Philosophy Revision Notes PDF

The Individual and the Collective: Summary of Ethical Theories and Legal Concepts Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) Jeremy Bentham: o Pleasure and Pain: People seek pleasure (utility) and avoid pain (cost). o Maximising Utility: The greatest moral principle is to m...

The Individual and the Collective: Summary of Ethical Theories and Legal Concepts Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) Jeremy Bentham: o Pleasure and Pain: People seek pleasure (utility) and avoid pain (cost). o Maximising Utility: The greatest moral principle is to maximise utility— utility is the overall balance of pleasure over pain. o Consequences Matter: The morality of an action is judged by its consequences in terms of utility maximisation. o Government and Law: Should aim to benefit the greatest number, a rational calculation that guides decisions, even with a small majority (e.g., Spelucean case). o Law and Economics: Law is a system of incentives to act efficiently, using economic calculations to maximise overall happiness. o Comes closest to Handy’s expediency: He agrees with the opinion polls of the general public, which were on the side of acquittal Criticisms: o Human Rights: No respect for human rights, seen as "nonsense upon stilts." o Justice: Bentham's focus on calculation lacks consideration of fairness in distribution. o Individual Persons: Does not respect individuals as ends, but only as experiencers of pleasure and pain. o Justice vs. Calculation: Critics, like Radbruch, argue justice is about fair distribution, not calculation. o Measuring utility: It’s challenging to quantify pain, pleasure, or happiness, and reducing complex values like dignity or liberty to calculations can oversimplify or belittle them. o Non-consequentialist objections: Figures like Immanuel Kant argue that dignity has intrinsic value and cannot be compared or traded off against other metrics. John Stuart Mill: o Defender of Liberty: Mill marries utilitarianism with liberalism, advocating for individual freedom. (Liberalism views the protection of liberty as the core purpose of the state, with security serving as a tool to achieve that end) o On Liberty: Freedom is what makes humans distinctive. The state should protect and promote individual freedoms. Liberty and individua o Harm Principle: The state can only limit individual freedom if someone else is harmed. If harm is self-inflicted, the state should not intervene.  o Rights and Social Progress: Rights are important, but dependent on social progress and utility maximisation. Criticisms: o Rights Depend on Progress: Rights are not absolute but dependent on their societal context. o Moral Balance: Infringements on individual rights can’t always be explained in utilitarian terms—there is more at stake. Utilitarianism, in general Act utilitarianism: Considers whether any proposed action will result in increasing the average welfare. Essentially, we are only concerned with the justice (the utility-maximising consequences of the act). Would torturing the detainee maximise overall welfare? If the torture saves many lives, the act might be justified because the consequences improve overall happiness. Rule utilitarianism: Asks what rule is best instituted to increase universal welfare. Assess the outcomes of a potential rule, and whether this is morally the best thing to do based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Considers the broader implications of a rule. If I write down this rule, will I achieve the consequences I want? Rule utilitarianism might conclude that authorising torture as a rule diminishes societal welfare, even if it seems justifiable in individual cases. - In either case, we must add up the pros and cons of the consequences of allowing or not allowing such an act or instituting a rule. We assess possible harms and benefits. - Utility, in utilitarianism, corresponds to benefit/overall welfare (greatest happiness for greatest number of people, even if it is just 51%) Tries to avoid pain. Utilitarianism looks at the consequence of an act or a rule. If the consequence gives you happiness, then it is good The guiding principles of utilitarianism: - Rational calculations on the morality of decisions, based on possible outcomes. Consequentialist theory - Pleasure and pain are our sovereign masters - The highest principle of morality is to maximise utility (the overall balance of pleasure and pain) - Ticking bomb scenario: Often used to illustrate utilitarian reasoning. Act utilitarianism would justify torture to benefit the greatest number. Rule utilitarianism might not- by allowing torture, what next? Objections against utilitarianism: - Hard to measure utility - Cannot accurately predict the consequences of an act or rule - Does not respect individual human rights (According to Bentham, that’s that, but according to Mill, this is bad, because freedom becomes conditional/only applicable to some, and for Mill, individuality, not utility, is the priority. However, Mill will sacrifice one person if it means maximising positive outcomes- harm principle) Deontology (Immanuel Kant) Human Dignity and Autonomy: Kant asserts that freedom is self-legislation, following one's rational laws, not desires. Humans are rational beings, and their reason allows them to be free. This autonomy leads to self-legislation- only the use of our reason makes us free. Reason gives us the unconditional law of morality: the categorical imperative. Categorical Imperative: 1. Act only on maxims you want to be universal law. Don’t do something if you don’t want it to be a norm (e.g. lying) 2. Treat others as ends, not merely as means to an end (prohibition of dehumanisation). Motive over Consequence: Morality is about acting out of duty, not the outcomes