decision-making. so, let’s revisit our big questions… are humans responsible for their actions?...

Decision-Making

So, let’s revisit our big questions… Are humans responsible for their actions? What makes (or will make) humans

happy? Do we need universal laws? Absolute

laws? Societal laws? Personal laws?

Analyze the actions of the characters Determine whether or not they are

responsible Cite examples

“timshel” Adam, Lee, Cathy, Cal

Ethics presupposes there ARE universal principles of right and wrong…

Q: How do we know them?A: Moral Theories

AQUINAS

WHAT WOULD GOD WANT ME TO DO?

God’s command is the moral authority. If God says it is right—it is. If God forbids it—it is wrong. God is all good and all knowing.

Which “-ism” does this fall under? To act morally, you must discover what

God wants you to do. One must discover morality.

Look to your religious tradition

Ask advice of clergy

Pray Read scriptures If Christian, might

ask: What would Jesus do?

Formation of conscience

AQUINAS

WHAT WOULD A RATIONAL HUMAN

BEING DO ?

Basic moral principles are imprinted in humans and can be discovered through use of REASON.

“The demands of the law are written on their hearts.” (Romans 2)

These natural laws are self-evident and are the same for everywhere—independent of what humans may feel, desire, believe.

Which “-ism” does this fall under?

Just as there are physical laws governing the universe, so too are there natural laws governing human behavior.

ASK: What would a reasonable person do?

Argument against suicide: 1.All rational people desire self-preservation

2. Suicide is the taking of one’s life 3. The taking of one’s life goes against the basic law of self-preservation 4. Suicide is wrong according to natural law

REASON tells us this!!!

ARISTOTLE

What would a good person (with

character and integrity) do?

Which of these words reflect “good” behavior?

cruelty greed loyalty arrogance justice gratitude honesty intolerance kindness laziness honesty rudeness

brutality generosity

We all know good when we see it. We observe behavior, see what is good,

choose virtue and practice it. Morality = the habit of doing the right thing. Morality is “caught” not “taught.” We become what we practice: we become

brave by being brave, kind by acting kindly, courageous by acting with courage.

This theory assumes people want to be good.

Good people have a quality of honesty

Cheating on a test is not being honest

Good people would not cheat on a test

1. RING OF GYGES– If you could become invisible, how would you

act?

2. MENTOR TEST– How would I feel if my action was witnessed

by my most revered mentor or role model?

3. PUBLICITY TEST– How would I feel if My contemplated action

were reported on TV, radio, news?

4. MIRROR TEST– If I do this action, can I look myself in the

mirror and feel pride and dignity?

The previous 3 theories believe we can DISCOVER morality (God’s will, rational reflection, observing behavior)

The next 2 CONSTRUCT morality: Social Contract and Theory of Justice

Apply the three theories to each situation:

Cathy’s decision to shoot Adam Lee’s parents’ story

Analyze the parents’ decision/behavior (lying) Analyze the men’s decision/behavior (murder)

Tom’s suicide

HOBBES

Do you recall what he believes about

human nature?

By nature, humans are entirely self-centered.

Left on their own, human society would be uncontrolled egoism: no organization, strong prey on weak, gross competition, chaos as everyone tried to fulfill their own selfish needs.

“Life would be solitary, brutish and short.”

All humans have a desire for self-preservation and want to be protected from the State of Nature (a threat to their survival)

Therefore, they voluntarily give up some freedom and accept LAWS restricting their behavior, as long as others do the same.

“I won’t if you won’t.” Moral code is made (constructed) when a

group of individuals reaches agreement on laws to govern their interaction/

Morality = following agreed upon laws

If I live in a society , I tacitly agree to obey the law. I do so because it is in my self-interest.

What “social contract” do you have as a citizen?

Would this theory endorse or oppose Relativism?

ENDORSE

Humans are naturally self-interested.

History shows than people have a tendency to adopt laws for own self-interest.

Need to decide principles (binding for all) that a rationally, self-interested person would agree to accept.

Q: HOW DO WE ARRIVE AT THOSE PRINCIPLES?

A: VEIL OF IGNORANCE (ignore personal info): Male or female? Smart or ignorant? Black or white? Christian or Jew? Able-bodied or disabled? Rich or poor?

Ask the question: What would a rational, self-interested

person decide from behind the “veil of ignorance”?

The greatest benefit should go to the least advantaged and the possibility of social advancement open to all.

THE PHILOSOPHER LINKED WITH THIS THEORY?

JOHN RAWLS

Truman had the atomic bomb. He was told of its potential power by scientists who developed it, and they advised him not to use it. His main aim was to end the war. His military advisors estimated that if an invasion of Japan was necessary, as many as 1 million Americans might be killed. The estimated loss of Japanese lives using the bomb was 100,000. He reasoned that more lives would ultimately be saved using the bomb –ending the war and avoiding an American invasion.

Did Truman use The Theory of Justice in making his decision?

What theory did he use?

John Stuart Mill was a major proponent of this theory.

Basically, says “motive doesn’t matter.”

GHGN

An action is right if it produces the Greatest

Happiness for the Greatest Number of people, with the least amount of pain..

Quality of happiness counts

There is no preference for immediate over remote happiness

You may need to sacrifice your own happiness for general good

You are only responsible for doing the action you thought would produce GHGN

Motive is unimportant in determining moral value of an action; only the consequences determine moral value!

A = Gives to charity to save livesB = Gives to charity for tax write-off

A & B have equal moral value!!

Immanuel Kant totally disagrees.

The motive is everything—moral value is acting from duty using the categorical imperative

#1

An action is right if you could will that action to be a universal law for everyone.

#2

Humans must be treated as the END never as a MEANS TO AN END.

TWO PARTS TO CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

He is the example of the exact opposite of Kant’s belief.

“The end justifies the means.”

Now try again with the last four theories:

Cathy’s decision to shoot Adam Lee’s parents’ story

Analyze the parents’ decision/behavior (lying) Analyze the men’s decision/behavior (murder)

Tom’s suicide

Divine Command Natural Law

VirtueSocial Contract

Theory of JusticeUtilitarianismKantian Ethics