Chap. 4: How Can I Know What Is Right? - University of Lethbridge

University of Lethbridge --- Department of Philosophy
Philosophy 1000B: Introduction to Philosophy
Spring 2005
Prof. Kent Peacock
Week 3: (Jan. 25, 27)
Chapter 3: How Can I Know What is Right?
Introduction (3.1)
In this chapter we look at some basic theories of ethics, or the principles of right and good
conduct.
3.2 Kant and the Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential of modern philosophers. Here we
only take a brief and introductory look at his ethical theory, which is of great subtlety, and can
only be fully understood in the context of his metaphysics and epistemology.
Key Points of Kant's Ethical Theory
• The only thing that is good without qualification is a "good will" -- a good intention.
• Whether or not a will is good is something that can be rationally understood; it is not
merely a matter of feelings.
• An intention or will is good if the "maxim" (rule) that it follows can be universalized; this
means that it could apply to everyone without contradiction.
• Implicit in this is the idea that all autonomous beings are of equal moral worth, or equal
“instrinsic value”.
o For example: a rule that said I could lie sometimes if it suited my purposes could
not be universalized, since it would subvert the very conditions of trust that would
sometimes make lying an effective strategy.
• This is the categorical imperative (CI): "Act only on that maxim through which you can
at the same time [without logical inconsistency] will that it should become a universal
law."
• A categorical imperative is one that holds without qualification; e.g., "At all times, be
trustworthy."
• A hypothetical imperative is one that depends on an "if"; e.g., "if you want to be trusted,
be trustworthy."
• Thus, ethical acts can in large part be identified by their adherence to a formal or logical
principle!
1 of 8

• Also central to Kant was the rule that people (autonomous beings) should be treated as
ends, not means. (This would rule out slavery as morally acceptable.)
• What counts for whether or not an act was good are not its results, but whether or not it
was done through a good will.
• The highest motive is duty, which can be defined as reverence for the principle of
universalizable law. (See footnote 2, pp. 86–87, for Kant's explanation of "reverence".)
Other emotions are secondary.
• Kant had a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: “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.” 1
o The logical connection to the first formulation is not clear, but is something like
this: to treat myself as means only would be contradictory, and for this to be
universal it must apply to all.
o Roughly speaking, it says “Don’t use people nor allow yourself to be used;” Kant
should therefore have been strongly opposed to slavery (though I am not aware if
he spoke out against it himself).
Advantages of Kant's theory:
• Captures very clearly the important idea of duty.
• Captures the importance of intention; this is, for instance, crucial in criminal law.
• Brings out the importance of universalizability, which suggests that ethical behaviour is
of its very nature impartial and fair; can be viewed as a form of the Golden Rule: "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."
• Has a strong emphasis on human dignity, human rights, and individual worth.
• Brings out the ethical intuition that we will sometimes feel an obligation to do something
(e.g., fulfill an onerous promise) even if we are not emotionally inclined to do it, apart
from our "reverence for the law".
• It is very convenient and comprehensible to state ethical principles in as lists of duties,
even if they may have some other philosophical basis.
Problems with Kant's theory:
• Does not give a clear method of distinguishing between conflicting duties; what if I have
to lie in order to save someone's life?
• Seems to excessively downplay the role of emotion, especially kindly feelings such as
compassion.
• Seems questionable that the results of actions are always irrelevant in judging their moral
worth; “Oops, I didn’t mean to cause that three-car crash” just won’t cut it in court.
• It could set a standard that is impossible for most people.
1 This particular wording is from The Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and
analysed by H. J. Paton. (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1948, p. 32. (Page reference to p/bk edition of
1951.)
2 of 8

3.3 Utilitarianism
At opposite poles to Kantian ethics in many ways; but also very influential and widely used. It
was formulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Key Points of Utilitarianism
• Rejects abstract talk of rights, justice, and intrinsic values. Bentham said that notions of
rights are "nonsense on stilts".
• Instead, it says that good is simply pleasure (broadly conceived to include any kind of
personal benefit), while evil is pain and harm.
• Good (pleasure) is sometimes called "utility;" pain "disutility."
• Assumes that utility can be quantified and measured.
• Assumes that utilities and disutilities can be added up like debits and credits in
accounting.
• Employs two deontic ethical principles:
o Everyone counts the same, so that the utility or disutility that my pleasure or pain
contributes to the grant total for my society is not weighted by who I am.
o The Principle of Utility: act in such a way as to produce the greatest utility
(happiness) for the greatest number of people.
• (Note that it can't get off the ground without a deontic kick-start!)
• There are two main kinds of utilitarianism:
o
o
Act utilitarianism, which judges each individual act by its consequences.
Rule utilitarianism, which sets up rules (such as “do not steal”); it ends up being
very similar to duty ethics in its form, but the rules are based on a calculation that
they will in all probability lead usually to the greatest good for the greatest
number, rather than on some abstract deontic principle.
Advantages of Utilitarianism
• Gives a fairly practical means of arriving at compromise decisions in matters of public
policy, when there are competing viewpoints and values.
• Embodies the idea that consequences for human welfare matter at least as much as good
or bad intentions.
Problems with Utilitarianism
• May lead us to advocate acts (such as expropriation of land) which are unjust or a
violation of personal rights, if they are supposedly for the greater good.
• It is unclear that utility can be quantified, or that, if it can, it is additive (since there may
be nonlinearities).
• It is very hard to avoid bias in doing utilitarian cost-benefit analyses.
3.4 A brief comment on Nietzsche:
Two selections: Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality.
3 of 8

