Transcript Moral Theory in Philosophy and Psychology

Moral Theory in
Philosophy and
Psychology
Roger A. Chadwick
Dr. David Trafimow, advisor*
The imperfection of perfect duty classifications
*Note, the views are those of the student, not necessarily of the advisor 
Topics
•
•
•
•
Immanual Kant: rational morality
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Evolutionary theories of morality
Attribution of moral dimensions
Amelie Rorty on Kant
•
Sharpest critique is the separation of
practical reason from psychological
motivation in the establishment of an
entirely separate domain of morality.
•
i.e. it doesn’t apply to reality
Mind in Action, 1988
What is morality? Kant
•
•
•
•
A rational conclusion
Each man is an end unto himself
Duties based on Rights
Reasoned morality
•
What is morality?
Mill: Utilitarianism
Judgment of right or wrong
– With regard to society’s good
– Maximum Happiness for all
– Empirical
Evolution of Morality
(Flack & De Waal)
•
•
•
Evolutionary Origins of Morality
Primate research and human morality
An implicit agreement among group
members that enabled individuals to
profit from the benefits of co-operative
sociality.
•
•
•
Evolutionary Morality
(Flack & De Waal)
Elements of moral systems are tools
social animals use to make living
together a possiblity
Check competition (conflicting
interests of individuals)
Sympathy related traits
Flack & De Waal
4 ingredients of morality
1. Sympathy related, cognitive empathy
2. Norm related
internalization of rules
anticipation of punishment
3. Reciprocity: giving, trading, revenge
4. Getting along: peacemaking
community concern, negotiations
Teleological Morality
•
•
•
•
Teleological: exhibiting or relating to
design or purpose especially in nature
“Divine Command”
What is moral is dictated by God.
e.g. The 10 commandments
Deontological Theories
•
•
•
de·on·tol·o·gy
the theory or study of moral obligation
Theories based on duties, rights
Kant wanted to get away from
teleological arguments *
Immanual Kant
•
•
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic
of Morals (1785, T.K. Abbott, trans.)
Metaphysics of Morals (1797)
Declaration of independence (U.S.A) (1776)
French revolution (1789)
Morality for Autonomous Rational
Beings
• Morality is defined by rational logic.
• No empirical knowledge of human
conditions are required.
• Defines what “ought” to be moral for
rational beings.
Morality through Pure logic
•
•
•
•
•
Formal rational knowledge: logic
Cannot rest on experience
Logic cannot have any empirical part
Kant’s “Metaphysic of morals”
Determination of the supreme principle of
morality.
Kant
•
•
All duties are either duties of RIGHT,
that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or
duties of VIRTUE, that is, ethical
duties (officia virtutis s. ethica).
Juridical duties are such as may be
promulgated by external legislation
INTRODUCTION TO THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
by Immanuel Kant translated by W. Hastie
Enforcement
•
Perfect duties: external
– (legislation)
•
Imperfect duties: internal
– (conscience, moral feeling)
Supreme principle of morality
"Act according to a maxim which can
likewise be valid as a universal law."
Every maxim which is not qualified
according to this condition is contrary to
Morality.”
Kant.
Will
•
•
Nothing can be called “good” except a good
will.
Intelligence, wit (talents of mind)
–
–
•
Desirable
Can be used for evil purposes
Moderation, self control, calm deliberation
–
Useful for a good will, but not good in
themselves
Kant on will,
Choice,
Inclination
Under the will, taken generally, may be included the volitional
act of choice, and also the mere act of wish, in so far as reason
may determine the faculty of desire in its activity. The act of choice
that can be determined by pure reason constitutes the act of
free-will. That act which is determinable only by inclination as a
sensuous impulse or stimulus would be irrational brute choice
(arbitrium brutum). The human act of choice, however, as human, is
in fact affected by such impulses or stimuli, but is not determined by
them; and it is, therefore, not pure in itself when taken apart from
the acquired habit of determination by reason.
A Good Will
•
•
•
A good will has value in itself
Regardless of the consequences or
results
Human beings: the will does not
accord completey with reason.
Human beings and Free Will
•
•
•
Inclinations
Free will
Autonomous agents
– Autonomy is the criteria for morality
•
•
Man endowed with reason rather than
simply instincts: fulfills a purpose
What purpose does rationality fulfill?
Action from Duty
•
Action done from duty derives it’s
moral worth,not from the purpose
which is to be attained by it, but from
the maxim by which it is determined.
Duties
•
•
•
•
Duty to maintain one’s own life
Duty to be beneficent when we can
Duty to secure one’s happiness (indirect)
Actions must be done from duty to be
moral.
–
There may be no such knowable case
Duty to maintain one’s own life
•
•
•
Most men have also a direct inclination to
preserve their own life
No intrinsic worth, life preserved as duty
dictates, but not because duty dictates
Consider a man who has no reason to live
but decides to preserve his life from duty.
