Cultural Relativism and Moral Philosophy Notes PDF

Week 2: Cultural Relativism A Puzzle -​ Cultural Relativism: No claim about good and bad is objectively true (their truth value is culturally relative) -​ Moral Realism: At least some claims about good and bad are objectively true = These cannot both be true! ​ What is Cultural...

Week 2: Cultural Relativism A Puzzle -​ Cultural Relativism: No claim about good and bad is objectively true (their truth value is culturally relative) -​ Moral Realism: At least some claims about good and bad are objectively true = These cannot both be true! ​ What is Cultural Relativism? -​ Good means socially approved. You pick your moral principles by following what (the majority of) your society approves of. -​ Cultural Relativism asserts that moral values and practices are shaped by cultural contexts, and no culture’s morality is superior to another’s. -​ What are some arguments FOR cultural relativism? -​ Foster understanding & respect -​ Encourage tolerance and respect for cultural diversity -​ Reduce ethnocentrism by challenging the idea that one’s culture is inherently superior -​ Loss of context -​ Ignores the complexity and validity of diverse cultural norms -​ Reductionism -​ Assumes universal principles can be applied uniformly, which may oversimplify moral dilemmas -​ What are some arguments AGAINST cultural relativism?  -​ Universal ethics -​ Allows for the critique of harmful practices (e.g., human rights violations) that some cultures may justify -​ Moral accountability -​ Encourages the creation of global ethical frameworks, such as those protecting individual freedom and dignity -​ Cross-cultural dialogue -​ Recognizes that some values might transcend cultural boundaries Moral Realism -​ Cultural Realism contrasts with Moral Realism - which is the view that some actions are objectively right or wrong -​ Moral realism asserts that object truths exist independently of human beliefs. -​ Moral realists can accept a plurality of ways to promote objective values -​ Moral realists can accept that some moral rules are actually just mere conventions, not moral law or rules -​ Conventions: traffic laws or dress codes -​ What are some arguments FOR Moral Realism? -​ Moral uncertainty -​ Without objective truths, it becomes difficult to resolve moral disputes or condemn universally harmful practices -​ Relativism risks  -​ Can justify harmful practices are “culturally valid” without a universal standard for critique -​ Erosion of justice -​ Challenges the idea of universal human rights or ethical standards -​ What are some arguments AGAINST Moral Realism? -​ Flexibility -​ Acknowledges the subjective and context-dependent nature of morality, accommodating pluralism -​ Avoids absolutism -​ Prevents rigid, dogmatic (to follow a set of rules no matter what) applications of “objective” moral truths -​ Respects diversity -​ Recognizes that moral values are shaped by historical, social, and cultural factors A Problem for Cultural Relativism (as formulated by Gensler…) -​ Suppose “X is good.” means “X is socially approved.” -​ Then it would be contradictory to say that “X is socially approved but it is not good.” -​ It’s equivalent to saying “X is good but also not good.” -​ For example, Loki is a cat but also not an animal 1.​ The Cultural Differences Argument (in favour of CR) a.​ No belief that is subject to wide disagreement is objectively true b.​ All moral beliefs are subject to wide disagreement c.​ Therefore, no moral beliefs are objectively true -​ What are some counterexamples to premises 1 and 2? -​ Premise 1: There was once the belief that the Earth was in the middle of our solar system and everything revolved around the Earth. It was heavily debated and there was wide disagreement but there is an objective truth to this topic: the sun is the middle of our solar system and everything revolves around the sun -​ Premise 2: Believing murder is wrong is a moral belief that is not subject to wide disagreement -​ Does this argument establish the truth of Cultural Relativism? -​ No, because morality is much more complex and there are still some moral beliefs that are widely agreed upon across cultures 2.​ The No Neutral Standpoint Argument (in favour of CR) a.​ No belief that can’t be strongly defended on culturally neutral grounds is objectively true b.​ All moral beliefs are beliefs that can’t be strongly defended on culturally neutral grounds c.​ Therefore, no moral beliefs are objectively true -​ Begging the question: An argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion  3.​ The Product of Culture Argument (in favour of CR) a.​ No products of culture express objective truths b.​ All moral beliefs are products of culture c.​ Therefore, no moral beliefs express objective truths -​ What are some counterexamples to premises 1 and 2? -​ Premise 1: Divine revelation -​ Premise 2: The Golden Rule A Reformulated Version of Cultural Relativism -​ Good means that which is most conducive to the flourishing of society. Pick your moral principles by determining what leads to the flourishing of your society -​ Good and bad are still culturally relative. What’s “good” for one culture may be “bad” for another - it just depends on what’s good or bad for your own society -​ If good now means that “X is most conducive to the flourishing of my own society”, then there’s nothing contradictory about saying “X is socially approved but it isn’t good.” -​ The reformulated version of cultural relativism avoids the problem of conformity: racism, global warming, and teaching morality to our children. For example, if your culture approves of racism then it would be moral to be racist if the majority of your society approves of it.  