Skripta Politika i etika_b83fa6b0-8c41-4325-bd3a-7e37fe271583_acccd0c5-a8f9-47f9-9747-233b68f89662(4).PDF

Therefore, according to the ethics of care, we may not feel an obligation to help those far away. Yet, many feminists think this view is too extreme. A balanced approach could combine both personal relationships and a broader concern for others. Animals Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals? S...

Therefore, according to the ethics of care, we may not feel an obligation to help those far away. Yet, many feminists think this view is too extreme. A balanced approach could combine both personal relationships and a broader concern for others. Animals Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals? Some argue that because raising animals for food causes suffering, we should avoid cruelty, which has led many to adopt vegetarianism. Noddings points out that the ethics of care depends on personal relationships. We may form bonds with pets, but not with animals raised for food. This suggests that while we care for animals we know, we may not have the same obligation toward those we don’t have a personal relationship with. However, arguments against this view stress that principles of ethics, such as fairness, should still guide our actions, regardless of personal feelings. In summary, the ethics of care challenges traditional moral theories by focusing on personal relationships, care, and emotional connections. It redefines moral obligations, sometimes prioritizing personal bonds over impartial principles. However, balancing care with broader ethical considerations, such as justice, is important for a fuller moral understanding. 11.3. 11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory The influence of men’s experiences on ethical theories is clear. Historically, men have controlled public life, which often involves impersonal and contractual relationships. In fields like politics and business, these relationships can even be adversarial. Decisions in public life typically impact many people, leading to the need for calculations on how to achieve the best overall outcomes. As a result, men’s ethical theories emphasize impersonal duty, contracts, balancing competing interests, and cost- benefit analysis. This focus on impersonal concerns has led feminists to accuse moral philosophy of having a male bias. Feminists argue that these theories fail to address private life, where relationships are personal and driven by care. Carol Gilligan calls this the “different voice” that is often absent in traditional ethical theories. A theory better suited to women’s concerns would focus less on bargaining and calculations, and more on love and caring. In private life, such values are central, and it is clear that morality must consider them. However, it is difficult to fit private life into traditional moral theories. Being a loving parent or a loyal friend isn't about calculating duties; it is about being a certain kind of person. This contrast between “being a certain kind of person” and “doing your duty” is a central issue between two ethical approaches. Virtue Ethics emphasizes moral character—traits like kindness, generosity, and courage. On the other hand, theories of obligation focus on impartial duty, where the moral agent listens to reason, determines what is right, and follows through. Virtue Ethics is well-suited to both public and private life, as it accounts for the different virtues needed in each sphere. Public life demands virtues like justice and beneficence, while private life calls for love and caring. Therefore, the ethics of care can be seen as part of Virtue Ethics, which many feminist philosophers view as integral to feminist ideas. While Virtue Ethics isn't exclusive to feminism, its connection to feminist concerns is strong, with Annette Baier referring to its male proponents as “honorary women.” Ultimately, the ethics of care’s effectiveness may depend on the viability of a broader virtue-based ethical theory. 12. Virtue Ethics 12.1. The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action The questions we begin with in ethics are crucial to shaping the direction of moral philosophy. Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics (ca. 325 b.c.), centers his inquiry around character. His main question is: "What is the good of man?" His answer is that the good of man is "an activity of the soul in conformity with virtue." Aristotle then discusses key virtues such as courage, self-control, generosity, and truthfulness. The ancient philosophers primarily focused on what traits of character make a person good, and the virtues played a central role in their ethical discussions. However, over time, this way of thinking was largely replaced. With the rise of Christianity, a new set of ideas emerged. Christians, following the example of the Jews, viewed God as the ultimate lawgiver, and moral goodness was seen as obedience to divine laws. Saint Augustine, a significant Christian thinker, distrusted reason and believed that moral goodness required subordinating oneself to God's will. This shift led to a focus on theological virtues like faith, hope, charity, and obedience during the medieval period. After the Renaissance, moral philosophy became more secular, but it did not return to the ancient Greek approach. Instead, the "Moral Law," derived from human reason, replaced the Divine Law. Modern moral philosophers began to focus on the question, "What is the right thing to do?" and developed theories around rightness and obligation, including: Ethical Egoism: Each person should act in their own best interest. The Social Contract Theory: The right thing to do is to follow the rules that rational, self- interested people would agree to for mutual benefit. Utilitarianism: One should do what will produce the most happiness. Kant’s theory: We have a duty to follow rules that could be universalized, meaning they could apply to everyone in all situations. These theories have dominated moral philosophy since the 17th century. However, some philosophers have proposed a radical shift, suggesting that modern moral philosophy is flawed and that we should return to Aristotle's way of thinking. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her 1958 article "Modern Moral Philosophy," argued that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it relies on an incoherent concept of "law" without a lawgiver. According to Anscombe, ideas like obligation, duty, and rightness are inseparable from this contradictory notion. She believes we should abandon these concepts and revive Aristotle's focus on virtues. Following Anscombe's work, there has been a resurgence of interest in Virtue Ethics. Philosophers have once again focused on the virtues, and Virtue Ethics has become a significant approach in contemporary moral philosophy. The question now is whether a return to Virtue Ethics is desirable, and whether it offers a more coherent and meaningful way of understanding morality than modern theories. 