aok: ethics

AOK: EthicsDuty Ethics and Utilitarianism

RecapMoral Relativism

Lack of Foundation, Diversity Argument Common core values, Justify our values

Self-Interest Theory Definitional Argument Evolutionary Argument Hidden Benefits Argument Fear of Punishment

Theories of Ethics Religious Ethics Duty Ethics Utilitarianism

Duty EthicsEthics is fundamentally a matter of doing your

duty and fulfilling your obligations

Duty Vs. Rights We take the idea

seriously that people have duties Teacher to teach Doctor to cure

People prefer to talk about rights over duties

Rights and duties are like two different sides of the same coin…they go together

EXAMPLE: If there is a duty not to

steal then there must be a corresponding right to property.

If there is a right to life, there must be a corresponding duty not to kill

Questions…Imagine that you and a group of colonists have

just arrived on a fertile and uninhabited planet and decide to make a ten-point declaration of rights. What rights would you include? How would you justify your choices?

QuestionsWhat difference do you think it would make if he

replaced the UN Declaration of Human Rights with a UN Declaration of Human Duties?

QuestionsIf everyone has the right to life, who exactly has

a duty to keep alive the thousands of people that starve to death every day? Do you?

Kant and his approach to ethics

If we agree that duty ethics is viable, then we need to know what are duties are…HOW?

Intuition? What if we have different ideas?Table of Commandments? Who justifies them?

KANT has an answer!!

Immanuel Kant1724-1804German Philosopher

According to him, our duties are NOT arbitrary.We can determine them in an objective way using

REASON

Kant and Duty Ethics Kant: The way to decide

if something is your duty is to see whether or not you can consistently generalize it.

Imagine you are waiting in the lunch line.

Wondering: Is it ok to jump the line?

Ask yourself, what would happen if everyone did that?

Answer: CHAOS! There would be no line!

So if you try and generalize it, you get a contradiction. “Jump the line whenever you want.”

Therefore, it is your duty NOT to jump the line

Kant and Duty Ethics Imagine you want to

break a promise because it is inconvenient to keep.

What would happen if everyone broke their promises when they felt like it?

There would be no such thing as a promise…it is another contradiction. (vow)

Since you cannot generalize the rule, “break your promises whenever you feel like it,” then it is your duty to keep your promises!

Kant’s Motivation?Special Pleading: make excuses to justify our

own behavior that we would not find acceptable if they came from someone else

Our EGOSISM: encourages us to think that while rules generally should be respected, we are special and they do not apply to usExample: Casual lying

Something to think about…

Al Ghazali (1058-1111)If you want to know the foulness of lying for

yourself, consider the lying of someone else and how you shun it and despise the man who lies and regard his communication as foul. Do the same with regard to all your own vices, for you do not realize the foulness from your own case, but from someone else’s.

What does this quote mean? In what ways does it apply to you?

Kant’s Ethics The heart of his

approach? Adopt a dual conception of ourselves as not only me but also one among others

Golden Rule: Do to other what you would want done to you

Veil of Ignorance This is confusing X does p to Y…you do not

know if you are going to be X or Y

“You cut, I choose.”

Values and Dignity Kant: no individual should

be given special treatment, but also, no individual should be discriminated against.

Kant: Never good to sacrifice one’s self for the greater good

Reverse the dual conception of self

Not only one among other, but also me.

Only one me, only one life

Therefore, never be treated as a mere means to a further end.

Values and Dignity There is a crucial

difference between objects and people.

Objects can have value, but only people can have dignity.

According to Kant, if something has value it can be replaced by something else of equal value.

If something has dignity, it is irreplaceable.

Since individuals have dignity, it is never right sacrifice their lives for the greater good.

Importance of morals Kant: the moral value of

an action is determined by the motive for which it is done rather than the consequences that follow from it.

If you are trying to be helpful, but it turns out badly, we do not usually blame you. You meant well.

If you wanted to hurt someone, but did not succeed, you would still be considered a bad person.

Importance of Motives Kant: In order to be truly

moral, our actions should be motivated by reason rather than feeling.

Feelings are too unreliable to justify our values What if you feel like

helping someone today, but not tomorrow?

What if you feel like helping person A, but not person B?

Kant wanted to avoid this problem Base values on reasons

not feelings Insists that reason tells

us that we have certain duties regardless of what we may feel

Motives Three motives for doing

good You expect something in

return Sympathy Duty

Kant only finds value in duty. Moral praise not

deserved for the 1st one Moral praise not

deserved because you cannot help being sympathetic and friendly

PARADOXICALLY: a naturally anti social person deservers for moral praise for being kind and friendly than a naturally sociable person?

Motive QuestionsIf a cat jumps into a crib to try and attack a

baby, who deserves more praise for removing it: someone who likes cats, or someone who is frightened of cats?

Motive QuestionsWho deserves more praise: a person who helps

another person because they like them, or a person who helps another person even though they don’t like them?

Criticisms of KantRule WorshipConflicts of DutyMoral Coldness

Rule Worship Moral Absolutism: The

belief that certain moral principles should ALWAYS be followed regardless of the context

Kant: It is always wrong to lie. Is it?

Rule Worship: Blindly following a moral rile without regard to the consequences

Justified? You should respect the

rules of the road, but it’s OK to drive through a red light if you are late for work.

You should respect the rules of the road, but it’s OK to drive through a red light if you are taking a critically ill person to the hospital.

Justified? You should keep your

work, but it is OK to break a social engagement if something more interesting comes up.

You should keep your word, but it is OK to break a social engagement if you have just contracted an infectious disease.

Justified? You should pay your

taxes, but it is OK not to pay them if you are short on money this year.

You should pay your taxes, but it is OK not to pay them if they are being spent on nuclear arms programs.