Imperitives
•
•
•
•
“Ought”, or “Shall”
A command of reason
Obligation
Commands are either:
– Hypothetical or Categorical
Hypothetical Imperitives
•
•
The practical necessity of a possible
action as a means to something else
that is willed (or possibly willed).
Actions good as a means to
something else
Categorical Imperitive
•
•
•
That which represents an action as
necessary of itself without reference to
another end.
Objectively necessary
A will which conforms to reason, good
in itself, categorical.
Imperitives of action
Skill
Prudence
Morality
Three Sorts of Principles
•
•
Rules of skill (technical)
Counsels of prudence (pragmatic)
–
–
•
Involve necessity, but........
Only hold under a contingent subjective
condition (how things really turn out)
Commands (laws) of morality (moral)
–
–
Involves objective necessity
Must be obeyed
•
even in opposition to inclination
Imperitives of Skill
•
•
•
•
The end being rational or good is not
an issue.
The question is simply what one must
to to attain the end.
The means are variable (?)
To will the end is to will the means
Prudence
•
•
•
•
One end all humans have is happiness.
Hypothetical Imperitive
Skill in choice as to actions to this end is
called prudence.
Action is not commanded absolutely, only
as a means to the purpose of happiness.
Prudence (for Happiness)
•
Although one may wish for happiness, one cannot
be certain what to do.
Unable, on ANY principle to determine what action
Happiness is subjective, empirical.
Impossible for a clear sighted man to know exactly
what he wills..
•
•
•
–
–
Riches lead to anxiety
Knowledge leads to a sharper eye for evils
Prudence (consilia)
•
Empirical counsel, cannot be commanded
–
•
•
•
•
taught by experience
Regimen
Frugality
Courtesy
Reserve
Imperitive of Morality
•
•
•
•
Categorical Imperitive
Does not concern the matter of the action,
or the result
The form and principle of the action
What is important is the mental disposition,
“let the consequences be what they may”
Morality: Categorical Imperitive
•
•
•
Act on that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will that it should
become a universal law.
Treat each man as an end , never only
as a means (alternate version)
Duties derived from this principle
Divisions of Duties
•
•
•
•
Duties to ourselves
Duties to others
Perfect duties
Imperfect duties
Imperfect Duties
•
•
The moral law can provide only the
maxim of actions, not actions
themselves.
What is required is that we take to
heart certain principles, not that we act
in certain ways.
Supreme moral principle
•
•
Ask: Can you also will that the maxim
should be a universal law?
If not, the maxim must be rejected
Applying the principle
•
•
•
•
•
Situation, proposed action.
Is it right?
Formulate maxim
Apply as a universal law
Is this contradictory?
Example: Deceit
•
•
•
Situation: need money , cannot pay back.
Maxim: Everyone may make a deceitful
promise when he finds himself in a difficult
situation from which he cannot otherwise
extricate himself
Can will lying, but cannot will lying be a
universal law, if so no promises at all valid.
Deceit
•
•
•
Applying the principle results in a
logical contradiction...
Lying becomes impossible if willed that
all can lie.
At least according to Kant
Example: Sloth
•
•
•
A man has a talent but chooses not to
develop it.
Ask: Whenever anyone has a talent
they should choose not to develop it.
Not contradictory, simply undesirable
Example: Sloth
•
“a system of nature could indeed
subsist with such a universal law...but
he cannot will this a universal law..for
as a rational being he necessarily wills
that his faculties be developed since
they serve him...” (nonsense)
Example: Beneficience
•
•
A man of wealth sees poor people and asks “what
concern is it of mine”
It is possible that a rule of nature might exist in
accord with this universal maxim, but it is
impossible to will that such a principle should have
universal validity..for a will which resolved this
would contradict itself since a law of nature sprung
from one’s own will would preclude him of help
when needed.
Example: Suicide
•
•
Man in despair, weary of life.
From self love I adopt it as a principle
to shorten my life when it’s duration is
likely to bring more evil than
satisfaction.
Example Suicide
•
“Now we see at once that a system of
nature of which it should be a law to
destroy life by means of the very
feeling whose special nature it is to
impel the improvement of life would
contradict itself”
Derivation of Perfect, Imperfect
duties
• From the supreme moral principle it is
derived that some duties are
• Perfect: obligitory and defined
• Imperfect: obligitory but not defined
– (specific actions are not dictated)
John Stuart Mill
•
Utilitarianism (1863)
– Epicurus, Bentham
•
•
Mill: Kant fails to show that the
conclusions are logically contradictory,
merely that they are undesirable
I agree. Kant represents rationalization
rather than rationality.
Utilitarianism
•
•
•
•
Maximize total happiness (for all)
Utility (value)
The ultimate “end” is an existence
without pain and with pleasure
This is the standard of morality.
