Law assignment 15

Consider this image. What makes the man so foolish? He doesn’t recognize that his act of sawing will soon make his sawing impossible. His sawing nullifies itself, makes itself impossible.

The situation is similar with lying. Lying is possible only if some people tell the truth most of the time. We lie because we believe we derive some benefit from convincing the other person(s) we are telling the truth. But if all people lie all the time, then it becomes impossible to convince another we are telling the truth when actually lying.

(Kant assumes that we all want to be rational. Perhaps he overestimated human nature?)

Image shows man sawing off tree branch on which he is sitting. When the tree branch fall, so will he.

28

Apply Kant’s reasoning

Consider the example of the bank’s mistake. Would I be willing for all people at all times to feel no obligation to correct mistakes that benefit them? Not just that sometimes the failure for others to correct mistakes would harm me, but that if we have no obligation to correct mistakes then the distinction between truth and error. If error becomes the universal law, then it nullifies itself because it destroys the distinction between truth and error; if this distinction is destroyed beneficial errors become impossible. We commit a rational self-contradiction that a reasonable person cannot tolerate.

29

Take the opposite of the last six of the Ten Commandments: Do not honor your mother and father; Do murder; Commit adultery; Steal; give false witness; covet. Could you want to will any of these opposite commandments to become universal laws? (I thought not!)

Categorical imperative is consistent with “Golden Rule,” since what I am willing to make a universal law would reflect the way I would want to be treated.

Another way of stating categorical imperative: Don’t make an exception of yourself. When we lie, cheat, or steal we often justify these actions to ourselves with reasons such as, “this little lie won’t really harm anyone;” “people cheat all the time;” “I really need this thing and have no way to get it other than stealing it.” But if we stop and think, we are really saying, “Lying, cheating, and stealing are okay for me in this particular situation, though I would now want everyone else to do it since I will likely be harmed if everybody lies, cheats, and steals. We are making an exception of ourselves.

Kant said that the categorical imperative could also be stated like this: Never use another person exclusively as a means to an end, to serve my own interests exclusively. If you were to will that everyone always used everyone else as a means to an end, then all relationships will are nothing more than a competition of will against will

Applying Kant’s ethical theory

30

Applying Kant’s ethical theory

Let’s apply Kant’s ethical theory to a very practical question, like “Should I comply with mask mandates (as those imposed during Covid-19)? Let’s put our answer to this question in argument form.

Argument 1: Don’t comply: Premise 1: Mask mandates are unjust. Premise 2: If complying with laws, even if they’re unjust, becomes a universal law so that all people at all times comply with them, then unjust laws will never be changed. Premise 3: Obedience to unjust laws perpetuates injustice. Premise 4: Complying with unjust laws, such as mask mandates, cannot be made a universal law. Conclusion: Don’t comply with mask mandates.

Argument 2: Comply: Premise 1: Mask mandates are issued by governmental authorities with responsibility for protecting public health. Premise 2: Compliance with such legal mandates is essential to societal peace and harmony. Premise 3: If non-compliance with legal mandates becomes a universal law, then social life will become chaotic as everyone decides which laws to keep and which to break. Conclusion: Comply with mask mandates.

31

Applying Kant’s ethical theory

As is the case with most moral arguments, both of these arguments are intended to be deductive, that is, the truth of the premises is intended to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Moreover, both arguments are valid: if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. (What do you think?? Can you come up with an example that would make it possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false?)

Is either argument sound? (Remember a sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion, therefore, is unreasonable to reject.)

Establishing the truth of Premise 1 in Argument 1 (Mask mandates are unjust) requires significant evidence as to why such mandates are unjust. Some individuals will suggest that the truth of the first premise is self-evident and needs no evidence. If you accept the first premise without question, then the subsequent premises and conclusion follow reasonably, but it is not a good argument without convincing evidence for the truth of premise .

A similar analysis could be made of Argument 2. Many have questioned the truth of premise 1 (Many have questioned whether public health officials have the authority to issue mask mandates, so one would have to present substantial evidence to prove the truth of this premise.

32

While Kant argued that an action is good if it conforms to a rational rule (the “categorical imperative”), John Stuart Mill, representing the Utilitarian view, argues that the goodness of an action depends upon its consequences, specifically the amount of happiness the action produces for all those affected by it.

This ethical theory is based on the simple observation that each of seeks happiness (well-being, contentment, pleasure, absence of pain) and since this is what we all seek, we should strive to increase happiness by our actions.

