Philosophy ethics questions
faisal.kanwan
final_review_2_powerpoint.pptx
Humanity as an End in Itself
So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
Utilitarianism is a value-based theory. Discuss
Value based theory: considerations of value are prior to considerations of right and are the basis for a theory of right conduct
Mill: Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends.
Value Hedonism, or The Hedonistic Theory of Value: Experiences of pleasure are intrinsically good/Experiences of pain are intrinsically bad
Utility = episodes of pleasure and pain.
Bentham: measure the utility of an action by its intensity and duration
Felicific calculus: measuring the utility of an action by finding the net balance of pleasure or pain of an action
Utility of an action = the overall balance of pleasure vs. pain that would be produced were the action to be performed.
Utility = Greatest Happiness Principle = actions are RIGHT in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and WRONG as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness
The fundamental premise of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness
Principle of Hedonistic Utilitarianism (moral theory): An action is right if and only if A would produce at least as high an overall balance of pleasure vs. pain as would any other alternative action.
Principle of Hedonistic Utilitarianism (moral theory): An action is right if and only if A would produce at least as high an overall balance of pleasure vs. pain as would any other alternative action.
This is a moral theory, based upon the hedonistic theory of value. The hedonistic theory of value tells us that experiencing pleasure is intrinsically good, and then the moral theory of utilitarianism is built on top of that, which is that an action is right if it produces a net amount of pleasure over pain.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist, welfarist, universalist, and impartialist theory. Discuss.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory because it looks at the consequences of our actions as a measure of the rightness of those actions.
Utilitarianism is a welfarist theory, because when it looks at the consequences of our actions, it looks at how those consequences affect the happiness, or welfare of people
Utilitarianism is a universalist theory, because when we think about the consequences of our actions on the happiness, or welfare, of other people, utilitarianism requires us to consider ALL the people who will be affected by our actions. Everyone whose welfare will be affected by one’s actions counts MORALLY.
Utilitarianism is an impartialist theory because, due to the universalism of utilitarianism, it demands that the agent have no special attachments. The agent is obliged to consider and promote the happiness of strangers just as much as she is obliged to promote the happiness of my family and friends. Every individual whose welfare will be affected in some way by an agent’s actions is to count equally in determining whether an action is right or wrong.
Criticism of Utilitarianism
Happiness might be maximized in the aggregate by policies that violate individuals’ moral rights. In other words, in utilitarianism, utilities trump rights. See Timmons p. 131-132 for examples
Criticism of Utilitarianism
Overdemandingness objection: Remember that utilitarianism is both universality and impartialist. It is universalist because everyone whose welfare will be affected by one’s actions counts morally; it is impartialist because everyone’s welfare counts equally in determining whether an action is right or wrong. But this kind of universal impartialism places extreme demands on us. See example in Timmons on p. 135.
Acts and omissions doctrine: Failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has the identical foreseen bad consequences.
On the deontologist view, the harm done to someone by an agent’s actions is more morally significant than the bad consequences caused by that agent’s inaction. So: 1) harming another is worse than forbearing to benefit. 2) doing harm is worse than failing to prevent it.
THE DEONTOLOTICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN DUTIES OF JUSTICE AND DUTIES OF CHARITY
Duties of justice are duties not to harm. Also called duties of non-maleficence.
Duties of charity are duties to benefit. Also called duties of beneficence.
The fundamental objection for a utilitarian to the Acts and Omissions Doctrine is this: how can an act and an omission with identical consequences vary in moral value?
Also, they reject the deontological position that causing harm through an action is worse than letting bad consequences happen through inaction. They object: How can harmful acts be intrinsically worse than equally harmful omissions?
Singer’s Utilitarian Argument for Famine Relief
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad;
If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.
3) It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.
4) The principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position.
5) People in many parts of the world are suffering and dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
We would not be sacrificing anything morally significant if we were to continue wearing our old clothes and driving our old cars and giving the extra money to famine relief.
Therefore, we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on things which we do not need, and it is wrong not to do so.
‘People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them. This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look ‘well-dressed’, we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous, nor is it the kind of act which philosophers have called supererogatory –an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.’
Singer’s utilitarianism leads him to reject the deontological distinction between duties of justice and duties of charity. Discuss.
Singer’s fundamental premise: If it is our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it.
O’Neill’s fundamental premise: 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.
‘When we want to work out whether an act we propose to do is right or wrong, according to Kant, we should look at our maxims and not at how much misery or happiness the act is likely to produce, and whether it does better at increasing happiness than other available acts. We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves.’ (O’Neill)
To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent
Examples: false promising, other forms of deception (fraud, etc), coercion (powerful bankers coercing borrowers, etc)
‘If we act on such maxims, our acts are not only wrong but unjust: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced.’
‘Justice requires that we act on no maxims that use others as mere means, Beneficence requires that we act on some maxims that foster others’ ends, though it is a matter for judgment and discretion which of their ends we foster … Kant’s moral theory does make less massive demands on moral agents than utilitarian moral theory. On the other hand, it is somewhat clearer just what the more stringent demands are, and they are not negligible. We have here a contrast between a theory that makes massive but often indeterminate demands and a theory that makes fewer but less unambiguous demands and leaves other questions, in particular the allocation of beneficence, unresolved.’