of the action. The use of reason to determine laws that are universal and treat humans as ends is central. Human Rights: Kant's ideas are foundational for modern human rights and dignity. Criticisms: Can be sacrificial (e.g. the terror case) Innate Freedom: o Defined as the natural independence of every individual to act according to their will, limited only by the rights of others. o Rooted in reason and autonomy (self-legislation): acting according to self-imposed laws rather than external desires or influences. o Freedom enables individuals to spontaneously begin a new course of action without being determined by natural laws or external pressures (e.g., pain/pleasure). Link to Morality: o Acting morally = acting out of duty, following principles rationally legislated by oneself. o The categorical imperative requires actions to be based on universal laws (maxims) and prohibits treating oneself or others merely as a means to an end. o Morality stems from reason and the ability to act autonomously. Link to Motive: o Moral worth depends on motive, not consequences. o Actions are moral only when performed out of respect for the moral law, not self- interest or emotion. o Freedom allows individuals to choose to act out of duty, ensuring motives align with moral principles. Link to Duty:  o Duty is the obligation to follow the moral law, regardless of personal desires or consequences. Can relate to Radbruch’s justice. o Freedom enables recognition of duty; duty ensures freedom is used morally. o Kantian ethics emphasises doing the right thing for the right reason, rather than acting based on outcomes. Comparison to Bentham: o Bentham: People are guided by pain/pleasure. o Kant: People are guided by freedom and reason, acting autonomously. Kant's Distinction Between Value and Dignity Value: o Something that is measurable, comparable, and exchangeable. o Associated with material goods or services, which serve human desires or purposes- things that are replaceable. o A set of values can determine someone’s morality Dignity: o Intrinsic, absolute, and beyond any price or equivalence. A quality reserved for rational beings. Cannot be replaced. o Reserved for rational beings as ends in themselves. o Signifies the inherent worth of every individual as a moral agent. Connecting value and dignity to the Categorical Imperative: 4. Humanity as an End in Itself: ▪ Rational beings possess dignity because of their autonomy and capacity for moral reasoning. ▪ We must respect others’ dignity, never using them merely as tools for personal goals. 5. Beyond Price: ▪ Dignity cannot be sacrificed or replaced for greater utility. ▪ Moral principles respect the inherent worth of individuals, not treating them as interchangeable. 6. Universal Law: ▪ Act only on maxims that could become universal laws, reflecting the equal dignity of all rational beings.  Examples: o Truth vs Lying: Lying cannot be universalised; it erodes truth and violates dignity. o Sacrificing Individuals: Utilitarianism may justify sacrificing one for many, but Kant argues this disregards dignity, treating the individual as a mere means. Absolute and relative rights - Absolute rights: Draw an intransgressible boundary. Never permissible to infringe upon these rights for any reason, e.g. security. (e.g. torture, slavery, genocide) - Relative rights: These leave states some room for manoeuvre to act in the name of security/public safety/economic wellbeing, under certain conditions. The duty to protect/uphold liberties is inbuilt into the structure of relative rights. (e.g. freedom of association, right to private and family life, right to liberty). Liberty and security in consequentialism and liberalism Consequentialism: Justifies infringements on rights/liberties based on societal consequences. Security can be valued directly (as a goal) or indirectly (e.g., enhancing well-being or utility). Policies are assessed via cost-benefit analysis to maximise the common good (e.g., justifying torture if it saves lives). Liberty and security are situationally prioritised without a fixed hierarchy. Example: Utilitarianism supports infringing rights if it increases overall happiness (e.g., arresting someone to prevent future crimes). Liberalism: Liberty is intrinsic, enabling autonomy and moral development. Security is instrumental in protecting basic rights and liberties. Rights can only be infringed to safeguard the liberties of others (e.g., Rawls prioritises equal basic liberties). Absolute rights cannot be infringed, while relative rights may be under specific, justified circumstances to balance liberty and security. Waldon’s arguments against the assumption that a threat leads to a shift in the balance between security and liberty - Conflict Between Liberties: Waldron argues that debates on liberty and security are better understood as conflicts between different liberties, not a balance between liberty and security. Restricting liberties doesn’t necessarily enhance security and can even undermine  it. He warns against the institutionalisation of emergency powers, which can lead to a permanent erosion of personal autonomy. - Risks of Increasing State Power: Expanding state power during emergencies risks targeting minorities or political opponents, setting a dangerous precedent. Emergency measures often become permanent, and there’s insufficient evidence that restricting liberties effectively enhances security. Waldron calls for evidence-based justifications for such measures. - Asymmetrical Implementation: Liberty restrictions, like racial profiling or ethnic screening, often disproportionately impact minorities or foreigners, creating inequality. Measures such as the USA Patriot Act exemplify how certain groups bear the burden of restrictions while others remain largely unaffected.