paper
liuchang
EthicsWeek4-UtilitarianismandKantianEthics1.pptxEthics in computer games and cinema: Week four
Utilitarianism
And Kantian ethics
1
Learning objectives
Understand the meaning behind Utilitarianism.
Understand the upsides and downsides to a utilitarian outlook.
Understand the meaning behind Kantian Ethics.
Understand the upsides and downsides to Kantian Ethics.
What is consequentialism? What is non-consequentialism?
Consequentialism: The doctrine that says morality is judged by the consequences of our actions rather than the actions themselves. In other words, the ends justify the means.
Non-consequentialism: The doctrine that says morality is judged by our actions more than the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, non-consequentialists are interested in developing a system of moral rules, that we must follow no matter what.
-This is different from consequentialism, as consequentialists aren’t interested in moral rules, since they’re fine with breaking the rules if doing so would produce the best consequences. For example, we generally shouldn’t kill people, but it’s only a rule if we have to follow it, and for consequentialists, we might encounter a situation in which murder could somehow lead to a better consequence.
4
Consequential and non-consequential schools of thought
Consequentialism
Ethical Egoism: I must do whatever will produce the best consequences for myself.
Utilitarianism: We must do whatever will produce the best consequences for the greatest number of anyone capable of experiencing happiness.
Non-Consequentialism
Divine Command Theory: We must follow the rules God wants us to follow.
Natural Law Theory: We must follow moral rules based on what we naturally need as humans created by God.
5
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative, consequential school of thought that says we ought to do whatever will produce the best consequence for the greatest number of anyone capable of experiencing happiness.
For utilitarians, actions are only good insofar as they produce the most happiness and the least unhappiness, or the most pleasure and least pain for everyone involved.
This is a very simple way of looking at morality and it might even seem like an obvious solution to ethics. However, utilitarianism has some strange implications, as we shall soon see…
6
Thanos as a utilitarian
To help us better understand this, we can think of the character of Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War.
In the film, Thanos believes that since there are too many people in the universe and not enough resources to go around, it is therefore necessary to wipe out half of everyone, so that the survivors can live much better lives.
Here, for Thanos, the ends justify the means. He’s willing to do something bad, because doing so will lead to the best consequence for all involved. Therefore, we can view him as a Utilitarian.
Although, it should be noted that not every Utilitarian would agree with this decision. We will understand how this works as we take a look at some more ethical examples…
7
Real world Moral dilemmas…
We will now look at Utilitarianism more closely, by examining several moral dilemmas that can be evaluated in a number of different ways from a Utilitarian perspective.
For each of these dilemmas, think about how a Utilitarian would solve the moral issue in question.
8
Moral situation #1 Marijuana legalization
If marijuana were legalized in the United States, things would definitely be different. But would the consequences of this decision be for the best?
Discussion Questions…
What would be the upsides and downsides to pot being legalized?
Given this information, do you think a utilitarian would approve of marijuana legalization in the U.S.?
9
Moral situation #2 Slaughterhouses for nonhuman animals
Utilitarians consider the feelings of nonhuman animals as well as humans. Therefore, slaughterhouses are an important moral issue for them. However, their opinions on the subject could be different.
10
Downsides to utilitarianism
1. Utilitarians don’t seem to care all that much about justice or human rights, when thinking about an action that could lead to a good consequence.
2. Utilitarianism is too demanding (extreme, like Altruism or Ethical Egoism).
3. Utilitarianism is extremely logical and impartial, and therefore gets in the way of our personal relationships.
11
Upsides to utilitarianism
1. Doing bad things could lead to bad consequences. Therefore, utilitarianism often encourages us to do what’s right.
2. Utilitarianism is all about logic and often times, logic is the key to living a good moral life.
3. Utilitarianism encourages us to break moral rules when necessary, rather than forcing us to follow them.
For example, non-consequentialists might tell us not to lie no matter what. However, there are instances in which lying is good since doing so could produce a better consequence. Utilitarianism gives us the freedom to break these kinds of moral rules when necessary.
4. Utilitarianism encourages us to care about the happiness of others. Even if it seems too demanding, maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s a good thing for a moral school of thought to demand this much of us.
12
End of first half Next: Kantian Ethics
13
Non-Consequentialism - Kant
We have now discussed a consequential school of thought: Utilitarianism.
Next, we will be discussing something far more non-consequential: Kantian Ethics.