Week 2: Subjectivism The main problems with cultural relativism -​ Moral conformity: Cultural relativism denies us any moral freedom. We must always approve of society’s values, even if we believe they are immoral -​ The Sub-Group problem: We all belong to overlapping groups or societies. Which society does Cultural relativism target? This leads to conflicting norms Subjectivism -​ “X is good” means “I like”. We pick our moral principles by following our feelings. -​ Moral values are all preferences. No preference is objectively true or correct Subjectivism solves the main problems seen with Cultural relativism -​ Subjectivism provides moral freedom -​ Subjectivism avoids the sub-group problem Why believe subjectivism? -​ Subjectivism makes sense of the general harmony between our feelings and beliefs about morality. -​ Subjectivism makes sense of our moral language Some obvious problems with Subjectivism -​ If subjectivism is true, then my liking x makes it the case that x is good -​ But i might have ignorant, perverse, or confused desires -​ My desires and preferences change over time -​ The divided self-problem - the divided self-problem refers to the tension or conflict between different aspects of a person’s identity, desires, or values. It describes a situation where a person experiences internal conflict. For example, one could have moral and psychological conflict where they experience a split between their rational self (why they know is right) and their emotional/self-interested self (what they desire). For example, cheating on an exam. They may know that it is wrong to cheat but they desire a high grade so now they are in an internal conflict. -​ Subjectivism obliterates any role for reason in ethics -​ You can’t argue about preferences. If someone says “i like chocolate ice-cream” but you like vanilla, you can’t tell them that they’re wrong A Better Version of Subjectivism -​ The Ideal-Observer View -​ X is good means We’d desire X if we were fully informed and had impartial concern for everyone. We would pick our moral principles by trying to become as informed and impartial as possible, and then seeing what you would desire. -​ We need both feeling and reason. We need to develop rational moral feelings -​ We develop rational moral feelings by being informed and impartial  -​ So, moral judgements describe how we’d feel if we were fully rational -​ Which is an idealization because we can never be fully informed or impartial -​ The Ideal-Observer View then solves the problems presented in subjectivism  Week 2: Nagel -​ Nagel is concerned with “Are Ethical Claims Objective?” -​ Nagel’s argument is that values ARE objective. Some actions are wrong from a general point of view and not just from the perspective of our own individual self-interest. -​ What makes it the case that helping your friend smuggle a book out of the library is wrong? -​ Right and wrong here cannot be reduced to what is and is not against the rules. Why? -​ Moral Justification Goes Beyond Authority – Just because something is against the rules doesn't make it wrong by itself. It is wrong because of the deeper ethical principles it violates. -​ Rules Can Be Arbitrary or Unjust – Some rules (e.g., segregation laws) were wrong, so blindly following rules isn’t a moral standard. Instead, we evaluate rules using moral reasoning. -​ Independent Moral Reasoning – Right and wrong should be judged based on principles of fairness, honesty, and harm, not merely whether an institution allows or forbids something. -​ Maybe right and wrong has something to do with the effects it has on others -​ But what if someone doesn’t care about other people? What reason does he have to avoid doing what is wrong?  -​ We could motivate someone to care about what is right and wrong by appealing to their self-interest -​ A religious answer: Don’t do x because it is forbidden by God - we ought to obey him (either out of fear or love) -​ Three objections to the religious answer: -​ Atheists make judgements about right and wrong. Are they mistaken for doing so? -​ God’s forbidding x doesn’t make x wrong. X is not wrong because God forbids it. God forbids X because it is wrong in and of itself -​ Fear and punishment or love of God also seems to be inappropriate motivations for morality. For example, you don’t hit your child, not because you love them, but because your wife will be mad. Another example would be not stealing because you think stealing is wrong but because you fear God’s punishment for stealing. -​ Universality -​ Why should you avoid harming others? What reason is there for you to care? -​ You shouldn’t harm others for the very same reason (whatever it is) they shouldn’t harm you. In other words, the reason that applies to them and their behaviour towards you also applies to you and your behaviour towards them -​ Consistency demands that you act towards them as you expect them to act towards you -​ Treat others the way you want to be treated - The Golden Rule -​ The Universal Nature of Morality -​ Good and harm to particular people pertain to a general point of view, not just our own subjective personal interests -​ The subjectivist is therefore inconsistent. 1.​ What if I harm someone and also think it would be right for him to do the same to me? Aren't I being consistent?​ Nagel's argument relies on consistency, but not in the way you suggest. He argues that if you recognize that you would resent being harmed in a certain way, then you must accept that others have a similar reason to resent being harmed in the same way. If you claim that you wouldn't resent it, you might escape the argument, but Nagel suggests that most people would naturally feel resentment. The key point is that the reason for not harming others isn't just about whether you personally accept being harmed—it's about recognizing that harm is bad from an objective standpoint that anyone can understand. 2.​ Does Nagel's argument show that moral values are objective? Why or why not?