moral theoryhomepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/millandkants2015.pdf · you (already) value. – dependent...

Moral Theory

What makes things right or wrong?

Consider: Moral Disagreement

•  We have disagreements about “right” and “wrong,” about how people “ought” or “ought not” act.

•  When we do, we (ideally) reason with one another trying to settle these disagreements.

•  Moral Theory studies/evaluates the kinds of reasons we offer.

•  We want to answer these questions in a principled, non-arbitrary manner.

How do we “do” Moral Theory? •  “Ethics” can be divided into two main categories: – META-ETHICS •  What is goodness? What is moral value? •  What does goodness ultimately amount to?

– APPLIED ETHICS •  Is x morally good/bad/neither? •  Is it wrong/right to x?

How do we “do” Moral Theory?

Meta-Ethical view #1: Goodness is blah-blah

Answers to questions in Applied Ethics •  Is x morally good/bad/neither?

–  x is morally good. •  Is it right/wrong to x?

–  It is right to x.

Meta-Ethical view #2: Goodness is yadda-yadda

Answers to questions in Applied Ethics •  Is x morally good/bad/neither?

–  x is bad. •  Is it right/wrong to x?

–  It is wrong to x.

What does a complete theory of morality need?

•  1) A theory of moral value. – What constitutes moral value?

•  2) A theory of action. – What is it about actions that make them right/

wrong?

John Stuart Mill’s Theory: Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill

u 19th c. moral/political philosopher; social & economic theorist.

u Proponent of “Utilitarianism,” first developed by Jeremy Bentham.

u Author of On Liberty, where he defended individual rights such as free speech.

Consequentialism: a theory of action •  Mill is a consequentialist. •  Consequentialists say that the only thing

relevant to judging the rightness or wrongness of an action is its consequences.

•  An action is: – morally right insofar as it has the “good” sort of

consequences; – morally wrong insofar as it has the “bad” sort

consequences.

But what kinds of consequences count as “good” or “bad?”

•  We need a theory of moral value which provides us with something to plug in for “good” and “bad” here.

Mill asks a meta-ethical question: What is the

Summum bonum? •  What is the greatest good? –  In other words, what is of the highest value?

– For Mill, the answer to this question provides the fundamental principle of morality.

Mill’s Answer: Happiness

Which leads him to ---

The Greatest Happiness Principle

“...actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain....” •  Happiness = the presence of pleasure and

absence of pain.

Clarification: Instrumental versus Intrinsic “Goodness” or Value

Instrumental Value: n  The value something has if

it is useful (i.e., instrumental) in obtaining something else of value.

•  The value of tools. Tools have value because they allow you to do something you (already) value. –  Dependent upon something

having intrinsic value.

Intrinsic Value: n  The value something has

when it is valued in and of itself, apart from its role in obtaining anything else.

•  What has value “for itself,” apart from it’s “usefulness.”

•  Mill is concerned with the question of what has intrinsic value.

Hedonism: a theory of (intrinsic) value u A theory about what has

intrinsic value u Pleasure is the ultimate

goal. u Everything else is a means

to this end.

Mill’s Argument for Hedonism •  Strictly speaking, Mill admits, this cannot be

proven. – “What proof is possible that pleasure is good?”

•  According to Bentham (an earlier utilitarian), happiness/pleasure is the only thing actually intrinsically valued by everyone. – People may define “happiness” differently, but it

is the only thing that everyone values in and of itself.

Utilitarianism = Consequentialism + Hedonism

•  Consequentialism: – Acts are morally right only to the extent that

they produce good consequences; plus

•  Hedonism: – Those consequences are good only to the extent

that they create happiness. •  Utilitarianism adopts hedonism as a value theory.

Application:

What is the morally right thing to do? There’s a method for that.

1.  Determine the knowable consequences for all options.

2.  Estimate how each option will affect people’s happiness.

3.  Calculate the overall gain or loss of happiness for each option.

4.  Perform that act which maximizes overall happiness.

But Whose Happiness Counts?

•  For utilitarians, everyone’s happiness counts equally – What matters is not whose happiness is involved,

but how much overall happiness. •  Utilitarianism: – An act is morally right to the extent that it

maximizes overall happiness (i.e., pleasure or the absence of pain), and wrong to the extent it does not.

Social Policy

•  Utilitarian reasoning is often used in setting social policies.

•  It advocates employing a kind of “cost-benefit” analysis. – So, utilitarian reasoning is often employed in

economics. – There are sophisticated mathematical models for

calculating “expected utility.”

An Objection:

To be moral is to be a slob

•  If hedonism were true, then it would imply that to be “moral” is to be a slob.

•  Obviously, someone who dedicates their whole life to nothing but “coke and hookers” isn’t a “moral exemplar.” So, hedonism is false.

•  Since hedonism is one of the two key ingredients to Utilitarianism, it follows that Utilitarianism is false too.

Mill’s response

•  Not all pleasures are created equal. •  There are two different aspects to measuring

pleasure: – Quality – Quantity

•  Some kinds of pleasure are qualitatively deeper than others. These deeper pleasures outweigh shallower pleasures, even if there is a higher quantity of shallow pleasures.

Mill’s response continued

•  It is just a fact about the human mind that we have many different faculties/capacities.

•  Some of these faculties are the same as the ones that even animals have. Even animals can enjoy simplistic things like gorging themselves (e.g., food and sex).