The goodness of an action -- whether it is right or wrong – must be based on their utility* in maximizing (increasing) happiness for all those affected by that action – not just my happiness. (*Thus, Utilitarianism” is name for this moral theory.)

Doing what is right or good is a matter of calculating the happiness generated by an action, but not just my own happiness, but the happiness of all those affected, directly and indirectly.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) – Greatest happiness principle

33

Consider the previous example, should I notify the bank of their error that gave me $1,000 extra? How much happiness/unhappiness does it cause for ALL affected by the error? (Happiness calculation.)

This chart suggests that spending the $1000 will bring me short term happiness, but will give no happiness to others affected by my decision. Moreover, the short term happiness I derive may cause me unhappiness later; my failure to report the error may also cause significant unhappiness for others. If we follow the greatest happiness principle, we would report the error. What do you think? Does this make sense?

34

What if we apply this theory to mask mandates?. Stated in argument form:

Premise 1: Covid-19 causes serious illness and death (unhappiness).

Premise 2: Preventing the spread of Covid-19 (reducing illness and death) causes happiness.

Premise 3: Wearing a mask protects an individual from contracting and spreading Covid-19.

Premise 4: Some governmental agencies have the responsibility to issues mandates that protect public health and prevent the spread of illnesses that increase unhappiness.

Premise 5: Each of us should act to promote the greatest happiness for all those affected by our actions. (Moral premise)

Conclusion: We should comply with mask mandates to promote the greatest happiness.

This argument is intended to be deductive, that is the truth of the premises is intended to guarantee the truth of the premises. Is the argument valid? If we assume the premises are true is it impossible for the conclusion to be false? Is it valid? (I think so. What do you think?) Is the argument sound? To answer this question, we must evaluate the truth of each premise. Let’s take a look in the next slide.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) – Greatest happiness principle

35

Premise 1: Covid-19 causes serious illness and death (unhappiness). True? Early in the pandemic, many claimed that Covid-19 was no worse than the flu. As the pandemic continued and the number of deaths increased, this claim was difficult to maintain (though some did by ignoring questioning the truth of public health data.)

Premise 2: Preventing the spread of Covid-19 (reducing illness and death) causes happiness. True? I doubt many would disagree.

Premise 3: Wearing a mask protects an individual from contracting and spreading Covid-19. True? Many challenged the truth of this claim. The majority of experts asserted its truth based on research studies, but some experts challenged it.

Premise 4: Some governmental agencies have the responsibility to issues mandates that protect public health and prevent the spread of illnesses that increase unhappiness. True? Many argued that these agencies exceeded their legal authority in issuing these mandates.

Premise 5: Each of us should act to promote the greatest happiness for all those affected by our actions. (Non-moral premise) True? Is my personal freedom more important than the impact of my actions on others? This is a complex question. But how you answer it will affect how you respond to mask mandates. Remember Mill’s argument – since all our actions are aimed to bring happiness and avoid unhappiness, then we should act to maximize happiness. The underlying, tough question is whether I care only about my own happiness.

Conclusion: We should comply with mask mandates to promote the greatest happiness. Our acceptance of this conclusion depends on how we evaluate the truth of each of the premises above.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) – Greatest happiness principle

36

Remember this from Kant and Mill

Think about the morality (or ethics) of your actions.

From Kant – practical implication of categorical imperative: if we say (frequently, we assume without saying it) that an action is okay for me, but not for others, then that action is very, very likely unethical. (You shouldn’t do it.)

From Mill – if my actions bring me happiness, but causes unhappiness to others, then I should not do it.

Both are important to remember. Both assume that reasonable people will do what their reason tells them is right and good.

Aristotle’s approach to which we now turn is somewhat different, morality or ethics is not so much about following rules, but cultivating the habits of a good person.

37

Aristotle (384-322 BC): Virtue Ethics

Moral actions not so much about following rules or specific actions, but cultivating a virtuous character, one which not only knows what is good, but loves what is good, has a disposition to do what is good.

How do we cultivate a virtuous character? By practicing virtue, cultivating habits that make us good. This argument is circular – you become good by doing good. It’s important to be surrounded by others who exemplify goodness to imitate them.

38

Aristotle (384-322 BC): Virtue Ethics

Aristotle believes that humans have an innate drive toward goodness that can be nurtured or silenced through our habits. (Do you think that’s true?)

