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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• 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
Page 1: University of Lethbridge --- Depart
Page 5 and 6: o Females: tend to solve problems o
Page 7 and 8: Utilitarianism: a consequentialist

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?