Phyllis Young: PHI assignment 2
whieso
phi_107_module_2_overview.rtfModule 2 Overview
Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics
Welcome to Module Two. Ever since ancient times, philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Immanuel Kant believed that ethics must be based on reason. Although you may have some doubts as to the perfect reliability of reason, most philosophers have held it as a more reliable guide to ethics than emotions, as reasoning provides more objectivity than emotion can. The first half of this module will focus on the impact of reason and emotion on ethical issues, including Kantian ethics and its emphasis on ethical reasoning. The second half of this module will discuss Utilitarian theory and its role in ethics.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
1B
explain the qualities of pleasure.
1C
discuss the impact of emotion and reason on ethical issues.
5A
discuss Kantian ethics.
6A
explain the uses and criticisms of utilitarian theory.
Module 2 Reading Assignment
Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 4 and 5.
Course Login Instructions
If you are a first time user:
Please register your Pearson Online Solutions Student Access Code. You can find your Student Access Code in the AAU Course Registration e-mail that came with your text.
If you are a returning user:
Please visit the Access Code Registration page to log in. You must log in every time you access this course. If you are not logged in, you will not be able to access the premium resources.
NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources you access with the link above, is not recommended.
Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 2 .
Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 2 .
Lecture Notes
Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics
Chapter 4 Lecture Notes: Ethics and Reason
Reasoning about Ethics
It is clear that we can engage in some level of reasoning about ethical issues, though the exact nature and extent of such reasoning is a contested issue. Although there may be some doubts about the reliability of our reason, most philosophers have favored it over emotions or pure intuition. We cannot deny that emotions may influence our moral decision making, but, as the violinist example from Judith Thomson demonstrates, it seems clear that we do in fact reason about ethics. If we accept that we can reason about ethics, then we may want to examine the nature of the moral conclusions one reaches. Either the conclusion is a hypothetical (or conditional conclusion) or it is a categorical conclusion. A hypothetical conclusion has the form “if you desire some outcome x, then do y”. The truth or falsity of the conclusion depends in part on your desiring some outcome. On the other hand, categorical conclusions command absolutely as in “do x”—no ifs, ands, or buts. Elements of Kantian Ethics
Kant claims that reason can establish fundamental and unconditional ethical truths in the form of categorical principles; in particular, he maintains that pure reason can establish the “categorical imperative” that we should always act in such a way that we can will that our acts should be a universal law. Kant also offers a second formulation of the categorical imperative, which holds that we should always treat people as ends in themselves and never as a means only. Both these versions of the categorical imperative are derived from pure reason, and they are indifferent to the outcomes of particular actions. Kant maintains that reason and only reason can establish absolute principles of moral law and that following the moral law requires a special effort of free will. Criticism of Kantian Ethics
Kant’s ethics is sometimes criticized for not dealing effectively with moral conflicts confronted in our actual world. Since the application of the categorical imperative results in absolute moral rules, there is the problem of what action to take in cases where two moral rules conflict. Also, the emphasis on reason results in the exclusion of certain things from moral consideration. Animals and the mentally impaired appear to lack any moral standing under Kant’s theory, as they lack reasoning abilities. Finally, there is the objection to its complete exclusion of feelings from ethics. Clearly, however, Kant’s ethics establishes a clear landmark of rationalist ethical theory.
Chapter 5 Lecture Notes: Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian ethics emphasizes the consequences of our actions. For utilitarians, the important consequences are obvious: pleasure and suffering. The right act is simply the act that produces the greatest balance of pleasure over suffering. Though the formula is simple, the calculations may be complex. We must consider the consequences not just for all humans, but for any being capable of feeling pleasure or pain. It is not only the immediate consequences that matter, but long-term effects, as well. It is also important to emphasize that my pleasure or pain does not matter any more or less than anyone else’s pleasure or pain. Utilitarianism is not a form of egoism. Utilitarianism is an example of a teleological theory of ethics. “Teleological” comes from the Greek work telos, meaning end or goal – thus, according to utilitarianism, it is the goal or end result of an action that makes it moral or not. Another way to describe utilitarianism is that it is a consequentialist theory, since an action is considered right or wrong depending on the outcome it produces. Utilitarianism is not the only consequentialist theory, but it is part of the most fundamental divide in ethics, namely, that between teleological theories and the deontological theories of philosophers such as Kant. Act versus Rule
There are some important divisions among utilitarian theorists. Act-utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham maintain that for every act we consider, we should determine whether it is right or wrong by calculating its consequences. Rule-utilitarians, such as J. S. Mill, hold that we gain great utilitarian value from certain practices, such as keeping promises, which would be lost if we calculated every individual act strictly by consequences. For example, if we broke our promises to gain a slightly greater pleasure balance, we would destroy the valuable practice of promise-keeping. Thus our practices should be evaluated on their utilitarian merits, but acts falling under those practices should not. Quality versus Quantity
A second important distinction between Bentham and Mill is the difference between qualitative pleasure and quantitative pleasure. Bentham believed that all pleasures are equal; that a “pushpin is a good as poetry.” Thus, according to Bentham, the pleasure one gets from winning $2 on a lottery scratcher would get the same consideration in utilitarian calculation as the pleasure one gets from watching their child be born, and ten people winning would outweigh the pleasure of one person’s child being born. Mill, in contrast, maintained that there are differences in qualities of pleasures, and those quality differences must be figured in to our utilitarian calculations. In Mill’s view, it might be worth sacrificing a larger quantity of inferior-quality pleasure to secure pleasures of much higher quality. Criticism of Utilitarianism
A basic criticism of utilitarian ethics focuses on its psychological plausibility. Critics claim that it is false that humans' key goals are experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain; thus, the supposed empirical foundation of utilitarianism fails. Although utilitarian ethics may be quite useful for questions of public policy, it also provokes furious opposition from those who regard it as a corruption of ethics.
Required Audio:
Media Index . Please listen to the Audio to Go (located under Course) listed below.
- Consequentialist Ethical Theories
Nonconsequentialist Ethical Theories
NOTE: If you are having difficulty accessing the above material, please click on the PHI 107 Pearson Instructions .
Required Video:
Please watch The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in Clay . Think about what this famous metaphor is saying about the effect of reason on our general outlook.
Required Web Resources:
Please take this time to examine the following articles regarding Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. Be sure to pay particular attention to the ideas of duty and good will, along with the various formulations of the categorical imperative when reading the article on Kant, and the Classical Approach section in the Utilitarian article.
Required Presentations:
