Major Ethical Theories

UtilitarianismKantian ethicsRights

A Major Misunderstanding

One must “declare allegiance” to one ethical theory in order to “do” ethics

Arguments undermining all known ethical theories collectively make it plain that there is no theoretical basis for ethical thought at all

A Better Understanding

A & S, p. 9Human life and behavior is

exceedingly complexTo be workable as a theory or model,

must be simpler than real lifeTherefore, any one theory will have

gaps and blind spots but may be good partial description of the moral life

A Helpful Metaphor?

Approach each ethical problem as a job

Ethical theories are tools in your tool box which you bring to the work

Part of job is picking the right tools to perform that job well

Utilitarianism

Core Idea: Ethics should be based on facts about the results of our actions upon human happiness and suffering in the real world

Facts for Utilitarianism

What counts as human happiness or unhappiness

Actual probability that a particular action will produce a certain amount or type of happiness or unhappiness

Utilitarianism as Ethics

Fact: Most of us act most of the time as if we count for more than others

To be an ethical system, utilitarianism must insist that all count equally

Utilitarianism

Do what produces the greatest net gain in happiness over unhappiness (the greatest good) for the greatest number of people

Crude Utilitarianism

A&S, p. 14: All right to kill one innocent person if organs would save lives of five others

Ignores long term consequencesIgnores subtle consequencesIgnores ripple effects

Classical Utilitarianism

J.S. Mill, 1840-1860All human values or disvalues can be

reduced to happiness or unhappiness, and these can be measured quantitatively (“utilitarian calculus”)

Objection: Different human values seem to be of radically different types, not simply different quantities

Preference Utilitarianism

E.g., Peter SingerWhat is right is to perform the act

which maximizes the value preferences that are achieved for the greatest number of people (I.e., the most people possible get more of what they value)

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Do not show that it has no valueInstead show its natural and

necessary limits and weaknesses (I.e., for what jobs it is less well suited as a tool of inquiry)

Major Criticisms

“One thought too many” Utilitarianism as too weak an ethical

theory“Utilitarians can’t rent videos”

Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical theory

Shogun Example

British sailor is being tortured alive Japanese samurai stands in moonlit

garden and derives great gratification (including sexual) from listening to screams

Is what was done to British sailor wrong?

Examples- cont.

Utilitarian father trying to decide whether to rescue his child vs. any child at random from an immediate danger

Bernard Williams: Father has had “one thought too many” to be an ideally ethical person

Conclusion

Utilitarianism seems especially weak in capturing some of our most basic moral intuitions about:

The injustice of sacrificing the interests of the few for the many

The moral relevance of special relationships

Can’t Rent Videos?

Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical system if taken literally (so long as any human misery exists anywhere in the world)

How far removed from our everyday, average standard of behavior can/should an ethical theory be?

Kantian Ethics

Core Idea: We can use our reason to discern that some actions are wrong based on the nature of the action and apart from its practical consequences

Kant: What is ethics?

“If you want to get more of Y, then you should do X” (hypothetical imperative)

“Do X” (categorical imperative)

Possible Sources for Ethics (Kant)

FACTS Changing, unstable Yields only hypothetical imperatives

“PURE REASON” (Logic) Eternal, universal Gives rise to categorical imperative

Logic (pure reason)

Sam is unmarried

All bachelors are unmarried

Categorical Imperative

“Act so as always to treat others as ends-in-themselves and never as means only”

“Act so that you could will your action to become universal law”

Two ways to express the same basic idea (Kant)

Why are two the same?

Could one will the opposite of “treat others as ends and never as means only” to be universal law?

If so, I should treat others as means only

Then others should treat me as means only

But I have willed this to be universal law

Why are two the same? (II)

But only an “end-in-itself” (possessed of autonomous will) could will something to be universal law

Therefore willing opposite leads to logical contradiction

Therefore “treat others as ends…” is categorical imperative

Illustration: Tell the Truth

Should I tell a lie?Can I will lying to become universal law?If lying were universal practice, “truth”

would no longer have any meaningBut if “truth” has no meaning neither

does “lying”Logical contradiction as universal law

Common Terminology

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory

Kantianism is a deontological (duty-based) ethical theory

For Kant, source of duty is the concept of autonomy and rational will (pure reason as source of ethical duty)

Rights Theory

Dworkin: Rights as “trumps”Nozick: “Side constraints”Most of the time we are entitled to

try to maximize the good consequences of our actions

A right takes priority over maximizing the good (line you can’t cross even to get to a good place)

Two Ways to Cheapen Rights

Invoke your “rights” whenever anyone interferes with your getting anything you happen to want

Be willing to rescind the rights of others whenever they act in ways that you happen not to like

Libertarianism

Distinguish:Positive right: a right to have or

obtain something (other people have to do something)

Negative right: a right to be free of something (other people have to not do something)

Libertarianism

State power may be used only to protect negative rights

Any state power to protect positive rights is wrong, because it must violate someone else’s negative rights to be free of seizure of property

Critique of Libertarianism

Right to trial by juryRequires that numerous services be

provided and that various institutions have to be established

Most of these require support in terms of salaries, maintenance costs, etc.

A great deal of tax money is needed

Critique of Libertarianism

This means a right to trial by jury is a positive right

BUT: usually viewed as a negative right, I.e. right to be free from unfair imprisonment or punishment

Does whether it is positive or negative determine how important or how basic it is?

Critique of Libertarianism

Some positive rights may be absolutely vital and well worth protecting

Some negative rights may be unimportant or superficial and may not be worth protecting

Some redistribution of resources among people in society is an inevitable function of the state