Ethics Last PDF

Three main areas of ethics Reflection on ethics itself Foundations, concepts, assumptions, e.g. what defines “good”? I Metaethics...

Three main areas of ethics Reflection on ethics itself Foundations, concepts, assumptions, e.g. what defines “good”? I Metaethics Reflection on morality & moral behavior 1 Normative ethics Seeks to set criteria to separate the morally right from the morally wrong: what is the right thing to do? How should I live my life? 1 Reflection on morality within a specific discipline, area, profession Concerns the practical application of ethics in a specific discipline, such as: Applied ethics Taking a step back: Classical theories: Consequentialism, Deontology (Kant), Virtue ethics medical ethics, What is the status of morality? Contemporary theories: pragmatic ethics, care ethics psychological ethics, Are moral standards relative or absolute? bioethics, Are we egoistic or altruistic by nature? Etc. animal ethics, environmental ethics, … |6  norms prescriptive 1 avalues t - what you “The approach we take to the question of ethics already Normative ethics fashions and delimits the very question of what we ought consider to be ethical or potentially ethical in the first to do place” not what is it ~ Calum Neill, chapter 5 to set a measurement of Determining moral standards: what is right What moral principles should we accept? What makes right actions right? Is there a single fundamental principle of morality? Justification of values and norms Prescriptive: what you ought to do, how you ought to live This may involve articulating: Utilit the consequences of our behavior on others - Consequences - Behavior, actions the duties that we should follow principles beanthology Intentions - responsibilities Ques- the virtues that we should acquire > Character |7 a CONSEQUENTIALISM |8 Consequentialism = your actions conser which have - determine if you're bad good A class of normative ethical theories that holds that the consequences or outcome of our actions determine if these actions are right or wrong the results of actions matter your Is a teleological ethics (telos = “end” or “goal”) goal oriented Consequentialism directs our attention to the future and asks: what is optimific, i.e. what would create the greatest good in the world? ptimal In short: the end justifies the means The Conseq are imp (not theteutions). Utilitarianism is the most prominent kind of consequentialism zu maximize we look for optimal conseq - -well-being look But in other cousey Theories we. might for maximizing knowledge whereas , | 10 in utalitariusm is specifically well-being  HUnitalinismfocusou- one Hedonist ↳ well - well being max = pleasure Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)= Bentham was a hedonist (the Greek “hedone” means the quantity more “pleasure”) who believed that pleasure and pain are central topleasure dur ethical decision-making better The principle of utility or “greatest happiness principle” is the cornerstone of Bentham’s thought Loading… “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two 00 sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.” “The greatest happiness of the greatest number […] is the ~ “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” measure of right and wrong” (1781) ~ “A Fragment on Governments” (1776) | 11 The principle of utility Holds that an act is morally right if it improves overall well-being more than any other action would have eX which Action of A/BIC maximizes happiness that's the right choice. - In classic utilitarianism other than the principle of utility no moral rule is absolute, i.e. any rule can be violated as long as it increases overall well-being But what is well-being? # Pleasure (absence of pain) = hedonism (Bentham and Mill) Depends on personal desires = desire satisfaction Several “goods” (happiness, autonomy, etc) = pluralism | 12  measuring he was trying to make more quantitative ethics Bentham’s “hedonic calculus” Bentham: “It is not to be expected that this Pleasure and pain are measured with the “hedonic calculus,” process should be strictly pursued previously to which has seven variables: every moral judgment” 1. now intensity 2. what duration 3. certainty 4. propinquity (remoteness: how soon will the sensation occur?) 