Transcript Ltjertlkrtjekl n

PHIL/POLS/INTP264
Ethics and International Affairs
Lecture 1: Intro/Utilitarianism
7 July 2008
Some Moral Theories
Utilitarianism (Rachels article)
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill article)
The Wrongness of Killing (Norman
article)
Why do we need moral theories?
1.
2.
3.
4.
a)
b)
Justify and/or morally appraise actions
Enable moral debate
Utilitarianism (Rachels)
1.
The morally right action is the one (out of all
possible actions) that is judged to have the
best overall consequences
* All other actions are morally wrong/inferior
2.
Best consequences = maximise happiness
* Happiness = (net pleasure/pain, or preference
satisfaction)
3.
No one’s happiness is to count more than
anyone else’s in determination of overall
happiness
Utilitarianism
Objections:
1. To hedonism: Is happiness all that
matters? (deceived businessman/
experience machine e.g.)
Nozick’s Experience
Machine (1974)
Utilitarianism
Objections:
2. To consequences:
a. Justice (lonesome stranger e.g.)
b. Rights (peeping tom e.g.)
c.
Backward looking considerations
(promises)
Utilitarianism
Responses:
1. Examples unrealistic (but real life
examples readily available)
2. Rule utilitarianism
3. So much the worse for our ordinary
moral intuitions
Utilitarianism (Rachels)
Utilitarianism is right to warn against
taking moral common sense at face
value, but still some objections to the
theory seem to have a rational basis;
e.g., moral desert.
Next Time
•
•
Kantian Ethics
Reading:
•
Onora O’Neill
•
A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics
•
In the course reader
PHIL/POLS/INTP264
Ethics and International Affairs
Lecture 2: Kantian Ethics
10 July 2008
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
1.
2.
Different formulations of fundamental moral
principle (Categorical Imperative)
O’Neill focuses on Formula of the End in
Itself:
One should always treat humanity, whether in
others or in oneself, always as an end, and
never merely as a means
3.
How are we to understand what it means to
treat someone as an end, not a means?...
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
a.
b.
Acts are based on maxims
A maxim is a subjective principle of
action, a policy for how someone
intends to act in certain circumstances
e.g., ‘I should get to class on time’, ‘I
should keep my promises’, etc.
c.
Examining one’s maxims will tell
whether one’s actions are morally
permissible or not, according to Kant
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
4. An act is morally impermissible
(wrong) if it uses another in a way to
which they could not, in principle,
consent. Examples:
a. deceit (lying, false promise, etc.)
b. coercion
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
Justice vs. Beneficence:
1. There are two types of moral duty,
according to Kant, duties of justice
and duties of beneficence.
a. Duties of justice require one not to
treat others as mere means, but as
ends in themselves (as discussed)
b. Duties of beneficence require one to
sometimes act to further the ends of
others
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
2. Scope & precision of Kantian Ethics
vs. Utilitarianism:
Kantian ethics lacks scope of
utilitarianism, but it is more precise in
guiding individuals’ conduct in the
areas of life that it does apply.
Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)
a. Scope example: Kantian ethics doesn’t apply,
ordinarily, to the question whether it is right
to brush one’s teeth; utilitarianism does
apply, in principle.
b.
Precision example: In cases where a potential
act involves, for e.g., intentionally killing an
innocent person, Kantian ethics offers
absolute answer: it is always wrong.
- Whereas Utilitarianism may or may not
permit such killing, depending on the
consequences for overall happiness
Some Moral Dilemmas





The Tram Dilemma
The Surgeon’s Dilemma
The Jungle Dilemma
What would a Utilitarian and a Kantian
do?
What would be morally right to do?
The Tram Dilemma




An out of control tram will soon
kill 5 people who are stuck on
the track.
You can flick a switch to divert
the tram to another track where
only one person is stuck.
Should you flip the switch?
Should you kill one person to
save five?
SWITCH
The Surgeon’s Dilemma




You are a surgeon with
six patients.
Five of them need
major organ
transplants.
The sixth, an ideal
donor for all the
relevant organs, is in
hospital for a minor
operation.
Should you kill one
person to save five?
Jungle Dilemma




You are trekking alone
in the Amazon.
You discover an evil
army officer and his
troops rounding up
villagers.
Unless you kill one, the
troops will kill six.
Should you kill one
person to save five?
Jungle Dilemma Cont.