The key to cultivating this virtuous character is using reason to discern virtue as the midpoint between deficiency and excess, what is referred to as the “Golden Mean.” See the chart on next slide for examples. A good person is able to achieve the “Golden Mean.” One who can do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, and for the right reason.

(FYI: The program, “Character Education,” is based in part on Aristotle’s view of ethics.

39

Aristotle’s Golden Mean - Examples

40

Virtue Ethics and the Golden Mean

What about the person who applies the Golden Mean to justify lying not too much, but not too little. Such a person is confused about lying being a virtue.

Virtue ethics assumes that we have an intuitive awareness of what is good or virtuous, embedded in our nature, as a telos or goal toward which we naturally strive. (much in the way that a seed naturally grows into a flower or a tree.)

Remember this question from Aristotle: What kind of person are you becoming? Is it the person you wish to become? Are the goals you seek the goals of a good person?

WHO will decide for you the kind of person you with to become? Others or yourself??

I would not presume to tell you what kind of person you should become, but a critical thinker at least asks him or herself these questions.

41

Apply three theories to specific example

You are approaching final exams and you will be taking all of them online, which increases opportunities for academic dishonesty.

Assume for the sake of discussion, you can easily cheat on your exams and never be caught. How would you apply each of these moral theories?

What is the argument?

Non-moral statement: I can earn good grades by cheating on my exams and will not be caught.

Moral principle: It is good cheat on exams so long as I know I will not get caught.

Conclusion: I should cheat on my exams this semester.

42

Apply three theories to specific example

Kant – Am I willing to make, “It is good cheat on exams so long as I know I will not get caught,” a universal law? Magically, every student would cheat on exams? If everyone cheats, then all grades become meaningless; grades, GPAs, a university education would mean nothing. If all grades become meaningless, then there would be no purpose in cheating? This principle commits a rational contradiction. The truth is you are willing to say cheating is okay for you, but not for everyone else. Conclusion: I should not cheat because I cannot reasonably will it to be universal law.

Mill – Does my cheating maximize the happiness of all people affected by it? Certainly, it maximizes my happiness, but what about other students who do not cheat? Does it increase their happiness that perhaps they worked much harder than you, but possibly earn a lower grade? Does it increase the happiness of all students by potentially diminishing the integrity of FSU as an institutions? Conclusion: I should not cheat because it maximizes my happiness at the expense of happiness of others.

Aristotle – Is cheating on an exam, even if no risk of getting caught, the actions of a good person? Does it reflect the actions of the person you wish to become? How does it affect your character if you make a habit of cheating. Conclusion: I should not cheat because this is not what a good person does.

43

Your textbook offers three criteria of adequacy for evaluating moral theories.

Consistency with our considered moral judgments. (Does the theory suggest that you accept something as right or wrong that conflicts with your own judgment?)

Consistency with our experience of the moral life. (Does the theory account for the moral dilemmas and conflicts we encounter in our everyday experience?)

Workability in real life situations. (Is the theory helpful in everyday experience.)

These criteria do not offer fool-proof guidance on ethical decision making, but they do offer useful guidance for evaluating the relative strength and weaknesses of ethical theories.

44

Applying the Criteria of Adequacy

Utilitarianism, “the greatest happiness principle” could suggest that we torture a member of a group if this torture served the greater happiness of the group. But, wouldn’t most of consider torture of an individual wrong? (Consistency with considered moral judgment.) Is it not difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the happiness achieved by an action for all affected. Through all of future history? The world? (workability.)

Does Kant’s categorical imperative lead us to actions that conflict with our considered moral judgments? For example, if we apply the categorical imperative, strictly, then we would never, ever tell a lie. But wouldn’t most of us consider a lie okay to avoid unnecessarily huring another person’s feelings?

45

Essential points from the moral theorists

Kant – If I say something is okay for me to do, but I am not willing for others to do it – I am applying a standard to others that I don’t accept myself – I am making an exception for myself - then that action is very likely wrong.

Mill – Does my action bring happiness to me at the expense of unhappiness to others, then the action is very likely wrong.

Aristotle – What kind of person are you becoming? Are you cultivating the habits of a virtuous person? When you consider a possible action ask yourself, “Do I want to be the kind of person who does this type of action?”

