Philosophical paper

profileiucasmingfc3
Week3taping1.ppt
Home>Reading homework help>Philosophical paper

UTILITARIANISM

*

  • Proposed by David Hume (1711-1776)
  • Given definitive formulation by:

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

*

David Hume

(1711-1776)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

*

  • The action or social policy that would have the best consequences for everyone concerned is the right action

“By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question...”

Bentham, “Principles of Morals and Legislation”

*

  • Philosophical radicals whose aim was to reform the laws and institutions of England along utilitarian lines

First we should envision a certain state of affairs that we would like to see come about a state of affairs in which all people are as happy and well off as they can be. Then we should try to bring about that state of affairs, insofar as this is possible. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861)

*

  • Cancer struck in January of 1939
  • He was doomed to a slow and painful death
  • September 21st 1939 he asked his friend and personal physician Max Schur to help end his life
  • Following an injection, Freud fell into what Schur said was a “peaceful sleep.”

*

  • Considering the choices available to Schur ,which one would have the best overall consequences?
  • If Max Shur does not kill Sigmund Freud he will live on, for perhaps a year in constant pain.

*

  • Utilitarians have concluded that euthanasia, in such a case, is morally right.
  • This is very different from what one finds in the Christian tradition
  • Utilitarians did not think they were advocating an atheistic or anti-religious philosophy

*

  • “The dictates of religion would coincide, in all cases, with those of utility, were the Being, … supposed to be as benevolent as he is supposed to be wise and powerful. . . . But among the votaries of religion …there seem to be but few …who are real believers in His benevolence. They call him benevolent in words, but they do not mean that he is so in reality.”- Jeremy Bentham

*

  • “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

“On Liberty” (1859) - John Stuart Mill

  • Who could argue with that?
  • I think I like these guys!

*

  • What would the Utilitarians say about pot being illegal?
  • They would weigh the happiness people derive from using Marijuana against the potential harm

*

  • The US spends about $8.7 billion enforcing Marijuana laws
  • 749,825 arrests were made in 2012
  • 40,000 people in prison for marijuana violations
  • $2.5 billion could be collected in taxes if marijuana was legal

*

  • The Christian tradition says that man alone is made in God's image and that animals do not have souls.
  • Was there anything morally wrong with what Michael Vick did running dog fights? Why?
  • Which one of the Moral Theories would have considered “morally wrong?” Divine Command? Natural Law?

*

  • “Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for a man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence they are intended for man's use in the natural order. Hence it is no wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing them or in any other way whatever.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas

*

  • Animals have no moral standing of their own
  • Why should they even be morally considered?
  • Secular Western philosophers say animals are not rational, they lack the ability to speak, they are not human; their interests are outside the sphere of moral concern
  • Do you agree?

*

  • They were careful to point out that this does not mean that animals and humans must always be treated in the same way
  • Their suffering counts equally with any similar suffering experienced by a human
  • Contemporary Utilitarians generally reject this idea, but not all.

*

  • The description of veal production is enough to make you swear off veal

*

You enjoyed that veal dinner at the restaurant last week?

*

*

*

  • Other moral theories would have us believe, animals have no moral standing, how can you be morally right and Michael Vick be morally wrong?

*

*

  • Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences
  • In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created; everything else is irrelevant
  • Each person's happiness counts the same.

*

  • But what is happiness? According to the classical Utilitarians, happiness is pleasure.
  • The idea that pleasure is the one ultimate good (and pain the one ultimate evil) is known as Hedonism

*

  • Are other considerations important in determining right and wrong?
  • The theory's most serious shortcoming: incompatible with the ideal of justice.
  • Falsely accusing the innocent man of a crime to stop a riot is an example used in the book

*

  • The demands of justice and the demands of utility can conflict
  • Doing something unjust even though it provides happiness to the largest number of people is still wrong.
  • The example of the woman whose nude photographs were circulated by the police is another example.

*

  • If someone invades your privacy for his or her own pleasure and they do so undetected, the Utilitarian would not be able to say the action was wrong.
  • The invader derived pleasure from looking in your window and you did not experience any displeasure because you didn’t even know about it.

*

  • Promises impose an obligation on you that you cannot escape even if the over all results would favor breaking that promise.
  • A small gain in utility cannot overcome the obligation created by your promise. Thus Utilitarianism once again seems to be mistaken.

*

  • Mill said that we must be "as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” when we are evaluating consequences for all concerned.
  • “Equal concern" places too great a demand on us and it disrupts our personal relationships.

*

  • You cannot buy new clothes or a digital camera. You should move into a cheaper apartment while there are children starving in the world.

  • The utilitarian standard would require you to give away your resources until you have lowered your own standard of living to the level of the neediest

*

  • These arguments add up to an overwhelming indictment of Utilitarianism. The theory, which at first seemed so progressive and commonsensical now seems indefensible

*

  • What rules should we follow if happiness is to be maximized?

  • If a society follows a rule of not bearing false witness and one does not follow such a rule, In which society are people likely to be better off?

*

  • Analogous reasoning can be used to establish rules against violating people's rights, breaking promises, lying, and all the rest. Rules governing personal relationships requiring loyalty to friends, loving care of one's children, and so on.
  • Individual actions are justified simply by applying the already-established rules.

*

  • A serious problem with Rule-Utilitarianism arises when we ask whether its rules have exceptions.
  • If the rule-utilitarian says that we may violate the code, we fall back into classical, act-based utilitarianism.

