Reading Summaries 5,6 and 7

Chapter 5

Consequentialist Theories: Maximize the Good

Consequentialist Theories

• The notion that right actions are the ones that produce the greatest balance of good over evil seems commonsensical.
• But how do the two most common consequentialist theories actually work when tested against our considered moral judgments and common moral experiences?

Ethical Egoism –1

• Ethical egoism is the theory that the right action is the one that promotes the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself.
• This extreme self-interest is not necessarily selfishness.
• The theory is not synonymous with self-indulgence or recklessness.

Ethical Egoism –2

• Ethical egoism is not the same as doing whatever one desires or whatever gives the most pleasure.
• Even ethical egoists must consider the long-range effects of their actions and their interactions with others.
• Most of the time, ethical egoists are probably better off cooperating with others and avoiding actions that antagonize other people.

Ethical Egoism –3

Ethical egoism takes two forms:

1. Act-egoism:To determine right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual acts.
2. Rule-egoism:To determine right action, you must decide whether an act falls under a rule that, if consistently followed, would maximize your self-interest.

Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –1

Ethical egoism rests heavily on psychological egoism—the notion, common in the social and biological sciences, that the ultimate motive for all our actions is self-interest.

Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –2

The argument for ethical egoism based on psychological egoism is:

1. We are not able to perform an action except out of self-interest (psychological egoism).
2. We are not morally obligated to perform an action unless motivated by self-interest.
3. Therefore, we are morally obligated to do only what our self-interest motivates us to do.

Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –3

• Does experience show that all our actions are motivated by self-interest?
• Do we, in fact, perform selfless acts to achieve satisfaction?
• Do some defenses of psychological egoism render the theory untestable and useless? Explain.

Evaluating Ethical Egoism –1

Criterion 1: consistency with our considered moral judgments

• A major criticism of ethical egoism is that it is not consistent with our considered moral judgments.
• There are many actions that our considered moral judgments would define as wrong but ethical egoism would endorse.

Evaluating Ethical Egoism –2

Criterion 2: consistency with our moral experiences

• The major element of our moral experience that is clearly violated by ethical egoism is the notion of moral impartiality—treating equals equally.
• Ethical egoism obviously does not advocate impartiality; instead, it advocates putting one’s own interests foremost.

Evaluating Ethical Egoism –3

Criterion 3: usefulness in moral problem solving

• Arguments regarding the usefulness of ethical egoism do not suggest definitively whether the theory is useful.
• Our judgment regarding the first two criteria should be sufficient to raise doubts about the adequacy of ethical egoism as a moral theory.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianismsays that the right action or rule is the rule that produces the best balance of happiness (or good) over unhappiness (or evil) for everyone concerned.

Two Forms of Utilitarianism

• Act-utilitarianism:The morally right action is the one that directly produces the best balance of happiness over unhappiness for all concerned.
• Rule-utilitarianism:The morally right action is the one that, if followed as a general rule, would produce the greatest overall good, all instances and everyone considered.

Classic Act-Utilitarianism

• Is built on the principle of utility
• Relies on the notion of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”
• Considers the consequences of a particular action

Rule-Utilitarianism

• Is built on the principle of utility
• Relies on the notion of the “greatest happiness for the greatest number”
• Focuses on the rule that a particular action implies
• States that if the rule implied by an action is one that, if followed in all cases, produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone concerned, then it is morally right

Evaluating Utilitarianism –1

Criterion 1: consistency with our considered moral judgments

• Perhaps the most serious problem with utilitarianism is its conflict with commonsense views about justice.
• When pursuing the “greatest happiness” goal, it is sometimes necessary to harm a minority to benefit the majority—to act unjustly against one in order to secure the happiness of many.
• Justice, on the other hand, requires equal treatment of persons.

Evaluating Utilitarianism –2

Criterion 2: consistency with our moral experiences

Utilitarianism seems consistent with our moral experiences.

Evaluating Utilitarianism –3

Criterion 3: usefulness in moral problem solving

Act-utilitarianism seems to have a “no-rest problem.” It requires that in our actions we always try to maximize utility, everyone considered.

Evaluating Utilitarianism –4

To address the “no-rest problem,” some philosophers have turned to rule-utilitarianism. If a specific act can be seen as consistent with a general rule that maximizes utility, then that act can be considered morally right. In this way, rule-utilitarianism seems to align its moral judgments closer to those of common sense.

Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory (or contractarianism) states that morality arises from a social contract that self-interested and rational people abide by in order to secure a degree of peace, prosperity, and safety.

Hobbes’s Perspective

Hobbesargues that the state of nature is a war of everyone against everyone, in which people live a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

A social contract, with a powerful sovereign called a Leviathan to guarantee compliance, allows an orderly and secure society.

When the Leviathan takes control, morality comes into existence.

Evaluating Social Contract Theory –1

Positives:

• Social contract theory gives reason to believe that morality is objective, for it consists of the rules that rational members of society have determined to be most beneficial for all.
• Under social contract theory, there is little difficulty determining what is right.

Evaluating Social Contract Theory –2

Problems:

• If only those who explicitly and freely consent to a social contract are obligated to comply, then most everyone would not be obligated.
• Social contract theory holds that the only individuals who have moral status are those who can legitimately be party to a social contract, and the only ones who can participate in a social contract are those for whom participation would be mutually beneficial.
• Those who are so vulnerable or disadvantaged that they cannot be contractors, including the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill, have no moral status within a social contract.

Credits

This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 5

Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues

Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.