Philosophy 212 class

The Ethics of Universal Rules

The two theories we will consider in this unit make right and wrong a matter of conformity to universal rules of conduct. They are both forms of moral realism and they are altruistic and non-authoritarian. One important thing that they share in common is the idea that moral decision-making should not have anything to do with the specific situation that any individual is facing. So, for example, we should not be interested in whether Jane should give $20 to the Leukemia society on Thursday, April 16th, but instead we should be concerned with whether people who have sufficient extra funds ought to give to charities in general. These theories are rule-based in this way and contrast with theories like ethical egoism, which are concerned with the specific details of actions for a specific person on a specific occasion.

Spohisticated Utilitariansim

Sophisticated utilitarianism, like ethical egoism, is a consequentialist theory. But, it is based on the idea that the right action in a given set of circumstances is the one that conforms to a rule that, if we all followed it, produces the greatest benefit to everyone that the action affects who meets the utilitarian (UT) standard of moral value (i.e. some form of sentience). As such, UT is a distinctly altruistic theory and it treats all beings that can feel pleasure and/or pain as morally considerable. It is a form of rule based moral realism.

So, the basic idea is that an ethical agent should simply follow rules that are adopted because they bring about what is actually best for every sentient being (i.e. beings that can feel pleasure and painincluding one’s self). This requires making predictions about what outcomes would result from actualizing the adoption of various rules, specifically predictions about what and how much utility would be produced given each rule we might adopt.

What is actually right is what conforms to the rule that really maximizes utility, not what (prior) conforms to a rule that the agent believes will maximize utility (i.e. expected utility). The main UT view is that utility is defined in some way in terms of bodily pain and pleasure. Such versions of UT are known as hedonic forms of UT.

Notice then that, according to hedonic UT, beings have intrinsic moral value just in case they are sentient. Also, notice that according to the utilitarian, acting contrary to the maximization of the utility of the group of everyone affected by an action is morally wrong. Altruism is not optional, unwise, etc., but is required. We must always be concerned about others (provided that they are sentient) in addition to ourselves.

Rule Utilitarianism

According to rule utilitarianism we are to assess the utility of actions at the level of action types rather than individual actions. This is a general type of action and it has the form of a utilitarian rule of conduct called an AC rule:

(ROCn) perform action type A in circumstance type C.

As these rules are supposed to be of universal action types such rules must never mention specific people, places, times, etc. They must be sufficiently general but not so general as to be useless. So, according to rule utilitarianism we should analyze the rule in terms of the global consequences that would follow from adopting a given rule universally as a practice. SUT is a form of rule utilitarianism.

The Principle of Right Conduct for Sophisticated Hedonic Utilitarianism :

(SUT-PRC) an act is right, if and only if, it conforms to a rule of conduct that when practiced universally maximizes utility in the most evenly distributed manner and an act is wrong, if and only if, it conforms to a rule of conduct that when practiced universally does not maximize utility in the most evenly distributed manner.

The Principle of Value for Sophisticated Hedonic Utilitarianism :

(SUT-POV) a thing is intrinsically morally good if and only if, it is a pleasurable state of consciousness and a thing is intrinsically morally bad, if and only if, it is a painful state of consciousness.

Sophisticated Hedonic Utilitarian Definition of Utility

Positive utility =df. physical and mental pleasure.

Negative utility =df. physical and mental pain.

Mental pleasures/pains have greater unit values than physical pleasures/pains.

This definition implies that most humans and some non-human animals have moral standing.

The Decision Procedure for Sophisticated Hedonic Utilitarianism

What facts do we need to know in order to make a correct moral judgment, at least according to rule utilitarianism?

a. All possible rules of conduct that could be adopted by the agent, {o1, o2, o3,…, on}.

b. The global consequences that would be produced by adopting each rule of conduct, {C(o1), C(o2),C(o3),…, C(on)}.

c. The amount of utility produced for each person affected given each consequence set, {V[C(o1)] = x, V[C(o2)] = y,V[C(o3)] = z,…, V[C(on)] = m}.

V is a real valued function. As a result, utility values can be added and subtracted.

