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]