The latter consists very nearly of ravings, some of which are of a rather racist character, and I am
not quite sure why it was included in the book.
In Beyond Good and Evil one can at least tell what he is talking about, and it is written in
powerful and at times poetic language. We read Nietzsche for several reasons: the fact that he
was very influential, the literary value of his writing, and -- most important from our perspective
as philosophers -- we need to understand the basis of views that are as influential as his even if
we don't like or agree with them. It is not doing good philosophy merely to reject an author
because you don't like or agree with him or her; if you think Nietzsche is wrong, how then would
you refute him?
Some basic points:
• Nietzsche rejects the whole conception of morality and ethics as it is usually understood,
whether deontic or utilitarian.
• He says that there is the morality of slaves, and the morality of masters (the noble); and
that virtually any system of thought that justifies caring for the weak is a "slave"
morality, a rationalization by slaves themselves for why they should not be exploited by
the "noble" people.
• Nietzsche's philosophy may have influenced Nazi ideology.
He bases his views on an understanding of biology: he says that systems of morality that teach
cooperation, charity, etc., are "anti-life", because, he says,
"life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and
weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one's own forms, incorporation, and,
at the least and mildest, exploitation... life is will to power..." (111)
Is this right? I would argue that Nietzsche had his biology wrong; for he failed to notice that life
also involves "symbiosis" -- modes of cooperation. It is the interplay between cooperation and
competition, not pure competition, that defines life. An awareness of this fact might support
quite a different type of ethic than Nietzsche's worship of power.
3.5 Ethic of Care versus Ethic of Rights
Key points:
• Inspired by work of Carol Gilligan (In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and
Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.)
o A work of descriptive psychology, not philosophy as such, but it has inspired a lot
of philosophical work in feminist ethical thought.
o Gilligan argued that our understanding of moral reasoning is biased because it is
based mostly on what how males think or studied of male behaviour.
o Claimed that her empirical studies showed interestingly different behaviour
characteristic of women and girls, compared to males.
o Males: tend to solve moral problems on the basis of universal rules, justice,
rights, duties, rational calculation.; (little Kantians!). Moral dilemmas are “math
problems with humans” (111).
4 of 8

o Females: tend to solve problems on the basis of feelings (such as compassion),
trust, and prevention of pain rather than necessarily doing the “right” thing; tend
to judge problems on an individual basis rather than on basis of universal,
invariable rules
o According to Gilligan, males tend to see moral problems as zero-sum (winner and
a loser); a competitive model; while women tend to see problems as positive-sum
(we can all win); cooperative model.
o See description of Heinz problem in text, pp. 108–109.
• Thus, ethics of care is one which is based on these typically (or supposedly) feminine
virtues.
• Problems:
o Was Gilligan empirically correct? Is this an accurate description of how girls and
boys actually act? And if so, how much of it is due to “nurture,” versus “nature”?
o Might reinforce stereotyping of women (as the caregivers of society) and thus go
against equality, removal of old barriers and prejudices.
o We can’t ignore the importance of justice; much of feminist criticism of maledominated
institutions, for instance, is based on concern for justice, fairness, and
equality — typically deontic concerns.
o Perhaps what we need is a blend of both, Kessler suggests.
• Some main points of selection by Joy Kroeger-Mappes:
o Ethics of care provides “necessary base” (110) for ethics of rights, in the sense
that respect for rights cannot operate without care in a society as well.
o Ethical theory tends to “support the subordination of women” (110) (and other
groups) because ethical theory is male-biased.
o Concept of moral “double-bind:” women are both praised and blamed for what
they do (moral support for humanity!).
o There is a “fundamental unfairness in the way the system distributes the moral
burden, requiring much more of women than of men” (115).
New Terms for this Chapter:
Ethics: difficult to define. Here are a few definitions:
• "Ethics is what you do when no one is looking." (Teddy Hoffman, Murder One.)
• "Ethics is limitations on freedom of action in the struggle for existence." (Aldo Leopold)
• Ethics in the ancient Greek sense is, roughly, the habit of virtue of character; virtue, in
turn, means roughly "characteristic excellence."
• In simple terms, we can understand ethics to be our rules of conduct, the principles that
distinguish between acceptable and non-acceptable actions.
• Ethics has the effect on us of inhibiting us from taking immediate advantage sometimes,
or of undertaking actions for the sake of some future or remote goal.
Ethical skepticism: the view that there is no way of knowing what is really right or wrong.
5 of 8

Ethical relativism: the view that there is no universal ethical standard; what is right for some
may be wrong for others.
Cultural relativism: the observation that people of different backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, or
religions have different ethical views.
Normative versus descriptive: a normative theory is one that attempts to tell us what is right or
wrong, good or bad, ugly or beautiful; such theories are sometimes also said to be prescriptive,
since they tell us what we should do. Descriptive theories simply give a description or account
of the facts, without saying what should be done about them. Ethical relativism is normative,
while cultural relativism is descriptive.
Ethical absolutism: the view that there are universal ethical standards, the same for everyone.
Ethical nihilism: there is no way to know what is good or bad, right or wrong; ethical standards
are either meaningless or undecidable.
Ethical emotivism: the doctrine that ethical terms such as "good" or "bad" merely express the
speaker's emotions; to say that something is good is merely a fancy way of saying that I like it.
Ethical egoism: the doctrine that people should do what is purely in their self-interest. This is a
normative position.
Psychological egoism: the claim that people act entirely out of self-interest, even when they
seem to be doing otherwise. This is a descriptive theory.
Ethical Altruism: the doctrine that we ought, at least sometimes, to do things for the benefit of
others, even if it is to our own detriment.
Psychological altruism: the claim that people do, at least sometimes, act out of care or interest
for others, and can put the interests of others above their own, even at large personal cost.
Feminist ethics: difficult to define in a few words, but derives inspiration from women's
viewpoints; has special concern for virtues of caring, compassion, and justice for the oppressed.
Teleological ethical theories: judges actions by their end results; also known as
consequentialism.
Deontological ethical theories: says that actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of
consequences. Comes from Greek word for “duty”.
Categorical imperative: deontological concept due to Immanuel Kant. It states, "Act only on
that maxim through which you can at the same time [without logical inconsistency] will that it
should become a universal law."
Autonomy: a capacity of a sentient being such as a human person to freely make moral choices.
6 of 8

Utilitarianism: a consequentialist theory that says that the right action is the one that produces
the greatest "utility" for the greatest number of people in the community.
Utility: a measure of pain or pleasure, broadly understood.
Hedonism: the view (held in utilitarianism, for instance) that pleasure is the good.
Ethic of care: argues that some human behavior is motivated by genuine care for others, and not
merely self-interest; takes caring and caring for to be central components of ethics.
Virtue Ethics: Focuses on excellence of character as the prime good; excellence may include
dispositions such as generosity, courage, wisdom, or compassion. Buddhism is a sort of virtue
ethic; it was widely accepted by the ancient Greeks (especially Aristotle); feminism is often
thought of as a virtue ethic. Virtue ethicists tend to see the sharp means/end distinction as
unreal; value lies in the whole act from intention to consequence.
Rights and Duties: A duty is something that we are required to do, although why we are required
to do it may be hard to define.
• There are different kinds of duties:
o Absolute duties; these might be given by religious commandments (“Thou shalt
not lie,” etc.), although these are not accepted by all people. Kant’s CI was an
attempt to define an absolute duty.
o Conditional duty: a duty that I have if certain conditions are met, but perhaps not
otherwise.
o Contractual duty (or obligation): a duty that I have because of a contract or
promise that I agreed to.
• A right is something that corresponds to a duty, in the following sense: if a person has a
right to something, then others have a duty to respect that right.
o A positive right is a right to something; for instance, in Canada all persons have a
right to health care; this means that our society has a positive obligation to pay for
hospitals, etc., to fulfill that right.
o A negative right is a right to be free from something. The right to free speech is a
negative right; no one is obliged to provide me with a soap box from which to
give a speech, but no one can stop me if I choose to speak.
o An absolute right is one that is held unconditionally; in Canada, the right to not be
enslaved is absolute.
o An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away from you, even by yourself.
If you entered into a contract to be a slave, that contract would not be recognized
as valid by any court of law in Canada or the U.S. (and, indeed, most other
countries!).
o A conditional right is one that you have under certain conditions. For instance,
you have the right to vote in Canada only if you are over 18 and are a citizen.
o A contractual right is one that you have by virtue of a contract, such as an
employment contract, or a warranty you got when you purchased something.
7 of 8

8 of 8