PHIL/POLS/INTP264 Ethics and International Affairs Lecture 1: Intro/Utilitarianism 7 July 2008.

PHIL/POLS/INTP264 PHIL/POLS/INTP264 Ethics and International AffairsEthics and International Affairs

Lecture 1: Intro/UtilitarianismLecture 1: Intro/Utilitarianism

7 July 20087 July 2008

Some Moral TheoriesSome Moral Theories

1.1. Utilitarianism (Rachels article)Utilitarianism (Rachels article)

2.2. Kantian Ethics (O’Neill article)Kantian Ethics (O’Neill article)

3.3. The Wrongness of Killing (Norman The Wrongness of Killing (Norman article)article)

4.4. Why do we need moral theories?Why do we need moral theories?a)a) Justify and/or morally appraise Justify and/or morally appraise

actionsactions

b)b) Enable moral debateEnable moral debate

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism (Rachels)(Rachels)

1.1. The morally right action is the one (out The morally right action is the one (out of all possible actions) that is judged to of all possible actions) that is judged to have the best overall consequenceshave the best overall consequences

* All other actions are morally wrong/inferior* All other actions are morally wrong/inferior

2.2. Best consequences = maximise Best consequences = maximise happiness happiness

* Happiness = (net pleasure/pain, or * Happiness = (net pleasure/pain, or preference satisfaction)preference satisfaction)

3.3. No one’s happiness is to count more No one’s happiness is to count more than anyone else’s in determination of than anyone else’s in determination of overall happinessoverall happiness

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Objections:Objections:

1.1. To hedonism: Is happiness all that To hedonism: Is happiness all that matters? (deceived businessman/ matters? (deceived businessman/ experience machine e.g.)experience machine e.g.)

Nozick’s Experience Nozick’s Experience Machine (1974)Machine (1974)


Objections:Objections:

2.2. To consequences:To consequences:

a.a. Justice (lonesome stranger e.g.)Justice (lonesome stranger e.g.)

b.b. Rights (peeping tom e.g.)Rights (peeping tom e.g.)

c.c. Backward looking considerations Backward looking considerations (promises)(promises)


Responses:Responses:

1.1. Examples unrealistic (but real life Examples unrealistic (but real life examples readily available)examples readily available)

2.2. Rule utilitarianismRule utilitarianism3.3. So much the worse for our So much the worse for our

ordinary moral intuitionsordinary moral intuitions

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism (Rachels)(Rachels)

Utilitarianism is right to warn Utilitarianism is right to warn against taking moral common against taking moral common sense at face value, but still sense at face value, but still some objections to the theory some objections to the theory seem to have a rational basis; seem to have a rational basis; e.g., moral desert.e.g., moral desert.

Next TimeNext Time

• Kantian EthicsKantian Ethics• Reading:Reading:

• Onora O’NeillOnora O’Neill• A Simplified Account of Kant’s A Simplified Account of Kant’s

EthicsEthics• In the course readerIn the course reader


Lecture 2: Kantian EthicsLecture 2: Kantian Ethics

10 July 200810 July 2008

Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)

1.1. Different formulations of fundamental Different formulations of fundamental moral principle (Categorical Imperative)moral principle (Categorical Imperative)

2.2. O’Neill focuses on Formula of the End in O’Neill focuses on Formula of the End in Itself: Itself:

One should always treat humanity, whether One should always treat humanity, whether in others or in oneself, always as an end, in others or in oneself, always as an end, and never merely as a meansand never merely as a means

3.3. How are we to understand what it How are we to understand what it means to treat someone as an end, not means to treat someone as an end, not a means?...a means?...

Kantian Ethics Kantian Ethics (O’Neill)(O’Neill)

a.a. Acts are based on maximsActs are based on maxims

b.b. A maxim is a subjective principle of A maxim is a subjective principle of action, a policy for how someone action, a policy for how someone intendsintends to act in certain circumstances to act in certain circumstances

e.g., ‘I should get to class on time’, ‘I e.g., ‘I should get to class on time’, ‘I should keep my promises’, etc. should keep my promises’, etc.

c.c. Examining one’s maxims will tell Examining one’s maxims will tell whether one’s actions are morally whether one’s actions are morally permissible or not, according to Kantpermissible or not, according to Kant


4.4. An act is morally impermissible An act is morally impermissible (wrong) if it uses another in a (wrong) if it uses another in a way to which they could not, in way to which they could not, in principle, consent. Examples:principle, consent. Examples:

a.a. deceit (lying, false promise, etc.)deceit (lying, false promise, etc.)

b.b. coercioncoercion


Justice vs. Beneficence:Justice vs. Beneficence:1.1. There are two types of moral duty, There are two types of moral duty,

according to Kant, duties of justice according to Kant, duties of justice and duties of beneficence.and duties of beneficence.

a.a. Duties of justice require one not to Duties of justice require one not to treat others as mere means, but as treat others as mere means, but as ends in themselves (as discussed)ends in themselves (as discussed)

b.b. Duties of beneficence require one to Duties of beneficence require one to sometimessometimes act to further the ends of act to further the ends of othersothers


2.2. Scope & precision of Kantian Scope & precision of Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism: Ethics vs. Utilitarianism:

Kantian ethics lacks scope of Kantian ethics lacks scope of utilitarianism, but it is more utilitarianism, but it is more precise in guiding individuals’ precise in guiding individuals’ conduct in the areas of life that it conduct in the areas of life that it does apply.does apply.


a.a. Scope example: Kantian ethics doesn’t apply, Scope example: Kantian ethics doesn’t apply, ordinarily, to the question whether it is right ordinarily, to the question whether it is right to brush one’s teeth; utilitarianism does to brush one’s teeth; utilitarianism does apply, in principle.apply, in principle.

b.b. Precision example: In cases where a Precision example: In cases where a potential act involves, for e.g., intentionally potential act involves, for e.g., intentionally killing an innocent person, Kantian ethics killing an innocent person, Kantian ethics offers absolute answer: it is always wrong. offers absolute answer: it is always wrong.

- Whereas Utilitarianism may or may not - Whereas Utilitarianism may or may not permit such killing, depending on the permit such killing, depending on the consequences for overall happinessconsequences for overall happiness

Some Moral DilemmasSome Moral Dilemmas

The Tram DilemmaThe Tram Dilemma The Surgeon’s DilemmaThe Surgeon’s Dilemma The Jungle DilemmaThe Jungle Dilemma

What would a Utilitarian and a What would a Utilitarian and a Kantian do?Kantian do?

What would be morally right to do?What would be morally right to do?

The Tram DilemmaThe Tram Dilemma

An out of control tram will An out of control tram will soon kill 5 people who are soon kill 5 people who are stuck on the track. stuck on the track.

You can flick a switch to You can flick a switch to divert the tram to another divert the tram to another track where only one person track where only one person is stuck. is stuck.

Should you flip the switch? Should you flip the switch?

Should you kill one person to Should you kill one person to save five? save five?

SWITCH

The Surgeon’s DilemmaThe Surgeon’s Dilemma You are a surgeon You are a surgeon

with with sixsix patients. patients. FiveFive of them need of them need

major organ major organ transplants. transplants.

The sixth, an ideal The sixth, an ideal donor for all the donor for all the relevant organs, is relevant organs, is in hospital for a in hospital for a minor operation.minor operation.

Should you kill one Should you kill one person to save five?person to save five?

Jungle DilemmaJungle Dilemma

You are trekking You are trekking alone in the Amazon.alone in the Amazon.

You discover an evil You discover an evil army officer and his army officer and his troops rounding up troops rounding up villagers.villagers.

Unless you kill one, Unless you kill one, the troops will kill six.the troops will kill six.

Should you kill one Should you kill one person to save five? person to save five?

Jungle Dilemma Cont.Jungle Dilemma Cont.

What if there are 2 What if there are 2 villagers?villagers?

What if there are What if there are 10 villagers?10 villagers?

What if there are What if there are 100 villagers?100 villagers?

Can you Can you everever kill kill one innocent one innocent person to save person to save many? many?

Next TimeNext Time

• Why killing is wrongWhy killing is wrong• Reading:Reading:

• Richard NormanRichard Norman• The Wrongness of KillingThe Wrongness of Killing• In the course readerIn the course reader


Lecture 3: The Wrongness of Lecture 3: The Wrongness of KillingKilling

11 July 200811 July 2008

The Wrongness of The Wrongness of KillingKilling

Utilitarianism: Life is valuable because living Utilitarianism: Life is valuable because living things are sentient (or capable of feeling things are sentient (or capable of feeling pleasure/pain, happiness). But, persons pleasure/pain, happiness). But, persons can be sacrificed for the greater good can be sacrificed for the greater good (i.e., a greater amount of happiness).(i.e., a greater amount of happiness).

Kantianism: Life is valuable because Kantianism: Life is valuable because humans are rational. Persons cannot be humans are rational. Persons cannot be sacrificed for any ‘greater good’. sacrificed for any ‘greater good’. “Respect for persons”“Respect for persons”

““Right to Life” Right to Life” (Norman)(Norman) Are there any basic rights? Are there any basic rights?

According to Norman, no; all According to Norman, no; all rights are essentially social.rights are essentially social.

– He claims that such questions He claims that such questions cannot be answered cannot be answered simplysimply by by appealing to the notion of rights. appealing to the notion of rights. There must be some morally There must be some morally relevant consideration that is prior relevant consideration that is prior to that of rights.to that of rights.

““Sanctity of Life” Sanctity of Life” (Norman)(Norman)

1.1. Religious connotations problematicReligious connotations problematic2.2. Even on secular conception of Even on secular conception of

reverence or awe or respect to life, reverence or awe or respect to life, the notion is too broad.the notion is too broad.a. does it include all life?a. does it include all life?b. Human life? (why?; speciesism)b. Human life? (why?; speciesism)c. Animal life above a certain c. Animal life above a certain threshold? Again, why there?threshold? Again, why there?