​ Yes, Nagel argues that moral values are objective because they are based on reasons that everyone can recognize, independent of personal perspective. He suggests that the basis of morality is the idea that harm to others is not just bad for the person experiencing it but bad in general. This universality, which applies to everyone equally, forms an objective basis for morality rather than a purely subjective or self-interested one. 3.​ Why should I care about being consistent in the first place? Why should I think about the morality of my actions from a general point of view instead of the narrow perspective of my own interest?​ According to Nagel, if you expect others to consider your interests and refrain from harming you, then consistency demands that you acknowledge that you have a reason to consider their interests as well. The general point of view is necessary because morality applies universally—it is not just about personal preference but about principles that anyone can recognize as valid. Without such a perspective, moral reasoning would collapse into mere self-interest, which is inconsistent with the way we expect others to treat us.  Week 3: Supernaturalism The Atheist’s Objection -​ If supernatualism were true, then atheists couldn’t consistently make positive moral judgements -​ But atheists can consistently make positive moral judgements -​ Therefore, supernaturalism is false *The Euthyphro Dilemma* The dilemma asks whether something is good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? Both answers raise significant issues: 1.​ If goodness is arbitrary (i.e., God commands something because it's good), this suggests that goodness exists independently of God, meaning that God is not the source of morality but rather a messenger or enforcer of moral laws that exist outside of Him. This would undermine the idea of God as the ultimate foundation for morality. 2.​ If something is good because God wills it, it implies that God's will is the sole determinant of what is good, and moral goodness could be entirely subjective and contingent on whatever God decides. This would mean that any action, even harmful or unjust, could be considered good if God commands it. This leads to the problem of moral arbitrariness, where the notion of goodness becomes unpredictable and detached from any consistent standard. Why is this problematic? From a moral perspective, if goodness is arbitrary and dependent solely on God's will, there would be no rational basis for distinguishing between good and evil beyond God's commands. Moral duties would be based on divine command alone, without any intrinsic reason for why certain actions are better than others. This makes the concept of moral goodness less meaningful because it no longer appeals to universal principles, and it becomes reliant on the unpredictable will of a deity, making it difficult to argue for objective moral values. Philosophers, particularly in the divine command theory debate, are concerned that this undermines both the reliability and the meaningfulness of morality. Without a consistent, non-arbitrary foundation for moral goodness, ethical decision-making could become incoherent or inconsistent. Is morality objective according to supernaturalist? In the context of supernaturalism—which posits that moral values are grounded in some form of transcendent or divine reality—morality is often seen as objective. According to supernaturalism, moral facts and values are not simply human inventions or cultural constructs, but are derived from a source that exists beyond the natural world, such as God or some other higher, supernatural realm. Here’s how the concept of objective morality plays out in different strands of supernaturalism: 1.​ Divine Command Theory: This is a common form of supernaturalism that suggests morality is objective because it is grounded in the commands or will of a divine being (often God). According to this view, moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or opinions, and they are what they are because God wills them to be so. For example, if God commands that it is wrong to murder, then murder is wrong objectively, regardless of human opinions or cultural norms. However, this theory faces the Euthyphro dilemma,  which questions whether moral acts are good because God wills them or whether God wills them because they are good. Some supernaturalists argue that God's nature itself defines what is good, making morality both objective and rooted in the nature of the divine. 2.​ Theistic Moral Realism: This is a more general supernaturalist perspective, suggesting that moral values and duties are real, objective features of the world and are grounded in God’s nature or will. In this view, God provides a moral law that applies universally to all rational beings. Morality is objective in the sense that it is universally true and independent of individual opinions. 3.​ Supernatural Ethics in Other Religions: In various religious traditions (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, etc.), morality is also often viewed as objective because it is derived from a divine or supernatural realm. The moral order is believed to be established by divine beings or forces, and humans are expected to align with this objective moral order. While the specifics vary across traditions, the underlying idea is that moral values have an existence beyond human subjectivity and are given by the supernatural. However, supernaturalism’s conception of objective morality is sometimes challenged on several fronts: ​ Moral Epistemology: Even if moral values are objective in a supernaturalist sense, it can be difficult to argue how humans can know them. If objective moral truths are grounded in a divine or transcendent source, how do we access or discern them? This question raises concerns about the objectivity of morality in practical terms. ​ The Problem of Moral Arbitrariness: As mentioned earlier, if moral values are entirely based on God’s will (as some forms of divine command theory suggest), there’s a  concern that this could make morality arbitrary. If God were to command something morally questionable, it