intro to philosophy

Issues: Healthcare Hum 1533

The Major Theories of Ethics

• Rule Ethics (provide a rule-based guide for ethical decision making). There are two major varieties:

• Kantian deontology

• Utilitarianism

• Virtue Ethics (emphasize the development of character in a person). Virtues include traits such as bravery and temperance that a person can learn to acquire.

• Care Ethics (stresses the role of human relationships and the importance of emotions such as caring and empathetic regard for others).

Utilitarianism

• First advocated by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

• Created a utilitarian calculus to determine moral outcomes

• That action is best which maximizes the overall happiness

• Altered by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

• Mill rejects the notion that pleasures can be quantified

• Also distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures (no equivalency between them)

• Intended to change the habits of British aristocracy

The Lifeboat Dilemma Suppose you are the captain in a lifeboat that will surely capsize if it is forced

to carry more than four people from a sunken ship. Besides yourself, there are four other people with you:

· A wealthy, influential, but occasionally self-centered business man (age 56)

· A former college football player forced to drop out due to an extreme drug addiction (age 22)

· A girl who has lost her sight and hearing, but who has an IQ of 160 (age 9)

· A former sailor who was just released from prison (age 65)

You must choose one person to throw overboard into the freezing Atlantic Ocean. Discuss with your group who you would remove and state the reasons why you picked that one and not the others. Give explicit reasons why each person should either stay or go.

The Principle of Utility “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote

happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”

What is happiness? Anything that produces pleasure or minimizes pain. Why pick it as an end? All our actions aim for happiness, it is how we define “the good.” Examples:

Physical pleasures (food, drink)

Intellectual pleasure (art, education)

Things that will prevent the opposite (going to the dentist)

But whose happiness counts? • For the utilitarian everyone’s happiness counts equally

• According to this theory, we ought to make decisions that will maximize the overall level of happiness for everyone

• Assume that by draining a swamp Charlie can use the land for development and gain a profit. However, the swamp is vital for purifying water and would cost a significant amount in water treatment fees were the swamp lost.

• A utilitarian would weigh the costs and benefits involved. If the collective utility gained from draining the swamp out-weighs the benefits of its continued existence, the moral choice would be the former.

The Utilitarian Thought Process

1. Assess the situation (diagnosis)

2. Articulate Alternatives

3. Weigh possible options

4. Decide, usually based on the option that would maximize utility

5. Implement (take action)

Modern instances of Utilitarianism

The Tax Code: The U.S. tax code is a progressive system. In other words, the more a person earns in salary the more that person pays in taxes. The logic behind this is in many ways utilitarian. Because the rich are better able to assume a greater proportion of the total tax burden, it is right that they should pay more in taxes. Imagine a world where the government asked each citizen to pay an equal part despite wide disparities in income. While the rich could easily pay their taxes, the poor would quickly fall into debt.

Ethical Dilemmas faced by Utilitarianism

Promise Keeping: Suppose two men are climbing a very challenging mountain when one suffers terminal injuries in a fall. Before he dies, the injured climber gives his partner the password to his secret Swiss bank account after the partner promises to use the thousands of dollars stored there to give the dying man's children the best education money can buy. When the surviving climber returns, he learns that the dead man's children already have enough money in their trust fund to attend the school of their choice, so he takes the money from the Swiss bank and gives it to a charity that provides basic medical care to impoverished people.

http://searchcenter.intelecomonline.net/playClipDirect.aspx?id=16499A3C13AF5317D9E2B 8B954912AADB925D102E1C843C85918456A39C524FB11E8DDC3BA9108AF02EE844F381B 75A2

http://searchcenter.intelecomonline.net/playClipDirect.aspx?id=16499A3C13AF5317D9E2B 8B954912AADB925D102E1C843C8A3457D1F6D653048B641D6DA1E36DF978884D293F52 42D98

Kantian Ethics • Developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

• Measures the rightness of actions in terms of a person’s intentions. (Consequences don’t matter)

•Only actions motivated by a sense of duty count as moral for Kant

•Consider the following example: John wants to impress a girl he likes, so he helps an elderly woman across the street while his romantic interest is watching. Was John’s action moral?

• For Kant, while John’s actions are not immoral, they are not moral either. To count as moral John would have needed the proper “moral motives.” He needed to help the elderly woman, out of a “sense of duty” rather than out of a desire to impress others.

Actions Performed for the Sake of Duty

• Doing your duty can mean different things, says Kant, depending on the makeup of the individual. It can mean …

• Acting out of respect for the moral law

• Acting out of respect for the inherent dignity of the self/other people

• Acting out of respect for the self/others as authors of the moral law

• Each of these describe what counts as a proper motivation when we’re following the rule. But what are the rules?

The Categorical Imperative • The supreme moral principle for Kant.

• It is an action-guiding principle that will tell which actions are moral and which actions are not.

• There are several formulations of the C.I., but we will only focus on two:

• “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”

• “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

• While these formulations are different in form, Kant intended them to effectively work the same. It doesn’t matter which formulation you use, the same actions will still be moral.

How does the Categorical Imperative Work? • Let’s begin with the first formulation, the one about universalizing.

• Assume the following situation (also described in the reading at pg 45):

• You are driven to borrow money because of need. You know that you cannot pay the money back, but you will never get the loan unless you promise to repay. Is it moral to lie in order to get the loan?

• A Kantian would use the C.I. to guide his/her behavior in this situation.

• Step 1 involves taking your situation and formulating it into a “maxim” or general rule. In this instance, the maxim might be “Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done.”

• Step 2 involves universalizing this maxim. In other words, you acknowledge that this maxim (in order to be moral) must not only apply to you, but should apply to everyone.

• Step 3 entails imagining what such a world would look like. Kant points out that if this maxim were universalized, it would destroy the very concept of a promise. If I’m a lender, and if it’s ok for all people to lie when they are in need, why would I believe people when they say they will repay their loans? In fact, I wouldn’t. Promising would be impossible, hence this maxim cannot be universalized.

• Kant tells us that only moral maxims can be universalized. Therefore, we should not lie to the lender.

The Second Formulation • Assume the exact same situation, but now we’re using the second

formulation of the C.I., the one about means and ends.

• You should always treat others as ends, but what does this suggest? It implies that you should treat people as possessing their own inherent dignity. They are worthy of respect, and therefore cannot simply be used as a means to your purposes.

• A Kantian would analyze the situation in the following manner. • Step 1. Think about the situation and how you are treating yourself and others.

• Step 2. Are you using yourself or others as a means? Are you failing to fully appreciate yourself or others as ends?

• Step 3. If you answered yes to either question, then your action is not moral.

• In the loan scenario, Kant points out that you would be using the lender merely as a means to your ends. The maxim fails for this reason.

The Murderer at the Door

For Kant, consequences are irrelevant to morality. Probably the most famous example of Kant's stance on this point is the murderer at the door dilemma. Imagine that your friend is hiding in your house and someone comes to the door looking to murder him. Would it be morally acceptable to lie about the whereabouts of your friend? Kant says that even to the murderer, you must always tell the truth. It is morally wrong to lie under any circumstances, as per the categorical imperative.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with Kant that in morality the consequences never matter? Why?

2. Do you agree with Kant about telling the truth to the murderer at the door? Explain.

3. Do intentions (motives) always matter? Why?