In Kantian Ethics, morality is not a question of what will produce the best consequences.
Instead, it’s all about pursuing good actions, regardless of what consequences those actions may or may not achieve.
There will also be a strong emphasis placed on following absolute moral rules. Whereas Utilitarianism was about flexibility/breaking the rules when necessary, Kantian Ethics will be more interested in following moral rules no matter what, because of the good actions those rules encourage.
14
The Categorical Imperative
For Immanuel Kant, the goal of ethics is to determine absolute moral rules and then follow them as often as possible in our lives.
The way that absolute moral rules are decided is not through God, like other nonconsequential schools of thought. Rather, it is through following the Categorical Imperative, a reasonable set of formulations, meant to prove why moral rules must always be followed no matter what.
In other words, it is through pure reason that Kant tells us why certain things are right and certain other things are wrong (as opposed to other moral authorities who say we should do things simply because it’s right).
For Kant, the Categorical Imperative is made up of several formulations that determine which absolute moral rules we need to follow and why we need to follow them. For now, we will be looking at the first of these formulations.
According to Kant, the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative states the following: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law” (137).
Image of Immanuel Kant
15
The Categorical Imperative (cont.)
To put it another way, the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative has us follow two major steps in determining absolute moral rules:
STEP ONE: Establish a moral rule (or maxim).
(Example: One must never steal).
STEP TWO: Think about what the world would be like if everyone (universal) always followed that same rule.
-If there’s no problem with the world afterwards, then we must make this rule absolute. However, if the logic falls apart and it ends up not making any sense, then this is not a moral rule to follow.
16
C.I.: Second Formulation
The second formulation states the following: “Act so that you treat humanely, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (146).
Here, Kant means that if you want to be morally reasonable, then you mustn't use people in a way that gives them no say.
To put it another way, while it’s certainly okay to use people to do things that they agree with, it’s wrong to use people by forcing them to do something they don’t wanna do, or by manipulating them or lying to them, so that they don’t really know what’s going on.
Example of good using: You use your instructor to learn.
Example of bad using: You ask your parents for 50 dollars and tell them you need the money to buy textbooks, when really you’re using it to buy a videogame. Here, you’re lying to your parents, and they have no idea they’re being used for your video game purchase.
17
Kant’s Categorical Imperative (in full)
First Formulation: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.”
Second Formulation: “Act so that you treat humanely, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”
For Kant, we must select a moral rule to try out and then if it passes the first and second formulation, it will mean it’s good enough to become an absolute moral rule that we must follow no matter what. This, for Kant, will be the most reasonable way to live a good, moral life.
18
Next, we will take a look at an example of a moral situation, and then create moral rules to test out in the categorical imperative.
19
Moral situation Stealing movies
Imagine you pay 10 dollars for a ticket to see a movie at a nearby movie theater. You go in and watch the movie. However, after the movie ends, you decide to sneak into another auditorium, thus getting a double feature for the price of one.
Moral Rules to Universalize…
RULE: Whenever you feel like it, you must always sneak into additional movies after you’ve paid for just one.
20
Upsides and downsides to the categorical imperative
Upsides
-The Categorical Imperative is designed to be a reasonable way of determining how one should act.
-The Categorical Imperative focuses on actions, rather than letting us do whatever we want to achieve some desired consequence.
Downside
-Kant wants moral rules to be ABSOLUTE.
(We will explore this problem a little further as we move to the next slide).
21
Additional downside: Kant’s Argument for lying
Kant argues that based on the Categorical Imperative, we must never lie, as lying cannot be universalized and involves using people unfairly. Therefore, this will be one of his absolute moral rules.
However, couldn’t there be exceptions to this rule? For Kant, there are no exceptions.
Consider a case in which a murderer tells you he’s looking for someone he wants to kill. You’re aware that this person is hiding in his house. Here, you can either lie to save the guy’s life or tell the truth, which would most likely lead to his death.
For Kant, in this case, we still mustn't lie, because we’ll never know the consequences of our actions, but we do know we can control the actions that will eventually lead to some consequence. It’s up to us to do what’s right, and for Kant, it’s never right to lie.
Discussion Question: Can we agree with this logic? Is Kant right about this, or do you think we should lie in a situation like this?
22
Next Time: The Ethics of Care and virtue ethics
Reading assignment:
Rachels: chapters 11, 12, and 13.
Peter Singer pdf
Aristotle PDF
23