would still be "good" because of divine will, which could undermine the idea of a consistent, rational foundation for morality. In conclusion, supernaturalism typically holds that morality is objective, as it is believed to be grounded in a supernatural or divine source. However, whether this objectivity provides a coherent, reliable, and meaningful foundation for ethical behavior is a point of ongoing philosophical debate. Natural Law -​ Natural law refers to objective moral principles that are discoverable by reason. Natural law is natural in so far as it is derived from our human nature -​ There are certain moral prescriptions dictated to us by our nature that we can know through reason and divine revelation. We act well when we live in accordance with our human nature -​ Examples: -​ Preserving human life. Violation: gluttony -​ Producing and educating offspring. Violation: Being a bad parent -​ Living sociably. Violation: fostering animosity between yourself and others Two Classes of Facts 1.​ Objective facts: mathematical truths, scientific truths, etc 2.​ Conventional facts: facts about traffic laws Lewis thinks at least some moral facts belong to the first category Two reason for Objective Morality 1.​ There’s a limit to how much morality can differ between cultures, which suggests that there’s a basic agreement on underlying moral principles across cultures and times 2.​ Moral progress presupposes objective moral standards Lewis argues that there is no difference of moral principles: the difference is simply about matters of fact. -​ When C.S. Lewis says, "there is no difference of moral principle; the difference is simply about matters of fact," he is addressing a common misconception about morality and ethical disagreements. The context for this statement can often be found in his work Mere Christianity, where he argues that people generally agree on the basic principles of right and wrong, but they may disagree on the specific facts or circumstances surrounding a particular situation. -​ Here's what Lewis is suggesting: 1.​ Shared Moral Principles: Lewis believes that most people, regardless of their culture or background, share a common understanding of basic moral principles. For example, the idea that it is wrong to murder, to lie, or to harm others is generally agreed upon across societies. He argues that this is evidence of a universal moral law that transcends individual preferences or societal norms. In this sense, there is no real disagreement on the fundamental principles of morality; rather, people’s disagreements arise when it comes to how those principles should be applied in specific situations. 2.​ Disagreement About Facts, Not Principles: According to Lewis, when people seem to be in conflict over moral issues, it is often because they are debating the  facts of a particular case rather than the moral principles themselves. For instance, two people might argue about whether a particular action (e.g., a military intervention, a specific law, etc.) is morally justified. They might both agree that it’s wrong to harm innocent people, but they might disagree on the facts, such as whether the action in question actually harmed innocent people or whether the harm was justified. The difference, then, is not in the moral principle (which is shared), but in the interpretation of the factual circumstances. 3.​ Moral Principles Are Universal: Lewis is emphasizing that the underlying moral principles are objective and universal, not subject to individual or cultural preferences. When people argue about morality, it is usually about applying those principles to specific situations rather than a disagreement about the principles themselves. If there is a true moral disagreement, it is over facts (what happened, what the consequences were, etc.), not over the rightness or wrongness of the action in principle. -​ In summary, Lewis's point is that moral principles themselves are not what people fundamentally disagree on. Instead, the disagreements are often about how those principles should be applied in real-world situations, which involves interpreting facts and circumstances differently. -​ Lewis’ Argument -​ The source of morality is either culture, the individual, or God -​ The source of morality is NOT culture -​ He argues that morality can only change so much between cultures meaning that there is some objective moral truth  -​ The source of morality is NOT the individual -​ He argues that individuals do not fundamentally disagree on moral principles. Instead, people disagree about how morality should be applied to real-life situations.If there is a true disagreement it is over facts (whether something was truly harmful or what the consequences were, etc) NOT over the rightness or wrongness of the action in principle. -​ Therefore, the source of morality is God -​ Lewis argues that most people agree on the basic moral principle that murder is wrong. This is a universal principle across cultures and societies. However, people may disagree on whether a particular act is actually murder or whether it falls into another category, such as self-defense. ​ Moral Principle: "It is wrong to kill an innocent person." ​ Disagreement over facts: Two people might disagree on whether a particular killing was murder or whether it was an act of self-defense. For instance, in a situation where someone kills another person in what they believe to be an act of self-defense, one person might view the action as justifiable, while another might view it as unjustified. -​ Both individuals may agree on the basic moral principle that killing an innocent person is wrong, but they may disagree on whether the person was innocent or whether the situation truly warranted self-defense. One person might think the individual was in no danger, while the other might believe the threat was real. -​ In this case, the moral principle is not in dispute—the disagreement lies in the interpretation