To make decisions using SUT we must use the following recipe:

1. Place the SUT-PRC in P1.

2. Identify and formulate the possible rules of conduct in P2.

3. Identify the relevant global consequences of each rule of conduct in P3.

4. State which set of consequences produces the most utility in P4.

5. State the right act as the conclusion, C.

Consider this case: Joe goes to the hospital for a simple checkup and is otherwise healthy. However, at the time he is there six terminally ill patients (Bob, Jane, Lois, Elmer, Willy and Bertha) who need different organ transplants are also in the hospital. By sheer chance, Joe’s organs would be compatible with each of the terminally ill persons. The doctors consider taking Joe’s life and saving the six other patients at the cost of Joe’s life.

The utilitarian rules of conduct involved in the organ donor case then are these:

Rule of conduct 1 (ROC1): in medical treatment take the life of an innocent and healthy person in order to save the most lives.

Rule of conduct 2 (ROC2): in medical treatment do not take the life of an innocent and healthy person in order to save the most lives.

The options are clear here:

{o1: adopt ROC1, o2: adopt ROC2}.

The consequences are also clear:

{C(o1): Serious mistrust of the medical profession, decreased health of many people, reduction in the perceived value of life. Saving of the most lives, C(o2): Failure to save the most lives. Trust in the medical profession, maintenance of the health of many people, maintenance of the perceived value of life.}

As are the valuations of the consequence sets in terms of utility:

{V[C(o1)] = massive loss in terms of overall health of many people and the saving of a small number of people, V[C(o2)] = no massive loss in the overall health of people but the loss of some lives}.

So, the decision procedure for SUT in this case looks like this:

P1: (RUT-PRC) an act is right, if and only if, it conforms to a rule of conduct that when practiced universally maximizes utility and an act is wrong, if and only if, it conforms to a rule of conduct that when practiced universally does not maximize utility.

P2: Adopt ROC1 or ROC2.

P3: If we adopt ROC1, then there will be serious mistrust of the medical profession, decreased health of many people, a reduction in the perceived value of life but we will save the most lives.

P4: If we adopt ROC2, then we will fail to save the most lives, but we will maintain trust in the medical profession, maintain the health of many people and maintain the perceived value of life.

P5: adopting ROC2 maximizes utility.

Therefore, C: the doctors should not take Joe’s life.

Notice that if we approached this problem from the non-rule-based perspective and looked at the specific situation involving the doctors, Joe and the patients needing organs on this specific day, etc., it would seem to be the case that the doctors should take Joe’s life to save the lives of the others even though he is an innocent person. That would seem to maximize utility in this specific case. The rule-based version of utilitarianism does not lead to this unacceptable conclusion.

These principles yield a powerful and version of consequentialism that is a form of rule based moral realism. It is altruistic and non-authoritarian.

The Main SUT Argument

The main argument for sophisticated utilitarianism is as follows:

P1: the vast majority of people in fact morally value pleasure positively and morally value pain negatively.

Therefore, it is probable that pleasure has positive moral value and pain has negative moral value.

This is an inductive argument.

Kant and the Ethics of Respect for Persons

Kant’s theory is based on some different fundamental moral beliefs:

(1) An act has moral significance if and only if it is an event for which we can be held responsible.

(2) Moral rules must hold universally for all people in all places and times.

(3) The actual outcomes of acts are not what matters morally.

All rational beings should then act the same way, in terms of having the same motives. The basic idea is then that everyone who is minimally and potentially rational should act the same way and also has the same rights. Moreover, according to Kantians, all lives have infinite value and we cannot quantify the value of lives. Consequences play no role in ethics according to Kantians and the right to life is fundamental.

Kant believes that right actions are actions that flow from good intentions and that good intentions are just rational intentions that treat every potentially and minimally rational being in the same manner. In other words, if we were to intentional treat some intrinsically morally valuable being in way that is inconsistent with our treatment of other intrinsically morally valuable beings (including ourselves), then we would be committed to inconsistency and so would be behaving irrationally and wrongly. So ultimately, Kant thinks that what is morally wrong is having discriminatory intentions. This yields a powerful but very strict ethical theory based entirely on intentions. It is a deontological theory and it is deeply altruistic and anti-authoritarian. It is a form of rule based moral realism.