““Sanctity of Life” Sanctity of Life” (Norman)(Norman)

3.3. If the criterion is one of If the criterion is one of rationality or some other rationality or some other cognitive criterion, then what cognitive criterion, then what about those animals who about those animals who possess it (or those humans that possess it (or those humans that don’t?)don’t?)

4.4. Potentiality: problematicPotentiality: problematic

Utilitarian Objections Utilitarian Objections to Killing (Norman)to Killing (Norman)1.1. It normally causes pain and suffering to It normally causes pain and suffering to

the person killed and their loved onesthe person killed and their loved ones

a.a. In line with certain of our intuitions, i.e., In line with certain of our intuitions, i.e., with regard to euthanasia and with regard to euthanasia and anencephalyanencephaly

b.b. But what about those cases where killing But what about those cases where killing doesn’t cause pain and the person is a doesn’t cause pain and the person is a normally functioning adult hermit?normally functioning adult hermit?

Deprives them of future happinessDeprives them of future happiness

Raskolnikov’s DilemmaRaskolnikov’s Dilemma "On the one hand, we have a stupid, senseless, "On the one hand, we have a stupid, senseless,

worthless, wicked, and decrepit old hag, who is of worthless, wicked, and decrepit old hag, who is of no use to anybody and who actually does harm no use to anybody and who actually does harm to everybody, a creature who does not know to everybody, a creature who does not know herself what she is living for and who will be dead herself what she is living for and who will be dead soon, anyway. . . On the other hand, we have. . . soon, anyway. . . On the other hand, we have. . . Hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives could be Hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives could be saved, dozens of families could be rescued from saved, dozens of families could be rescued from a life of poverty, from decay and ruin, from vice a life of poverty, from decay and ruin, from vice and hospitals for venereal diseases - and all with and hospitals for venereal diseases - and all with her money. Kill her, take her money, and with its her money. Kill her, take her money, and with its help devote yourself to the service of humanity help devote yourself to the service of humanity and the good of all. Well, don't you think that one and the good of all. Well, don't you think that one little crime could be expiated and wiped out by little crime could be expiated and wiped out by thousands of good deeds?“thousands of good deeds?“

Crime and PunishmentCrime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky by Dostoyevsky

Respect for Autonomy Respect for Autonomy (Norman)(Norman)

1.1. Similar to Kantian EthicsSimilar to Kantian Ethics

a.a. but, just how autonomous does but, just how autonomous does one need to be to be worthy of one need to be to be worthy of respect?respect?

b.b. Again, what about borderline Again, what about borderline cases, infants and severely cases, infants and severely retarded persons; and higher retarded persons; and higher animals?animals?

Respect for Life Respect for Life (Norman)(Norman)

1.1. Maybe what’s significant about taking life is Maybe what’s significant about taking life is that it involves fundamental disrespect for that it involves fundamental disrespect for life* as a wholelife* as a whole

* Where life means: the * Where life means: the continuingcontinuing process of process of experience and developmentexperience and development

2.2. To make sense of this, the concept of To make sense of this, the concept of potentiality must be reintroduced at some potentiality must be reintroduced at some level; early deaths, Norman claims, are level; early deaths, Norman claims, are especially tragic (but infants are especially tragic (but infants are borderline?)borderline?)

3.3. Is this a problem for non-philosophers?Is this a problem for non-philosophers?

Marginal CasesMarginal Cases

1.1. Important to recognize marginal Important to recognize marginal cases as indeed marginal (i.e., cases as indeed marginal (i.e., abortion)abortion)

2.2. Doesn’t follow that because there Doesn’t follow that because there are hard cases, everything is are hard cases, everything is subjective or relative. (is duck-subjective or relative. (is duck-billed platypus a mammal or not?)billed platypus a mammal or not?)

3.3. In practical sphere, as opposed to In practical sphere, as opposed to theoretical, much more pressure to theoretical, much more pressure to have definite answer have definite answer

The Doctrine of Double The Doctrine of Double EffectEffect The doctrine of double effect claims that:The doctrine of double effect claims that:

– Sometimes it is morally permissible to Sometimes it is morally permissible to knowingly but unintentionally cause harm as a knowingly but unintentionally cause harm as a side effect of intending to do some good act side effect of intending to do some good act (presumably with good consequences).(presumably with good consequences).

And, this is the case even when that side-And, this is the case even when that side-effect harm should not (morally speaking) effect harm should not (morally speaking) have been intentionally caused to bring have been intentionally caused to bring about those same good consequences.about those same good consequences.

E.g. Dropping 1080 on national parksE.g. Dropping 1080 on national parks E.g. Dropping nukes on JapanE.g. Dropping nukes on Japan

PHIL/POLS/INTP264 Ethics and International Affairs Lecture 1: Intro/Utilitarianism 7 July 2008.

Documents

switch slide

kantian ethics oneill

kantian ethics oneill

kantian ethics doesnt

kant slide

coercion slide

moral debate slide

philpolsintp264 ethics