*

WEEK THREE

Kant and Respect for Persons

*

  • Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe had a disagreement over Truman’s decision to drop the atom bomb which ended WW II

*

  • “There are certain things forbidden whatever consequences threaten, such as: choosing to kill the innocent for any purpose, however good; vicarious punishment, treachery, idolatry, sodomy, adultery, and making a false profession of faith.”
  • These things may not be done, no matter what.

*

  • One of the greatest figures in modern thought

*

  • “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

*

  • When you are contemplating doing a particular action, you have to ask whether you would be willing for that rule to be followed by all people at all times.
  • That would make it a "universal law" in the relevant sense.

*

  • Sounds good so far but…
  • Kant held that moral rules hold, without exception, in all circumstances.
  • Kant thought that the rule against lying was one such rule among many.
  • Lying is "the obliteration of one's dignity as a human being.“
  • One of the problems with his theory was that his rules were absolute as were Anscombe’s

*

  • He did not appeal to theological considerations
  • He held that reason alone requires us to behave in a moral way.

*

  • The idea that moral rules hold without exception is hard to defend.
  • In some circumstances, following the rule would have terrible consequences.
  • How can we explain why we should not make an exception to the rule in such circumstances?

*

  • Hypothetical imperatives tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant desires
  • Just as hypothetical "oughts" are possible because we have desires, categorical "oughts" are possible because we have reason
  • Categorical "oughts" are binding on rational agents simply because they are rational

*

  • Inquiring Murderer ethical dilemma

*

  • “If you had lied and said he was not at home when he had really gone out without your knowing it, and if the murderer had then met him as he went away and murdered him, you might justly be accused as the cause of his death.”
  • “If you had told the truth as far as you knew it, perhaps the murderer might have been apprehended by the neighbors while he searched the house and thus the deed might have been prevented.”

*

  • We can never be certain about what the consequences of our actions will be
  • Avoid the known evil, lying, and let the consequences come as they may.
  • Even if the consequences are bad, they will not be our fault, for we will have done our duty.

*

  • “It never occurred to him that a lie could be relevantly described as anything but just a lie (e.g., as "a lie in such-and-such circumstances"). His rule about universal maxims is useless without stipulations as to what shall count as a relevant description of an action with a view to constructing a maxim about it.”

Elizabeth Anscombe -academic journal “Philosophy”

*

  • Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on rational agents because they are rational
  • A person who did not accept this principle would be guilty of being immoral and irrational.
  • A moral judgment must be backed by good reasons. Kant passes the Reason test of MCM

*

  • If you accept any considerations as reasons in one case, you must also accept them as reasons in other cases.
  • Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all times
  • A requirement of consistency; and Kant was right to think that no rational person may deny it.

*

  • Moral decisions are the result of the rigorous application of reason.
  • Rules must be impartial. Everyone must be treated as equal to yourself as far as moral decisions are concerned.
  • He passes the Impartial test of the MCM

*

  • The Idea of Human Dignity
  • Immanuel Kant thought that human beings occupy a special place in creation
  • From ancient times, humans have considered themselves to be essentially different from all other creatures

*

  • Animals . . . are there merely as means to an end. That end is man.
  • “he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.”- Kant
  • Humans may never be "used" as means to an end.
  • This is the ultimate law of morality.

*

  • “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”
  • Because people have desires and goals, other things have value for them
  • Things and nonhuman animals have value only as means to ends, and it is human ends that give them value.

*

  • Rational beings must be treated “always as an end and never as a means only.”
  • We have a strict duty of beneficence toward other persons: We must strive to promote their welfare; we must respect their rights, avoid harming them, and generally “endeavor, so far as we can, to further the ends of others.”

*

  • Kant wrote extensively about the Rights of the Individual

The right to speak his/her mind

The right to fair treatment etc.

  • This was absent in Utilitarianism

*

  • Punishing people may increase the amount of misery in the world; but according to Kant, that is all right, for the extra suffering is borne by those who deserve it.
  • According to Utilitarianism, our duty is to do whatever will increase the amount of happiness in the world. Punishment is, on its face, "an evil"

*

  • More has been done to “rehabilitate” criminals in California than anywhere else, yet the rate of recidivism is higher there than in most other states.
  • “It has us calculating how to use people as means to an end, and this is not permissible.”

*

  • People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes

First, punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society

Second, Kant says it is important to punish the criminal proportionately to the seriousness of his crime

*

  • Kant's two principles do not constitute an argument in favor of punishment or a justification of it. They describe limits on what punishment can involve

  • This is a hallmark of Kantian theory. Scholars agree that his theory of Retributivism is one of his strongest points.

*

  • How could taking away someone‘s freedom, by sending him to prison, be a way of “respecting” him? That is what Kant suggests
  • He implies that executing someone may also be away of treating him “as an end.” How can this be?

*

  • “If we treat him the same way in return, we are doing nothing more than treating him as he has decided people are to be treated”
  • “If he treats others badly, and we treat him badly, we are complying with his own decision”

*

  • This theory allows for the backward looking reasons that Utilitarians had such a hard time with.
  • People are treated by others in a way they deserve because their behavior expresses what they would have be universal law.

*

  • Kant himself would insist that if criminals are not responsible agents, it makes no sense to resent their behavior and “punish” them for it. But to the extent that they are regarded as responsible people who simply choose to violate the rights of others, Kantian Retributivism will continue to have great persuasive power.

*