•  There are other “higher” faculties that we have which animals lack. (e.g., intellectual understanding, aesthetic appreciation etc…)

Mill’s response continued •  “[T]hose who are equally acquainted with ... both ...

[prefer an] existence which employs their higher faculties. Few ... would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, ...; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, ... even [if] ... the fool ... is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. .... It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” –J.S. Mill

Contrast Mill’s Utilitarianism with…

Immanuel Kant’s Theory: Deontology

How do we evaluate right and wrong?

l  When we appraise the ethical standards of ourselves and others, what do we consider most important?

l  Put more simply, when we talk about right and wrong, what sorts of things are we most focused on saying are right or wrong?

l  For the purposes of this class, we will be focusing on act-based theories of morality.

Act-based theories of morality

l  The primary focus of any moral theory should be the evaluation of actions.

l  Consequentialist theories consider an action's consequence to be the most morally relevant aspect when evaluating the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action.

l  Deontology, another act-based theory of morality, denies this claim.

Deontology

l  Comes from the Greek word Deon, meaning duty or obligation.

l  Actions are not made good just because they have good consequences!

l  Some actions are just inherently right or wrong.

Actions that seem inherently wrong

Some things just seem like they're wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Things like... Murder, Rape, Theft, Bigotry, Slavery. Our initial intuitions that some thing simply cannot be genuinely

justified by any sort of positive outcome serve as starting point for supposing something like Deontology might be true.

Immanuel Kant (1720-1800)

l  Born in Konigsberg, East Prussia

l  One of the influential philosophers of all time

l  Formulated one of the most well-known deontological theories

An Objective Morality?

l  Kant wanted to formulate a moral theory that was objective with rules that always hold, much like the laws of nature or mathematics.

l  If there is right and wrong, it must hold for people across all places and all times.

l  Other moral theories attempted to define morality in terms of happiness. Kant rejects this

So what's wrong with happiness?

l  There is some plausibility to happiness as a foundation for objective morality.

l  However, what makes you happy relates to facts about your nature and constitution.

l  We might encounter beings who are made very happy, as a rule, by the torture of other living things.

l  Would we then be forced to say to in such cases murder and torture are good for them?

A morality based on reason

l  Kant advocates a morality that is not based on the happiness of people, but is instead based on rationality and reason.

l  According to Kant, a moral theory that bases morality on rationality will be fully objective in a way that a theory based on happiness cannot not be.

So, what is the highest good?

l  For Kant, the good is not happiness or pleasure. It is not, in any way, something that is the consequence of an action.

l  The only thing that is good without qualification is a good will.

l  In other words, Kant thinks that having the right kinds of intentions is intrinsically good.

The Right Kind of intentions? l  When Kant says the right kind of intentions, he

does not mean what you might be initially inclined to think of as good intentions (Such as a love of one's neighbors)

l  The case of the shopkeeper. l  In all of the aforementioned cases, none of the

persons involved are acting with the right kinds of intentions, Kant says.

l  The right intentions are, instead, when one acts out of respect for the moral law.

Respect for the Moral law l  A good will (one with the right kind of intentions)

acts freely and out of respect for the moral law. l  Respect for the moral law involves recognizing

that certain actions must be taken, even if those actions are damaging to our personal happiness.

l  So, how do we tell if we are acting in accordance with the moral law?

l  Kant's answer: The Categorical Imperative

Imperatives

An imperative is a or an instruction. (Go open the door, check and see what time it is, etc. etc.)

Some imperatives are hypothetical in nature. They're based on the assumption

that one wants to achieve a particular goal. (if you want to be healthy, don't eat too much junk food)

A Categorical imperative, however, is one that commands us without an

reliance on our personal desires or interests. This is what Kant thinks morality is.

Imperatives cont...

In other words there is no “If you want to...” conditional on the categorical imperative. It applies to all persons at all times.

So, it is not “If you want to avoid getting in

trouble, don't steal.” It is simply “Do not steal.”

The Categorical imperative

l  The ultimate moral principle according to Kant. l  By understanding the categorical imperative, we

can understand what actions are right and which are wrong.

l  Comes in three forms (we'll be covering two). l  First form: The Universal Law formulation l  Second Form: Humanity as an end in itself

The Universal Law Formulation

l  Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

l  So, before acting on an intention, ask yourself what would happen if everyone always acted on this intention when the opportunity arose.

A universal law?

Kant thought morality needed to be objective and applicable at all times.

Therefore, a morally right action has to be one

that we can always act on in all circumstances.

Humanity as an end in itself

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”

Treating someone as a means/end?

Means: Measures, methods, objects, or actions used to acquire ends.

Ends: Those things we desire or value. So, a simple way of understanding this is don't use

people. Always recognize their value as rational beings capable of making decisions and having goals of their own.

Who has value on this theory?

We saw in Utilitarianism, everyone's happiness counts for the theory. The question of who has value on the Kantian theory of morality is a bit tougher to answer.

Generally, Kant thinks that value comes from and is grounded in our

rational nature. Rational beings have unconditional value and any sort of value in the

world is in some sense based on our rational nature.

Summary of Kant

Morality is objective and universal. It applies to all persons. Morality is based on reason. The only intrinsically good thing is a good will (A will that acts out of respect

for the moral law) Actions are good based on the intentions one has when acting, rather than

their consequences.

Taking Stock: The Key Contrasts between Mill & Kant