The Principle of Right Conduct for Liberalized Kantian Ehtics.

(LKE-PRC) an act is right, if and only if, it satisfies the categorical imperative and an act is wrong, if and only if, it does not satisfy the categorical imperative.

The Categorical Imperative.

This key principle is stated as follows:

(CI) act only on that maxim that can be consistently willed to be a universal law. (The “universalization” pr.)

This principle applies to intentions (and not to consequences) and they have the form of ACE maxims (i.e. rules) as follows:

(Mn) Perform action type A in circumstances of type C from intention E.

Such rules specify an ethical agent’s intent and we are to always substitute for E the following: “out of equal respect for all persons”.

Also, as these rules are supposed to be of universal action types such rules must never mention specific people, places, times, etc. They must be sufficiently general but not so general as to be useless. So, the categorical imperative says that we should act only on rules that consistently treat all beings with intrinsic moral value in the same way.

The Principle of Value for Liberalized Kantian Ethics.

(LKE-POV) a thing is positively (intrinsically morally) valuable, if and only if, it is a potentially and minimally rational intention and a thing is negatively (intrinsically morally) valuable, if and only if, it is not a potentially and minimally rational intention.

This definition implies that most humans and some non-human animals have moral standing.

The Decision Procedure for Liberalized Kantian Ethics.

What facts do we need to know in order to make decisions using LKE? Here is the relevant info we need:

a. All possible options open to the agent, {a1, a2, a3,…, an}.

b. The circumstances surrounding the possible actions, {c1}.

c. The end goal of each action, circumstance pair {en, em}.

d. The rule/maxim which describes the intention/purpose for each possible action in the circumstances, {M1<I[a1, s1]>, M2<I[a2, s1]>, M3<I[a3, s1]>,…, Mn<I[an, s1]>}.

To make decisions using LKE we must use the following recipe:

1. Place the LKE-PRC in P1.

2. Identify and formulate the possible maxims in P2.

3. Identify which maxim satisfied the categorical imperative in P3.

4. State the right act as the conclusion, C.

Consider this case: Joe goes to the hospital for a simple checkup and is otherwise healthy. However, at the time he is there six terminally ill patients (Bob, Jane, Lois, Elmer, Willy and Bertha) who need different organ transplants are also in the hospital. By sheer chance, Joe’s organs would be compatible with each of the terminally ill persons. The doctors consider taking Joe’s life and saving the six other patients at the cost of Joe’s life.

The Kantian maxims involved in the organ donor case then are these:

Maxim 1 (MAX1): in medical treatment take the life of an innocent and healthy person in order to save the most lives out of equal respect for all persons.

Maxim 2 (MAX2): in medical treatment do not take the life of an innocent and healthy person in order to save the most lives out of equal respect for all persons.

The options are clear here:

{o1: adopt MAX1, o2: adopt MAX2}.

So, the decision procedure for LKE in this case looks like this:

P1: (LKE-PRC) an act is right, if and only if, it satisfies the categorical imperative and an act is wrong, if and only if, it does not satisfy the categorical imperative.

P2: Adopt MAX1 or MAX2.

P3: MAX2 but not MAX1 satisfied the categorical imperative.

Therefore, C: the doctors should not take Joe’s life.

Given LKE, a little more explanation needs to be given with respect to P3. We must also show how and why the correct maxim satisfies CI and why the alternative does not. In this case, if the doctors were to act on M1 they would be treating the value of Joe’s life as different from the others. So, this would be irrational and discriminatory. M2, on the other hand, treats everyone involved as having the same value.

The Main Argument for LKE

P1: An act has moral significance if and only if it is an event for which we can be held responsible.

P2: One can be held responsible for something if and only if it is intentional.

Therefore an act has moral significance if and only if it is intentional.

P3: An act has moral significance if and only if it is intentional.

P4: Good intentions are those that treat all people as having infinite and equal moral value.

P5: If an act has moral significance if and only if it is intentional and good intentions are those that treat all people has having infinite and equal moral value, then one ought to act only on those maxims (i.e. general intentions) that can rationally be willed to be universal laws.