Justified? Murder is wrong, but it

would have been OK to assassinate Hitler in 1942.

Murder is wrong, but it would have been OK to kill someone planning a terrorist attack.

Conflicts of DutyKant leaves us no way of resolving conflicts of

dutyFor some dilemmas there appears to be no

criterion in accordance with which our duties can be ranken

Conflicts of DutyIf a person has been unfaithful to their partner,

should they confess and make their partner unhappy, or say nothing and deceive them?

Conflicts of DutyIf your grandmother and a world-famous doctor

are trapped in a burning building and you only have time to save one of them, should you save your grandmother because she is a family member, or the doctor because she is more useful to society?

Conflicts of DutyIf your wife is dying of a rare disease and you

cannot afford to but the drugs that will cure her, are you justified in stealing the drugs?

Conflicts of DutyIf a terrorist group takes a civilian hostage and

threatens to kill them unless the government releases five convicted terrorists, should the government give in to their demands?

Moral Coldness Kant’s approach seems to

be too focused on reason at the expense of feelings

No place for feelings may result in inhumanity

Gives morals a cold and heartless feel

We could argue: feelings connect us to others and reason isolates us

Reason has its limits and that it might be better to sometimes follow our hearts?

Reflect“Don’t do unto others as you would have them

do to you – their tastes might be different.”George Bernard Shaw

UtilitarianismWe are jumping right in!

Utilitarianism: basics Deceptively simple One supreme moral

principle: we should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Basically: Maximize happiness

Developed: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the late 18th/early 19th century

Tried to get all scientific with explaining ethics

Principle: the only thing good in itself is happiness, and actions are right in so far as they tend to increase happiness and wrong in so far as they tend to decrease it.

What is happiness? The sum of pleasures and that a happy life is one that maximizes feelings of pleasure and minimizes feelings of pain.

Utilitarianism: A Visual Imagine you wore something called a UTILITOMETERA needle and a dial going from -100 to 100Measures pleasure (party = +92, boring class = -82) It calculate your sum at the end of the day…and the

nation’s! (gross national happiness)Utilitarianism comes down to the claim that a higher

GNH means a morally better world and a lower GNH means a morally worse world.

Arguments in FAVOR (1)Utilitarianism is a simple and coherent theory

that uses greatest happiness principle to explain all right and wrongs

Simple way of solving moral dilemmasAll you need to do is follow the course of action

that has the greatest effect on GNH

Arguments in FAVOR (2)Utilitarianism is a democratic theory because

each individual is considered to be the best judge of what makes him/her happy

Every individual’s happiness is taken into consideration when determining GNH

Arguments in FAVOR (3)Utilitarianism is rational theory since it

encourages us to take into account not only the short-term effects, but also the long-term consequences

Smoking = short term pleasure. Long term = more pain that pleasure, so a utilitarian would Just Say No

Arguments in FAVOR (4)Egalitarian theory because it could argue taking

money from the rich and giving to the poorSince a dollar means more to a poor person than

a rich person, a taxation system that favors the poor could increase GNH

ReflectWhen calculating GNH, do you think that the

happiness and suffering of animals as well as humans should be included in the calculation?

ObjectionsTwo types: Practical and Theoretical

Practical Objections How do we measure

happiness? Can pleasures be

measured on a common scale?

1 date with Aaron Rodgers = ½ a movie with friends = 20 scoops of ice cream?

Constant stream of pleasures make for a happy life? Look at celebrities! The more actively we

pursue happiness, the harder it is to find

Practical ObjectionsHow can we know the consequences of our

actions?Woman who might leave her husband for a

coworkerRoald Dahl’s Genesis and Catastrophe

What do you think is the relationship between pleasure and happiness? Is happiness the sum of pleasures, or can you have many pleasures and still be unhappy?

“To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.” Bertrand Russell

What do you think he means by this? Agree or disagree.

Theoretical Objections1: pleasure/happiness is not always a good thing2: actions should be judged by motives, not

consequences3: utilitarianism is incompatible with the belief

that we have moral obligations and individual rights

1: Bad Pleasures Malicious pleasures

Derived from the suffering of others

Mugger who likes to beat people up

Friends who like to gossip

Empty Pleasures Pleasures that do not

help us develop our potential or flourish as human beings

Happy junkies?

2: Judging ActionsActions should be judged on their motives, not

consequences?Praise someone who meant well, but accidentally

lowered GNH?Condemn a malicious person whose evil intentions

accidentally increase it?

Most legal systems punish attempted murder less severely than actual murder. Do you think this is right?

3: Obligations and Rights Does not seem to leave

room to respect moral obligations or human rights

Kant: Never Lie Utilitarianism: Go ahead

and lie if it makes you happy

Utilitarianism justifies sacrificing an individual for GNH Killing someone to

increase the GNH of the neighborhood?

Imagine that you are at a dinner party and the food is awful. Your host asks you if you are enjoying your meal. What do you say?

If someone asks you want you think of them, how honest would you be in your response? How honest SHOULD you be?

Rule UtilitarianismWe should judge the rightness or wrongness of

an action not by whether it promotes general happiness but by whether it conforms to a rule that promotes general happiness.

It makes a lot more sense that our actions be guided by rules that have been proven to promote happiness

Rule UtilitarianismNO: what will be the effect on general happiness

if I break this rule?YES: what will the effect on general happiness

be if we break the rule that people should keep their promises?

Closer to duty ethics…

Imagine that you are the sole heir to your great-uncle’s fortune of 5 million bucks. On his deathbed, he makes you promise to build a butterfly farm with it. Instead, you donate the money to AIDS research. Was your action right or wrong?

Ends justifying means. When, if ever, do you think it is this is true?

Preview to next unit…Does history show that we have made moral

progress?