Telling a lie
•
•
May be expedient for an individual to lie, but
ill for society, therefore it is immoral.
............but
It may be nothing but painful to tell the truth
at times, providing exceptions..withholding
information from a malefactor, bad news
from someone who is ill, etc.
Sanctions
•
•
•
•
External sanctions
Internal sanctions (conscience)
“a feeling in our own mind, a pain,
more or less intense, attendant on
violation of duty”
The conscientious feelings of mankind
Mill: Punishment
•
•
Something is wrong if punishment is
due. A desire to punish is present.
Moral feeling is bestowed on us by
nature
– This does not legitimize it’s promptings
•
Intellectual and animal instincts
Punishments
•
Wrong: punishment due
– Legal punishment
– Opinion of others (social disdain)
– Reproachment of Conscience
Mill on Perfect / Imperfect Duties
•
•
Poorly chosen terms
The difference between justice and
beneficence:
– Someone’s rights are violated
Mill
•
•
•
Perfect duty violations involve the
violation of someone’s rights
Imperfect duty violations do not
involve violating someone’s rights.
A duty is something that can be
extracted from someone, like a debt.
Desire to punish
•
•
Natural
“a spontaneous outgrowth from two
sentiments, both natural”
–
–
•
•
Self defense
Sympathy
Feelings of retaliation, vengence
It is moral to act in the direction of the good of
society, not simply on personal hurt, unless
society has a common interest in the
repression of the evil.
What is a person’s right?
•
•
•
A valid claim on society to protect him
in possession of it. (General Utility)
Force of law
Force of public opinion
Thirst for justice
•
•
•
Derived from the extraordinary
important kind of utility which is
concerned.
Security is a concern for all, the most
vital of interests (after nutrition)
There is disagreement about what is
just, and what is fit punishment
lex talionis: an eye for an eye
•
•
•
Punishment proportioned to the offense?
Punishment minimal to preclude the
behavior?
Good for good, evil for evil.
•
A continuous function of value is implied.
Evil for Evil
•
•
•
•
Responsible for voluntary action only
Responsible for what one could have
voluntarily avoided
Punishment proportioned to offence
Unjust to condemn anyone unheard
Mill: Highly immoral acts
•
Breach of friendship (disloyalty)
– “few hurts which human beings can
sustain are greater”
•
Breach of promise (dishonesty)
Particular cases of social duty
•
“Thus, to save a life, it may be not only
allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take
by force, the necessary food or
medicine, or to kidnap and compel..the
medical practitioner”
– (J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1863)
The bottom line
•
•
•
Utilitarianism is conerned with value to
society.
Kant is too cut and dry, black and
white.
Placing lying and stealing in the
category of “honesty” may be
overgeneralizing.
Attribution of moral traits
•
Attribution of dishonest, disloyal
behaviors does not reflect Kant’s
perfect duty morality.
Effect of
Justifying
Violations
Problems with Perfect Imperfect
Classifications
•
•
•
Is this too general?
Is lying the same as stealing?
Is stealing a loaf of bread the same as
stealing a television set?
•
We need a moral theory that predicts
specific behavior attributions
Degrees of moral indignation
•
•
•
•
•
Killed an enemy soldier
Killed a man in a fight
Killed his own brother
Killed a woman
Killed a woman and her unborn child
Attribution
by trait
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
HONEST
LOYAL
Mean
-2.0
CHARITBL
-2.5
No Justification
FRIENDLY
Generic Justificatio
Moderate Justificati
Justification Condition
Good Justification
Attribution
by behavior
Attributions for Different Behaviors
0.0
-.5
-1.0
BEHGRP
Mean HONEST
-1.5
1
-2.0
2
-2.5
3
-3.0
4
No Justification
Generic Justificatio
Justification Condition
Moderate Justificati
Good Justification
Attribution
by gender
Gender Differences
0.0
-.5
Loyal,
p<.01
-1.0
Mean Attribution
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
LOYAL
-3.0
HONEST
Female
Male
Attributing behaviors
•
•
•
Characterizing behaviors as perfect or
imperfect duty violations is limiting.
Does not deal with degrees
Suggest a moral continuum
Goal of the human organism
•
•
•
Nature dictates the “goal” of a life has
been shaped so as to maximize
inclusive fitness. There is no goal.
Can rationality over-ride disposition?
Agreement that there is a natural
sense of morality. What role does
rationality play? (rationalization)
Darwinian Utilitarianism ?
•
•
Maximize inclusive fitness for one’s
genes.
Happiness (positive affect) is tied to
fitness inducing behaviors / results
– Beautiful landscapes, satisfaction, etc
Psychological Morality Model
•
•
•
•
Evolutionarily important relations
Hunter-Gatherer Societies
In groups / out groups
Specific relations
– Mates, kin, strangers, social status
– Gender, immigrants,