The most important point I suggest you take away from all of them is TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING.: one of these theories provide a fool-proof “recipe” for determining what is right or wrong. They are useful primarily in offering ways to think about our actions. Sometimes thinking may be our only safeguard against participating in actions with consequences much worse than we ever intended.

46

Ethical standards in conflict

Our debates about ethics or morals are rarely about the principles themselves, but about which principles are more important in specific situations and how these principles should be applied.

For example, most of us would probably agree with the principle: Each person has right to life, information, free expression, safety. Would you agree with this principle?

Imagine yourself a college president. A student group has extended an invitation for a campus speaker who is known for expressing hate-filled speech. As president of the college, you know that many other students will show up at the speech to heckle and protest the speaker, which on other campuses has led to violence. Which principle is more important in this situation? The right of free expression (students have a right to invite the speakers they wish) or the right to safety which you, as president, are supposed to protect? Would you permit the speaker to speak on campus OR would you prevent to avoid potential violence? As with most ethical decisions, there is no easy answer, but critical thinking is essential to determining the most reasonable application of ethical principles.

47

Ethical Standards in Conflict

I trust few of us would reject the commandment, “Do not murder.”

Yet, most of us, I assume, would probably agree that that the term “murder” applies to the intentional taking of another person’s life. We would probably not extend “murder” to include taking another person’s life in self-defense.

Does “murder” include the state putting to death (capital punishment) those convicted of specific crimes, such as first-degree murder? If murder includes capital punishment, then it must be considered morally wrong. If, however, we say that “murder” does not apply to punishment established through legal processes, then capital punishment is not immoral.

Such conflicts of ethical principles often lead to heated, emotional disputes in which disputants often resort to language tricks and fallacies to “prove” they are right. If they then only listen to or engage in social media only with those who already agree with them, then they will likely become more convinced they are right and that their opponents are immoral, stupid, or evil.

If conflicts about ethics are to become more than angry shouting matches, then we must apply critical thinking – we must make and evaluate arguments – to resolve them.

48

When moral principles conflict

Your textbook offers these four steps to consider when ethical principles conflict.

Learn as much as you can about the nonmoral facts of the case. Remember that sometimes important facts are hidden beneath the surface.

Minimize bias, self-interest, prejudice, and emotions (especially anger, fear, hatred)

Identify the relevant moral principles. What duties apply in this situation?

Determine the relative importance of the principles in the situation.

As the textbook states, there is no formula, algorithm, or fixed standard for weighing the importance of relevant moral principles to a specific situation. You must rely on your considered moral judgments, a sound moral theory, and your experience. Critical Thinking will not prevent you from making errors of moral judgment, but, critical thinkers are LESS likely to be carried about by the waves of popular opinion, prejudice, and emotion that lead to the banality of evil.

49

Worldviews

Worldviews are a set of beliefs and assumptions about ourselves, others, society, nature, God, the universe. These beliefs help us “make sense” of our experience and our lives; they support our moral convictions; they guide our actions.

Each of us has a worldview though we may not be aware of its various components. Critical thinking can help you become more aware of your worldview, determining whether it contains contradictions and is relevant to your experience. Failure to think critically about your worldview may lead you to live like a sleepwalker that looks awake, but is actually walking around in a sleepy fog.

50

Questions to ask to reflect on your worldview

What do you believe about your relationships with others? Are relationships with others essential for happiness or is the wise person one “who looks out for #1” because no one else will?

What do you believe about how you should treat others? Do your actions conform to these beliefs? If not, why not?

What do you believe about the purposes of government? What are your responsibility as a citizen?

What do you believe about nature, God, and your place in the universe?

What is the most important thing for you to achieve or do in your life?

Are you free? Explain what you mean by freedom.

What do you believe about the mind, spirit, body and your possible survival after death?

What is happiness? Is it up to every individual to find what makes them happy and pursue or are some types of appiness more appropriate for humans beings than others.

There are many more similar questions you may ask in clarifying or stating your worldview. If youwant to explore them further I recommend you take Introduction to Philosophy.

51

For reflection

Consider an ethical dispute, one you have observed or one in which you have been involved. How would you express what others or you are saying in an argument?

Remember a moral argument must appeal to a moral principle.

How would you justify the moral principle? Would the theories of one of the philosopher we discussed be helpful?

52

What’s next?

Read Chapter 13 in your electronic textbook .

Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the quiz.

Submit a writing assignment.

Contribute to the Discussion.

Good luck!!

53

image2.jpg