5. fecundity (what are the chances the sensation will be followed by other sensations of the same kind?) future pleasure 6. purity purity is there pain mixed in &L - 7. extent (how many will be affected?) extent “Pushpin is as good as poetry” Bentham was a quantitative hedonist: only the quantity of a pain or type of matters, not it’s quality pleasure pleasure doesn't matter , but the grantity from: peped.org | 13 Equality and impartiality everyone animal/person p. Bentham’s utilitarianism is impartial and egalitarian: when you can suffer you are part of the moral community who Pain/Pleasure Musport of animal rights “What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a D more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, CAN THEY SUFFER?” ~ An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Ed Ram/Getty Images | 14  - Qualitative John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) Two problems with Bentham’s “hedonistic calculus”: 1. We cannot measure and weigh everything 2. We should not only evaluate the quantity of pleasures but also their quality => some pleasure Are better than others “No doctrine for the swine!” = doubting animal part of pleasure G“It is better to be a human disatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to “If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure be Socrates dis dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” => keeper pleasures more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, are worth more except its being greater in amount, there is but Mill was a qualitative hedonist; some pleasures are better than one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be others and should be weighed accordingly one to which all or almost all who have who the only experience of both give a decided preference […] that is the more desirable pleasure” can jugde isthe one who exp Booth ~ Utilitarianism (1861). thus : and the pig can't tell us | 15  -early feminist John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) exploitation of minorities and individuals ⑯ Problem with the principle of utility in politics: can lead to the A pleasure for majority ↓ to limit it he: Mill introduces the harm principle - We should be free to maximize our happiness and pleasure, but there is a limitation to that freedom - The only limitation to the harm principle is the harm principle itself. Only when you're not allowed to harm I others try to do me harm am I allowed to defend myself (and do them harm) = unless they were first avoid harm = violence P exploitation "That the only purpose for which abusing freedom by speakingtaken can lead to of minorities power can be rightfully exercised over freedom any member of a civilised community, The APA code about beneficence and nonmaleficence is against his will, is to prevent harm to indebted to the harm principle! don't horm , others“ (On Liberty, 1859) others Freedom of speech important | 16  Two types of consequentialism hard to predict conseg. Grey I Act consequentialism direct Guard to calculate senelits - ⑦ little space forights is concerned with the ways in which moral acts maximize good does action X maximize good in this case? good A Rule consequentialism [ indirect O does action X conform to rules that maximize good (e.g. Gout aximizes holds that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that maximizes good good don’t steal;steal ? be kind…) obligating - gives it A the most good It's a bit tricky as it contradicts the ⑰ maximanitain Me many pp. ex. Act of taking someone to get int. #m | 17  Benefits : concrete device in sense giving practical - to rule so it max Act so act according Problems with consequentialism - - moral mles flexible (no absolute Disadvantages : - intents /animals The problem of measuring is hard to solve. But: don't need to 20 to time → Utilitarianism is not a decision procedure, but a standard of rightness - you → We should not get lost in calculation, but keep the basic principle in mind: the principle of utility every “No ought from an is,” i.e., just because people derive pleasure from something, this doesn’t make it a good thing Partiality can also a moral virtue → When I decide to not buy medication for my own kid to save one elsewhere, that is arguably immoral > - Utilitarianism. well being will always over lights choose well-being - over rights, i.e. over justice I for the world Overdemanding-max good (Over)demandingness , > - > - Bed ex. with Action every = action good you intention take with you sa2 shouk outcome max louly , good conser-matters) | 18 Difference? Utilitarians can explain why most of us would pull the lever. But not why most would not push the heavy man, and what the morally relevant difference might be. | 19 BREAK | 20 Survey: Could it ever be justified (in an experimental setting) to inflict some significant harm onto a small group of people in order to save many lives? Yes = Conseq. No principle = based etrics (Deonterology | 22  Right > Food Deontology ⑰uty Deon = Greek for “obligation” or “duty” = Intentions /Reasons = Deontology looks backward at the intent of the action (whereas consequentialism looks forwards to the consequences) In deontology a moral act follows a certain duty, obligation or rule Deontology is also known as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics | 24  “Sapere aude!” (Dare to think!) Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) Kant in “What is Enlightenment?” (1784) 00 The good has nothing to do with God or nature, it is purely rational Kant connects morality, freedom and reason - To act freely is to act autonomously, and to act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myself (as a rational being) principles saiding behav. - we are the ones writing self legislation our Autonomy = “auto” + “nomos” = the law I set myself, that comes from within = O & - - Where does the moral law come from we give ourselves? From reason What matters is the motive, i.e. doing the right thing because it is right “a rational ethics would hold true for any should all find We imp. > -rational species anywhere, at any time” ~ Calum Neill | 25  - Two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing awe… the starry Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) sky above me and the moral law within me it · shod do ↑ even it W we don't want to and doesn't brinsure What is our 17 duty? To do our duty for its own sake, i.e. our actions should not only be in conformity with this duty (for this concerns effects), but come from duty We should do certain things even if we don’t want to do them and even if they don’t get us anything we want ~ you're no supposed to keep couted. ever it it might Only the motive to act out of duty counts, not the consequences. The only thing helpyouak M good in itself is a good will. - - We can never be sure of the outcome of our actions and can therefore not take responsibility for the consequences we don't have control over conseq , but we of our Duty is constituted by pure respect for the moral law will Categorical imperative good | 26  Empirical The golden rule depends or A classic test of morality "the Lesines Different variations on the theme do to others as you would have them do to you I share that rule Is empirical, not formal ⑪ 000 Depends on the convictions, values and desires of the one who applies the rule Does not give guidance on actions that concern only ourselves ! Should not be confused with the categorical imperative ! | 27  - Rationality Categorical imperative - Independent of my desires The categorical imperative is… litmorally allowed un > purely formal, purely analytical (as opposed to the golden rule, that is empirical) - > - a necessary and universally binding rule that applies to everyone who possesses reason moral to be done - is independent of personal desires and inclinations Question here is what is Becauseth pp have kinks one can't have universal approach and not based J =Golden Is opposed to hypothetical imperatives, that tell us how to act in Rule or I desires personal many specific situations, to reach specific goals (if you want to pass your O hypoth exams, you have to study) O whereas theImperative Duty is constrained by doesn't depend on personal desires(goal but God There is only one categorical imperative, but Kant formulates itapplies in always - formulations ( everty different ways ↓ categorical Imperative with diff a | 28  Fabrikating ex. data ↳ likely not to get grants breaking confidential ty · ex. it world its maximised in the - thapyt (contentiation in concept) A maxim is the principle of Principle from universalizability your action First formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law” > - general rule of your action 1. Loading… Can the maxim be universalized without leading to logical contradications? Formulate maxim: what you intend to do and why ! you're not if 2. Imagine a world in which everyone acts on your maxim asking 3. ↓Ask: can (the goal of) my action be achieved in such a world? my actions would lead to If not, the action is not morally permissible: := if your action can't be a world I'd love we haveuniversalized more impo problem to live in/desire Contradiction in conception (example: lying promise) → a “perfect duty” Contradiction in will (example: tax avoidance)→ an “imperfect duty” - more variations But ↳ you can't achieve more if that was maxim in the would you se able looks for world Knut consistency - and fairness ! to act and achieve on your action aim you're making an exception in that your for yourself if you think world where | 29 you can set with it your maxrim is universalized  Principle from humanity Lud Second formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as and end, never merely as a means” don't use instruments people as = means-to-end principle: the end does not justify the means! reverse of conseq Humans are rational beings, they are persons, who should be treated as ends = in themselves, not as instrumental objects - ! This is a different formulation of the same moral principle (the categorical suicide is imperative) using yourself ason object | 30  Problems with Kant’s deontology Narrow scope of the moral community reason llogic /rationality Dignity based on capacity for reason of door obliged th to Morally rigid (never lie!) ex. never a lie even murdered is knocking on the tel Little room for notion of consent strict moral boundaries even to ourselv Hard to implement practically: Difficult to determine maxim, what