperceptible addition to the victim’s pain. Turning the dial by 1000 clicks causes the victim excruciating pain. 1000 people each turn the dial by one click. Each person causes the victim no addition to perceptible pain. Therefore, each person does nothing wrong. However, the victim experiences extreme pain (Parfit 1984: 80). ” Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press. This is a problem of accumulation with regard to hedonistic utilitarianism. What does this case teach us about aggregation and accumulation? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Transplant Case (Kernohan p. 63) “In a certain hospital, five people will die without a transplant operation. Each of them would prefer to live. One needs a heart, two each need a lung, and two each need a kidney. Into the operating room comes an unsuspecting person with one healthy heart, two healthy lungs, and two healthy kidneys. The surgeon removes the organs from the unsuspecting person and transplants them into the five needy people, thereby maximizing the aggregate lives saved, by saving five lives but losing one. The surgeon maximizes aggregate utility by satisfying the preferences of five people, but violates the rights of the unsuspecting victim. ” Under utilitarianism, this is ethical…right? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Bernard Williams’s Kidnap Case (Kernohan p. 63) “Terrorists capture George and twenty companions. The leader of the terrorists makes George the following proposition: “If you shoot just one of your friends, I will let the others go free. If you do not, then I will kill them all. ” xx Again, under utilitarianism, this is ethical…right? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

The Axe Murderer and the Truth Teller (Kernohan p. 89) “Karl’s roommate, Jane, is in her room. An axe murderer comes to the door and asks Karl if she is home. Karl believes he has a duty to always tell the truth to others, no matter what the consequences. Karl believes that the axe murderer has a right to hear the truth from him. Karl tells the Axe murderer that Jane is in, and believes that, since his intentions were good, he should not be morally condemned for the ensuing bloodshed. ” Telling the truth is virtuous…right? D. G. Ross, Auburn University