of the facts surrounding the situation: Was the person truly in danger? Was the response proportionate to the threat? Was the action necessary to prevent harm? -​ Another Example: -​ Imagine a debate about whether a government should intervene in a foreign conflict. Most people agree on the principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people. However, one group might argue that military intervention is justified because the intervention prevents a greater evil (such as genocide), while another group might argue that the intervention itself harms innocent people and should be avoided. -​ Again, both groups likely agree that harming innocent people is wrong, but they disagree on the facts—whether the intervention actually prevented harm or whether it caused more harm. The fundamental moral principle (that harming innocents is wrong) remains the same, but the disagreement is based on differing views of the facts and the specific circumstances of the intervention. -​ Lewis' Point: -​ Lewis’s argument is that when people argue about moral issues, they are almost always debating how a particular case fits into general moral principles. The disagreement is often over factual details (what happened, what was the intent, what were the consequences) rather than over the fundamental moral laws themselves. Most people, regardless of culture or belief, recognize the basic idea  that harming innocent people is wrong, but they may have different views on whether the action in question actually involved harm or innocence. -​ In sum, Lewis argues that moral principles are largely agreed upon, and when people disagree, it is often about interpreting the facts that determine whether a particular action conforms to those principles. The Moral Argument for God’s Existence Deductive Version -​ If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values -​ There are objective moral values -​ Therefore, God exists Inductive Version -​ There are objective moral values -​ God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral values -​ Therefore, God probably exists  Week 4: Deontology ​ Metaethics: Focuses on what morality itself means—it examines the nature, existence, and source of moral values and judgments, often asking abstract, foundational questions. ○​ Cultural relativism ○​ Subjectivism ○​ Supernaturalism ​ Normative ethics: Focuses on practical questions of what we should do in moral terms and seeks to establish moral principles or rules for behavior. ○​ Deontology - Duty ○​ Consequentialism - Consequences ○​ Non-Consequentialism - Character In essence, metaethics deals with the "why" (why do we call certain actions right or wrong, and what does that mean on a deeper level?), while normative ethics deals with the "how" of morality (how we should act). The Primacy of Duty -​ For KANT, our intentions matter for morality, not the consequences. An otherwise good action done with bad intentions is immoral -​ E.g., a politician who volunteers at a homeless shelter just for the optics A Good Will (good intentions) -​ Kant believes that an action is morally good only insofar as it is done for the sake of the moral law  -​ Only a good will is unqualifiedly good. Other things (power, riches, honor, health, etc) are only good qualifiedly, that is, if they are used well -​ This means that a good will is good no matter what the circumstances are. For something to be good qualifiedly, you have to use them well (to give to charity, to make positive change.) -​ When Kant talks about “will” he refers to it as a faculty of the human person by which one makes decisions - NOT if you have good will or ill will for something -​ Kant views a good will as: an action done out of good will is one that has respect for the (moral) law as its motivation and nothing else. That’s what duty involves Moral Actions -​ A moral action, for Kant, is one that is done out of duty - acting from pure respect for the moral law. To act in this way is to act with a good will What does Moral Law say? -​ Kant believes morality must be universal and necessary -​ Universal meaning that it must apply to everyone, there are no exceptions. -​ Necessary meaning that it is not optional. -​ So, to understand the content of the moral law, it must be derived from reason. Experience can’t tell us anything useful. Why? -​ Experience can’t tell us what’s truly right or wrong because it only shows us what people do, not what they ought to do. Different cultures and situations lead to different ideas about morality, so if we relied on experience alone, morality would  change all the time. But real moral rules need to be the same for everyone, regardless of where they live. -​ If we use reason, we can ask ourselves “what if everyone lied all the time?” If that happened, no one would trust anyone. To Kant, that shows us that lying is always wrong - not just in some cases - because it breaks trust and goes against how communication is supposed to work. -​ Experience is unreliable Maxims -​ Think of an act of the will as a kind of internal command: Let me do “A” now! -​ Every act of will has a certain content -​ For example, let me now keep the promise I made yesterday or let me now break the promise I made yesterday -​ Kant wants a criterion for sorting moral from immoral maxims. -​ Maxims can be good or bad → they are just principles that we choose to follow or not The Categorical Imperative - The Universalizability Principle -​ A hypothetical imperative is a conditional command. It has the form: If you want X, do A -​ If you want good grades, study more -​ A categorical imperative is an unconditional command. It has the form: Do A  -​ It is a command that applies universally, regardless of personal desires or consequences. With a hypothetical imperative, you only do something if you want a specific outcome. With the categorical imperative, there is no choice, you just do it regardless of how you feel about it or what the consequences