it is to be treated as an end Cannot check motivation What about empathy and moral emotions? wife vs random drawing your guy. ex. | 31  Questions? Workgroups: practice with your understanding of the theories and applying them to psychological cases Next week: virtue ethics & APA code cheat ? it wout help is it obey to on exam as us in future studies unitaliar. yes : - - NO = | 32  Outcome Rule Il II Conseq US. beenthology motives/intensions Actions are based dutyaout based - on if they max. - good conservatharm couseg. ex - cheating is on examy it moral tocheating · ex on exam honesty auty a leads better outcomes ~ houses agrees lyingtoprotectsomea ex. - because lying is wrongdul ex. Lying to effect someone it violates of thruthful Thess justifies your action based on ⑦ outcome  - Chapter 7 As is = lity Beutam-Principle of the most ⑦ with ① Revolution of Ethics the least O morality = happiness (making the world as happy as possible) 9 Mill-leading advocate for Utilitarisch - is not Morality understood as obedience to rules /codes and prohibitions. Now it is happiness.. 2 Examples Al Esmanazua ex. Fraud had cancer and in his last life mouths asked he felt the doctor no pleasure/good to in his , so he etmanozupar Did the doctor do sth bad?. Christianity only God can decide when someone dies - they hold : intentional killing of innocent is way - killed an inocent person => the doctor intentionally  Utilitarianism - which action of the doctor would have produced the greatest happiness ? It's action! killing ended his Gong = good b) Marijuana Utilitari. ⑦-weighting- ⑦ pleasure long term usage = cognitive impairm ↓. happ. /I happiness? I Does marijuana ↑ they don't belove on bak pleasure V for Utilit-say : Casual use - individ preference c) Nonhuman Animals Christianity animals have no souls => treat animals in : any way we can Utilitari. = what matters is they if can exp-pain/pleasure if tormented it's ? that ex. a person is why , wroug tormented Because it also person suffers ) same it an animal = , suffers racism= specism (Ryder) ex Experiments animals way. on =  Puties Chapter 5. rights universal ①. Kout-critique Deouthology of &. = nums utility - rationa lity - reasoning Lignity - ②. Criticism against Utility constisn't · consider rights from deiving because moralityit desires - just doesn't night gives pleasure mean can't be morality based empirical consider· as interest/Hestes - on they cent for universal morality as serve as basis ③. Freedom for bound for freedom capacity reason is to capacity Freedom not upain because is seeking pleasure and => we Act as slaves to desires flavour ! this not act ex · choosing ice-cream is - = free choice not of because we satisfy preferences even didn't choose. don't act freely but it's okey to act accordina g · we ,  thirst act of obedience rinking : is an to desire responding I haven't chosen Act to free = to act autonom. if there is no autonomy ; no responsibility ex - a ball full down and kills someone - it falls due to gravity> no autonomy ④ Using people as instruments = heteronomous determination ↓ doing th the sake for ofth ⑤ Moral/Motive its morality of action depends on intention , not conseg. If we act out of motive than some duty other such as duty self-interest not moral ef overchargingbyhedesidesanes d the doesn't overcharge. = ) the shopkeeper does the for the motive right thing wrong ex · bought honesty = no morality  ex. Suicide -> Duty Live to > If finds person is userable and he - a a his life moral worth way to preserve = others ex. duty to help should from > - doing good come compassion eX. Spelling Bee hero boy's word motive to saying not feel the truth about like mispelling not a to slime = very was a mora/ But if he told the trude, because it to do thing the he was right Acts morally ⑥ Principle of morality al morality duty - vs. inclination & freedom autonomy heterooma > - vs. > reason - VS. al only the of duty motive can confer worth Deautonomous governed bylawgivemesa determined ·heteronomy externa = that nature llyandis is we ar sings natureeverythingworks according tosome a law  Reasoning - ourown law will - Independea US utalitar In utolit is instrument. > - reasoning just an scoutddesionlycultto desires. Unconditional Conditional 2) Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperative importive of morality - If want X then do I categorically t · you , · a rule that applies regardless of circumst · Act for the sake of some any. interest/end outside of me · it concerns not the its => NOT FREE Action and result , but its form So to be freeof in sense autonomous I should act of categorical not hypothetical · Categorical Imperative/Universalize maxim maxim rue/pinciplethatgivescasufryou actionsearsalize = without exceptions ex. false promises false If made would believe everyone promise , no a one the false promise would undermine = no such thing as promises > - universalizing promise-keeping