What if there are 2
villagers?
What if there are 10
villagers?
What if there are
100 villagers?
Can you ever kill
one innocent person
to save many?
Next Time
•
•
Why killing is wrong
Reading:
•
Richard Norman
•
The Wrongness of Killing
•
In the course reader
PHIL/POLS/INTP264
Ethics and International Affairs
Lecture 3: The Wrongness of Killing
11 July 2008
The Wrongness of Killing
Utilitarianism: Life is valuable because living
things are sentient (or capable of feeling
pleasure/pain, happiness). But, persons
can be sacrificed for the greater good (i.e.,
a greater amount of happiness).
Kantianism: Life is valuable because humans
are rational. Persons cannot be sacrificed
for any ‘greater good’. “Respect for
persons”
“Right to Life” (Norman)


Are there any basic rights?
According to Norman, no; all rights
are essentially social.
– He claims that such questions cannot be
answered simply by appealing to the
notion of rights. There must be some
morally relevant consideration that is
prior to that of rights.
“Sanctity of Life” (Norman)
1. Religious connotations problematic
2. Even on secular conception of
reverence or awe or respect to life,
the notion is too broad.
a. does it include all life?
b. Human life? (why?; speciesism)
c. Animal life above a certain
threshold? Again, why there?
“Sanctity of Life” (Norman)
3. If the criterion is one of rationality or
some other cognitive criterion, then
what about those animals who
possess it (or those humans that
don’t?)
4. Potentiality: problematic
Utilitarian Objections to
Killing (Norman)
1. It normally causes pain and suffering to
the person killed and their loved ones
a. In line with certain of our intuitions, i.e.,
with regard to euthanasia and
anencephaly
b. But what about those cases where killing
doesn’t cause pain and the person is a
normally functioning adult hermit?

Deprives them of future happiness
Raskolnikov’s Dilemma


"On the one hand, we have a stupid, senseless,
worthless, wicked, and decrepit old hag, who is of no
use to anybody and who actually does harm to
everybody, a creature who does not know herself what
she is living for and who will be dead soon, anyway. . .
On the other hand, we have. . . Hundreds, perhaps
thousands of lives could be saved, dozens of families
could be rescued from a life of poverty, from decay and
ruin, from vice and hospitals for venereal diseases and all with her money. Kill her, take her money, and
with its help devote yourself to the service of humanity
and the good of all. Well, don't you think that one little
crime could be expiated and wiped out by thousands of
good deeds?“
Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky
Respect for Autonomy
(Norman)
1. Similar to Kantian Ethics
a. but, just how autonomous does one
need to be to be worthy of respect?
b. Again, what about borderline cases,
infants and severely retarded
persons; and higher animals?
Respect for Life (Norman)
1.
Maybe what’s significant about taking life is
that it involves fundamental disrespect for
life* as a whole
* Where life means: the continuing process of
experience and development
2.
3.
To make sense of this, the concept of
potentiality must be reintroduced at some
level; early deaths, Norman claims, are
especially tragic (but infants are borderline?)
Is this a problem for non-philosophers?
Marginal Cases
1.
2.
3.
Important to recognize marginal cases
as indeed marginal (i.e., abortion)
Doesn’t follow that because there are
hard cases, everything is subjective or
relative. (is duck-billed platypus a
mammal or not?)
In practical sphere, as opposed to
theoretical, much more pressure to
have definite answer
The Doctrine of Double
Effect

The doctrine of double effect claims that:
– Sometimes it is morally permissible to knowingly
but unintentionally cause harm as a side effect
of intending to do some good act (presumably
with good consequences).



And, this is the case even when that sideeffect harm should not (morally speaking)
have been intentionally caused to bring
about those same good consequences.
E.g. Dropping 1080 on national parks
E.g. Dropping nukes on Japan