Functions of a moral theory
Download
Report
Transcript Functions of a moral theory
Functions of a moral theory
To keep society from falling apart
To diminish human suffering
To promote human flourishing
To resolve conflicts of interest in just & orderly ways
To assign praise & blame: responsibility
In order to “work” a moral theory needs to help
resolve moral issues in manner acceptable to
society at large.
CHARACTERISTICS of Moral
Theories
Moral Theories should provide for
1. STABILITY: constant, consistent
Moral issues will not be resolved on whim or
caprice.
2. UNIVERSALITY: Principles or practices
applied fairly/equally - level playing field
There will not be different rules for different
people in the same situation.
CHARACTERISTICS of Moral
Theories
3. IMPARTIALITY: avoid “inclinations”/each
person counts for one
Moral issues will be decided without showing
favoritism for a friend or yourself.
4. OBJECTIVITY: Make decisions on a verifiable
basis, apart from inclinations/emotions
Moral decisions will not be made on nonverifiable basis, or according to personal
preference.
5. [Compassion?]
NIELSEN’s Defense of Utilitarianism
Nielsen argues against the idea that there is
a privileged set of moral principles that can
never be violated through our choices of
actions.
He is responding to 2 crits of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism can require sacrifice of an
innocent person
Utilitarianism can require us to go against
strongly held moral convictions.
“Negative Responsibility”
He argues that we are responsible not
only for the consequences of our actions,
but also for the consequences of our
nonactions.
He states that hard decisions are made by
people in extreme situations, not by
people with ‘corrupt minds’.
He argues that there may be situations when
violence against innocents is justified.
Nielsen’s Two Cases
Magistrate & Mob:
Nielsen argues since that you can give a
‘consequentialist’ argument either way here,
utilitarianism doesn’t REQUIRE the killing of an
innocent person in such a situation.
Shows weakness of utilitarianism.
The “fat man”:
Nielsen states the contrast as between inhumanity
[killing innocent] to inhumanity plus evasiveness
[not willing to choose] Is this a fair contrast?
If we are responsible when we OMIT an action
[negative responsibility], then NOT blowing the man
out of the mouth of the cave is worse on the
consequences than doing it.
WILLIAMS opposes “Negative
Responsibility”
He thinks that it is a problem because it requires
us to act against moral convictions that are
central to who we are.
It MATTERS if we violate them because it
damages who we are. [Which can affect how
we respond in the future.]
Williams argues that the Utilitarian emphasis on
“negative responsibility” is because it focuses
on situations.
Utilitarianism violates moral integrity because it
requires us to reject conscience and our
personal ideals for the lesser of two evils.
Williams: Is Utility a Moral Theory?
To ask Jim & George to follow a utilitarian analysis
is an attack on their integrity. So we must ask:
How deep is George’s revulsion for the
research?
And how strong is Jim’s opposition to killing a
person?
How does William’s view respond to Nielsen’s view
that we hold our moral convictions on the basis
of consequences?
Without strongly held moral convictions all
that is left is “causal intervention” [Williams]
How do you keep “impartiality”? [Kant]