might be -​ Kant believes that morality is an unconditional command, meaning if you want to know which maxims you should act on and which to not act on, make the maxim universal. -​ Example: Someone is tempted to lie in order to avoid punishment -​ Maxim: I will lie when it benefits me -​ To figure out whether or not to act on this maxim, universalize it. -​ What if everyone lied when it benefited them? -​ Then no one would trust anyone and the concept of telling the truth would be meaningless -​ Since this creates a contradiction (communication relies on truth to function), Kant argues that lying is morally impermissible. Treating others as ends -​ When you make a false promise to a friend (let’s say, borrowing money to pay a debt and falsely promising to pay it back), you’re using your friend merely as a means -​ When you lie to someone, you also treat them as mere means to an end -​ You are using your friend as a tool to achieve a task - which Kant believes is immoral -​ Kant wants us not to treat people as mere means. One of the ways to do this is to give them autonomy by telling them the truth. -​ For example; If you need to pay back a debt and ask your friend for money and are honest, they have the choice whether or not to help you. They can determine whether or not they want to make your ends their ends. -​ In a perfect world, Kant argues that we must all make other peoples’ ends our ends -​ So we are not using them as mere objects to get what we want. We value them as people.  Week 5: Consequentialism Consequentialism -​ To be a consequentialist means believing that we ought to do whatever maximizes long-term good consequences. If doesn’t in itself matter what kind of thing we do -​ Classic Utilitarianism: We ought always to do whatever maximizes the long-term balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by our action -​ Things like duty and virtue are defined in utilitarian terms. Your duties and virtues are based on the good consequences of your actions. -​ In utilitarianism, concepts like duty and virtue are not seen as having intrinsic moral value on their own. Instead, their moral worth is determined by their utility—that is, by their contribution to maximizing happiness. -​ In deontological ethics (e.g., Kantian ethics), duty is based on moral principles or laws that must be followed regardless of consequences. -​ In utilitarianism, however, duty is not absolute. An action is considered a duty only if it leads to the greatest happiness. -​ Example: If telling the truth in a situation would cause unnecessary harm, then lying may be the morally correct duty under utilitarianism. -​ In virtue ethics (e.g., Aristotle), virtues (like honesty, courage, and kindness) are good because they help individuals flourish. -​ In utilitarianism, virtues are valuable only if they promote happiness. -​ Example: Honesty is generally good because it promotes trust and well-being. But if honesty causes harm (e.g., telling a terminally ill  patient that they have days to live and making them miserable), then dishonesty may be justified because it maximizes happiness. J.S Mill and the Principle of Utility -​ The greatest happiness principle (the principle of utility): actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness -​ What does the rightness or wrongness of an action consist of? Mill believes that if the action promotes happiness in yourself and others, it’s the right choice. -​ The principle of utility is an impartial principle. Everyone’s happiness is weighted EQUALLY! Thomas Malthus -​ Concerned about overpopulation and had doubts about social reform. He argued that helping the poor by improving living conditions would only worsen the situation -​ Utilitarianism is a reaction against this view 3 Arguments Against Exceptionless Rules -​ With Kant’s deontology, there were absolutely no exceptions to the rules. Utilitarianism rejects this approach. Utilitarians believe that there should be exceptions -​ Three objections to Ideologies where Rules have no Exceptions: -​ A consistent moral system can’t have more than one exceptionless norm  -​ You have one duty telling you one thing and another duty telling you another thing -​ E.g; your parents ask you to tell a lie. You have the duty to always tell the truth and never go against your parents. In this scenario, your duties would conflict -​ Exceptionless rules lead to inhumane results -​ If you follow Kant’s deontology and refuse to tell a lie, when a killer shows up to your house and asks for your friend because they want to kill them, you wouldn’t be able to lie, even if you save your friend’s life, because to Kant, you have a duty to not lie. Your friend ends up dying which is inhumane -​ Dr. Evil objections: If someone comes up to you and says “I will blow up the entire world unless you tell a lie” (which Kant believes is immoral and with Kant’s deontology, there are no exceptions - you must always tell the truth). Do you lie to save everyone or not? Hedonistic Utilitarianism -​ Happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. So, we are to maximize pleasure (hedonism) and minimize pain for all sentient beings -​ Objection: a life devoted to pleasure is degrading and demeaning -​ Some argue that a life only focused on pleasure would make us no better than pigs -​ The distinction Mill makes in response to this objection is that he presents the idea of higher and lower pleasures.  -​ Higher pleasures: Intellectual, moral, and aesthetic pleasures -​ Lower pleasures: Purely bodily or sensory pleasures Gensler’s Objections to Utilitarianism: 1. You hurt someone because it brings you more pleasure than the pain it causes them. 2. You maximize pleasure by secretly killing your rich father and donating his money to build a park for poor children. How would Mill respond to Gensler’s Objections to Utilitarianism? -​ Mill would respond to these objections by emphasizing his distinction between higher and lower pleasures, his commitment to justice, and his broader utilitarian principle that seeks the greatest happiness for all rather than just maximizing pleasure in isolated cases. Response to Objection 1 (Hurting someone for personal pleasure) -​ Mill would argue that utilitarianism does not justify harming others simply because it brings one person more pleasure than the pain it causes another. He explicitly rejects a crude hedonistic calculation that values all pleasures equally. Instead, he emphasizes that: 1.