Therefore, one ought to act only on those maxims (i.e. general intentions) that can rationally be willed to be universal laws.

This yields a powerful deontological theory that mandates that we treat all persons the same and as having dignity and infinite intrinsic value. It is also a form of altruistic and anti-authoritarian moral realism.

The Evaluations of SUT and LKE

Here are evaluations of both theories in terms of our criteria from unit 1.

SUT Evaluation

1. Moral Consistency (good).

Since the rules used in SUT apply to all situations of the same type and for all people, places and times, the theory yields universal ethical judgments and no act can ever be place in more than one deontic category.

2. Determinacy (good).

There will be a rule for every type of behavior and so every act will be place in some deontic category.

3. Applicability (average).

The theory gives us a clear decision procedure but calculating the global consequences of adopting rules can be difficult.

4. Publicity (good).

The theory does not suggest in any way that it would be wrong to teach its principles to others.

5. Internal support (good).

The theory captures the vast majority of our shared core moral beliefs. Where it deviates sometimes is in terms of whether pleasure really has anything to do with ethics and on some issues where the global good takes precedence over the value of individuals.

6. External support (good).

The theory fits with our non-moral knowledge.

7. Explanatory power (good).

The theory clearly explains the differences between right/wrong acts and good/bad persons in a theoretically satisfying manner. It does so in terms of conformity to rules that maximize utility.

8. Logical consistency (yes).

The principles are internally consistent and can be jointly true.

LKE Evaluation

1. Moral Consistency (good).

Since the rules/maxims used in LKE apply to all situations of the same type and for all people, places and times, the theory yields universal ethical judgments and no act can ever be place in more than one deontic category.

2. Determinacy (good).

There will be a rule/maxim for every type of intentional behavior and so every morally relevant act will be place in some deontic category.

3. Applicability (moderate).

The theory gives us a clear decision procedure but correctly formulating maxims and determining intentions by doing this. Sometimes getting intentions right can be difficult.

4. Publicity (good).

The theory does not in any suggest that it would be morally wrong to teach the theory to others.

5. Internal support (good).

The theory captures the vast majority of our shared core moral beliefs. Where it deviates sometimes is in terms of the LKE view that non-intentional acts cannot have moral significance.

6. External support (good).

The theory fits with our non-moral knowledge.

7. Explanatory power (good).

The theory clearly explains the differences between right/wrong acts and good/bad persons in a theoretically satisfying manner.

8. Logical consistency.

Yes.

Rules, Rights and Obligations in SUT and LKE

For both of these theories, the rules that they generate importantly relate to rights and obligations. Essentially, these rules specify things we should not do and things we must do. This can be with respect to both others and ourselves. We can then see that there are really four types of obligations as follows:

1. Negative Obligations to Ourselves: these are types of behaviors that affect ourselves that are not morally allowed.

2. Negative Obligations to Others: these are types of behaviors that affect others that are not morally allowed.

3. Positive Obligations to Ourselves: these are types of behavior that affect ourselves that are morally required.

4. Positive Obligations to Others: these are types of behaviors that affect others that are morally required.

We should then also understand that rights and obligations are correlative. So, each of these types of obligations is really just a specification of a right in the following way. For example, if we have the negative obligation to not take the lives of innocent persons this is just another way of saying that innocent persons have a right to life. Likewise, if we have a positive obligation to provide sufficient food for other persons to live, this is just another way of saying people have the right to sufficient food. Similarly, if we have the negative obligation to not take our own lives, then we have the right to life.

Understanding our rule-based theories in terms of the rights that they underwrite raises an important issue. Specifically, what should we do when rights conflict or when we have two obligations that cannot be simultaneously satisfied? The standard answer is that we should favor the stronger right or observe the stronger obligation. Moreover, one right is stronger than another just in case it is more basic. For example, the right to life is more basic than the right to economic prosperity and the right to freedom of speech is more basic than the right to drive an expensive car.

However, utilitarians and Kantians do not agree always about the prioritization of rights. Most importantly, Kantians hold that the right to life is fundamental and cannot ever be over-ridden by any other right. Utilitarians disagree and argue that, at least in some cases, the right to a quality life can over-ride the right to life.