​ The quality of pleasures matters: If the pleasure gained from harming someone is of a lower kind (e.g., sadistic enjoyment), it is morally inferior to the pain and suffering inflicted, which affects the victim’s well-being on a deeper, more profound level.  2.​ The general happiness principle: Utilitarianism requires considering the happiness of all concerned, not just the immediate balance of pleasure and pain. If harming someone leads to resentment, fear, and instability in society, it undermines overall well-being. 3.​ Social utility and moral education: A society that permits harming others for personal pleasure would lead to widespread insecurity and suffering, contradicting the utilitarian goal of promoting overall happiness. Response to Objection 2 (Killing a rich father to donate money for a park) -​ Mill would reject this action as well, based on the following considerations: 1.​ The importance of justice: In Utilitarianism, Mill argues that justice is an essential component of overall happiness. Secretly killing someone violates justice, which is necessary for a stable and secure society. If such actions were permitted, social trust would collapse, leading to greater unhappiness in the long run. 2.​ Rule Utilitarianism vs. Act Utilitarianism: Although some crude forms of utilitarianism might justify the murder by looking at immediate consequences, Mill supports a more rule-based utilitarianism, where following general moral rules (such as respecting life and property) leads to the best long-term outcomes. 3.​ Trust and long-term consequences: If people knew that utilitarian calculations could justify murder in some cases, this would create fear and uncertainty, reducing overall happiness rather than increasing it. In summary, Mill would reject both objections by appealing to his refined qualitative hedonism, commitment to justice, and the broader social consequences of utilitarian reasoning. To avoid the problems Gensler proposed, we can amend utilitarianism -​ Pluralistic Rule Utilitarianism: Evaluating consequences in terms of a pluralism of goods (e.g. virtue, knowledge, pleasure, life, freedom, etc), we ought to always follow the rules whose following would maximize long-term good consequences -​ Do what would be prescribed by the rules with the best consequences for people to try and follow -​ Pluralism, not hedonism -​ Rules, rather than actions Difference Between Pluralistic Rule Utilitarianism and Hedonistic Utilitarianism Both Pluralistic Rule Utilitarianism and Hedonistic Utilitarianism are forms of utilitarian ethics, but they differ in how they define "the good" and how they apply moral rules. 1. Hedonistic Utilitarianism Hedonistic utilitarianism is a monistic form of utilitarianism, meaning it holds that there is only one intrinsic good: pleasure (happiness), and only one intrinsic bad: pain (suffering). Key Features: ​ Pleasure and pain are the only moral criteria: Actions are morally right if they maximize pleasure and minimize pain. ​ Quantitative Approach (Bentham) vs. Qualitative Approach (Mill):  ○​ Jeremy Bentham believed that all pleasures were equal—more pleasure is always better. ○​ John Stuart Mill argued that some pleasures (intellectual, moral) are higher in quality than others (physical pleasures). ​ Consequentialist Focus: The rightness of an action is judged only by its outcomes in terms of pleasure and pain. Example: If telling a harmless lie brings more pleasure than telling the truth, hedonistic utilitarianism would consider lying to be the morally right action. 2. Pluralistic Rule Utilitarianism Pluralistic Rule Utilitarianism is a more rule-based and pluralistic form of utilitarianism. It differs from hedonistic utilitarianism in two major ways: 1.​ It Accepts Multiple Intrinsic Goods (Pluralism): ○​ Instead of just pleasure being the only good, pluralistic rule utilitarianism considers multiple values as intrinsically good, such as: ​ Justice ​ Freedom ​ Knowledge ​ Friendship ​ Well-being (beyond just pleasure)  2.​ It Focuses on General Rules (Rule Utilitarianism): ○​ Unlike act utilitarianism, which assesses morality on a case-by-case basis, rule utilitarianism argues that we should follow moral rules that tend to maximize overall well-being. ○​ The focus is not just on maximizing pleasure in every single action but following rules that generally promote the best outcomes. Example: ​ A hedonistic utilitarian might say that stealing is acceptable if it brings more pleasure than pain in a specific situation. ​ A pluralistic rule utilitarian would argue that a general rule against stealing should be followed, because a world where stealing is allowed would lead to distrust, fear, and insecurity—making society worse in the long run. Conclusion ​ Hedonistic utilitarianism focuses only on pleasure and pain and evaluates morality on a case-by-case basis (act utilitarianism). ​ Pluralistic rule utilitarianism considers multiple moral goods and believes we should follow rules that lead to the best overall consequences. So, hedonistic utilitarianism is more flexible but risks justifying immoral actions if they bring pleasure, whereas pluralistic rule utilitarianism tries to create stable moral rules that promote long-term well-being. Is Utilitarianism a Dystopian Ethical Theory? -​...persons with disabilities, with limited English skills, or needing religious accommodations should not be put at the end of the line for health services during emergencies. Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism” (620) Why Is Utilitarianism Criticized Here? 1.​ Prioritizing Efficiency Over Individual Rights ○​ Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall well-being, which could justify allocating resources to those who contribute the most to society rather than treating everyone equally. ○​ If taken to an extreme, this could mean deprioritizing individuals with disabilities, limited English skills, or religious needs because they may be seen as less "efficient" in an emergency. 2.​ The Risk of Discrimination ○​ The quote highlights civil rights laws as protection against "ruthless utilitarianism," implying that without these laws, a utilitarian system could justify discrimination in the name of the greater good. ○​ For example, in a strict utilitarian framework, hospitals might prioritize younger, healthier patients over older or disabled patients, which undermines the equal dignity of all lives. 3.​ Dehumanization and the Dystopian Element  ○​ The phrase “ruthless utilitarianism” suggests that when utilitarian principles are applied without moral safeguards, they can lead to cold, mechanical decision-making that ignores human dignity. ○​ This is a common theme in dystopian fiction, where societies sacrifice individual rights for the sake of "efficiency" or the "greater good." Dystopian Example: Utilitarianism in Emergency Healthcare Imagine a hospital that operates purely on utilitarian principles during a disaster: ​ Patients are ranked not by medical need but by their "usefulness" to society. ​ A doctor or engineer might be prioritized over a disabled person or an elderly patient, because they can "contribute" more. ​ Those who need language interpreters or religious accommodations might be seen as “slowing down” the process and deprioritized. This kind of decision-making, while efficient, erases human dignity and reduces people to their perceived usefulness in society. Important Principles -​ The Principle of Beneficence: We ought to maximize what is good for all -​ The Principle of Justice: We ought to distribute what is good for all in a fair and equal way -​ The Principle of Autonomy: As far as possible, individuals should be free to choose and determine for themselves how they live their lives Two-Level Utilitarianism -​ The intuitive level: we have rough rules of thumb that can be rapidly deployed without protracted and demanding reflection (e.g. don’t kill, don’t steal, be honest, etc.) -​ Rules of thumb: heuristics (or mental shortcuts that allow people to solve problems and make judgements quickly and efficiently) intended to help up maximize utility in emergency situations or urgent situations -​ The critical level: we choose the action that will maximize the good when we are thinking in the “cool, calm hour”, with all the facts in hand Liberty vs Well-Being -​ For utilitarianism, well-being is all that matters. Liberty and rights are only important insofar as they secure well-being. Thus a utilitarian approach to the lockdown question may be prepared to override the right to privacy or liberty to protect well-being (628). -​ But this leads to various forms of paternalism like surveilling populations, restricting movement, forced quarantines, isolation, etc. Do we really want to support the “East Asian approach of constraining liberty and privacy to support security and well-being”? -​ The East Asian approach to constraining liberty and privacy to support security and well-being is often associated with Confucian communitarianism, authoritarian governance, and state paternalism. This model contrasts with the Western liberal tradition, which prioritizes individual rights and freedoms over collective stability. -​ Key Aspects of the East Asian Approach: 1.​ Communitarianism Over Individualism  ○​ Many East Asian societies emphasize collective well-being over individual rights. ○​ Confucian values promote social harmony, duty to the family and state, and respect for authority. ○​ Individual freedoms may be restricted if they are seen as disruptive to social order. 2.​ State Paternalism and Benevolent Governance ○​ Governments often justify limiting freedoms by arguing it is for the public good. ○​ There is a belief that the state has a moral duty to guide and protect its citizens, sometimes making decisions on their behalf. ○​ Example: Strict COVID-19 measures in China, South Korea, and Singapore limited personal movement but were widely accepted because they were seen as necessary for public health. 3.​ Security Over Absolute Privacy ○​ Many East Asian nations accept surveillance and data collection as necessary for social stability. ○​ In China, for example, the social credit system monitors behavior and rewards or punishes citizens accordingly. ○​ In Singapore, extensive surveillance helps maintain low crime rates but reduces personal privacy. 4.​ Legal and Cultural Acceptance of Restrictions  ○​ Citizens in many East Asian countries tend to have higher trust in government institutions, leading to greater acceptance of restrictions on liberty. ○​ Example: Japan and South Korea enforce strict regulations on speech (e.g., limiting hate speech and historical denialism), prioritizing social cohesion over absolute free speech. 5.​ Economic and Social Well-being as Priorities ○​ Some argue that economic prosperity and stability take precedence over Western-style civil liberties. ○​ Example: Hong Kong’s national security laws were justified as protecting economic and social stability, even though they restricted freedoms. -​ The East Asian approach constrains liberty and privacy in ways that Western liberalism often resists, but it is justified by cultural values that prioritize social harmony, security, and well-being. While this approach has led to economic success and low crime rates, critics argue it can suppress dissent and limit personal freedoms in ways that may be considered authoritarian.