12..2. The Virtues A theory of virtue must cover key points: defining virtues, listing them, explaining what they consist of, and why they are considered good. It should also address whether virtues are the same for everyone, or if they vary across individuals or cultures. What is a Virtue? Aristotle defined virtue as a character trait expressed through habitual actions. It’s important to note that these actions are consistent and come from a stable character. For example, honesty isn’t just about telling the truth occasionally, but being consistently truthful. Virtues are good traits, while vices, which are also habitual traits, are considered bad. A virtuous person is someone we seek out, as their qualities make them desirable companions. These qualities can be different depending on the context. For example, a good mechanic should be skilled and honest, while a good teacher should be knowledgeable and patient. What Are the Virtues? Virtues are qualities that help people flourish and live well. Here’s a partial list: benevolence, fairness, civility, compassion, generosity, honesty, courage, justice, loyalty, dependability, and moderation. Each of these virtues helps individuals contribute positively to society and personal relationships. Some virtues are more specific to certain professions, but moral virtues apply to everyone. What Do These Virtues Consist Of? Each virtue has its own unique features. For instance: Courage is a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. It involves facing danger, but not recklessly. Courage is important in all aspects of life, from facing physical dangers to dealing with emotional challenges, like apologizing or offering support. Generosity is the willingness to give to others in a balanced way, between stinginess and extravagance. Aristotle suggested a reasonable amount to give, but this could be a challenge when wealth becomes excessive. An ideal interpretation of generosity means being willing to help others, but not at the expense of one's own well-being. Honesty involves more than just telling the truth; it also means avoiding deception. However, sometimes honesty may conflict with other virtues, such as self-preservation, which might justify lying in rare circumstances. Loyalty to friends and family is essential for deep personal connections. Loyalty helps build trust and provides support during tough times, making friendships and family relationships strong and enduring. Why Are the Virtues Important? The virtues are good because they enable individuals to live successfully, whether through overcoming challenges or helping others. For example: Courage helps us face danger. Generosity ensures we support others in need. Honesty maintains trust and prevents misunderstandings. Loyalty strengthens relationships. These virtues allow individuals to thrive in social and personal settings. Aristotle argued that virtuous individuals fare better in life because these traits help them succeed in various aspects, whether in relationships, work, or facing personal challenges. Are the Virtues the Same for Everyone? The virtues might differ across individuals due to the variety of lifestyles, personalities, and roles people occupy. For example, what is needed for a scholar might be different from what is required of a soldier. Furthermore, cultural differences can shape what is considered virtuous. However, Aristotle believed that some virtues are universal, as people, despite their differences, share common needs and desires. Thus, while virtues can vary in expression, some are essential to human flourishing across different times and places. In summary, virtues are vital traits that help individuals thrive, interact with others, and live a meaningful life. These qualities are valued differently depending on context and society, but certain virtues, such as courage, generosity, honesty, and loyalty, are universally essential for leading a good life. 12.3. 12.3. Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics Virtue Ethics offers two important advantages that make it appealing. 1. Moral Motivation: One key strength of Virtue Ethics is its natural explanation of moral motivation. For example, imagine you're in the hospital, and your friend, Smith, visits you. Initially, you feel glad because you see him as a good friend. However, Smith reveals that he is visiting only out of duty, not because he enjoys spending time with you. This leaves you disappointed, as you expected his actions to come from love or friendship, not obligation. Virtue Ethics highlights how motivations based on personal values, like love and friendship, are more valuable than just doing the "right thing" out of duty. The theory stresses the importance of personal qualities, like loyalty and affection, over just focusing on right actions. 2. Doubts About Impartiality: Modern moral philosophy often stresses impartiality, the idea that we should treat everyone equally. However, Virtue Ethics challenges this idea, particularly in the context of relationships. A mother, for instance, is partial to her children and cares for them more than others. This partiality is seen as natural and good. Virtue Ethics recognizes that some virtues, like loyalty, require partiality, while others, like beneficence, involve treating all equally. Instead of focusing solely on impartiality, Virtue Ethics helps us understand how different virtues interact and support each other in real-life situations. 12.4. Virtue and Conduct In this section, the text discusses how Virtue Ethics addresses the issue of character, which is often neglected by theories focused on right action. However, this focus on character might make Virtue Ethics incomplete when it comes to guiding actions. The question arises: what can Virtue Ethics tell us about evaluating actions, not just character? The answer depends on how Virtue Ethics is approached. One possibility is to combine the best features of theories that focus on right actions, like Utilitarianism or Kantianism, with insights from Virtue Ethics. In this case, we could still use these theories to assess right actions, while adding the consideration of moral character. On the other hand, some philosophers believe Virtue Ethics is a complete theory in itself, a view known as Radical Virtue Ethics. If this is the case, Virtue Ethics would either eliminate the idea of "right action" or redefine it based on virtuous character. Some philosophers, like Anscombe, suggest that we should stop using terms like "morally right action" and instead evaluate actions using terms from the virtue vocabulary, such as "intolerant" or "cowardly." According to this view, these terms would be enough to describe actions. However, proponents of Radical Virtue Ethics may still keep the concept of "right action" but reinterpret it within a virtue framework. In this case, actions would be assessed based on the virtues they reflect. The right action would be the one that a virtuous person would do, guided by virtues like honesty, generosity, and fairness. 12.5. The Problem of Incompleteness The main criticism of Radical Virtue Ethics is that it is incomplete in three key ways. First, it cannot fully explain why certain virtues are valuable. For example, why should someone be dependable? Simply saying that dependability is a virtue doesn't explain why it's good. There could be other reasons, such as it benefiting oneself, promoting general welfare, or being necessary for living together harmoniously. However, none of these explanations are rooted in the virtues themselves. This means Radical Virtue Ethics doesn't fully explain the value of virtues. Second, Radical Virtue Ethics struggles to guide us in difficult situations. For example, if I know news that might upset you, should I tell you even though it might hurt you, or should I avoid telling you to spare your feelings? Radical Virtue Ethics can't answer this because it doesn't explain what someone's "best interests" are in such cases. It cannot provide a clear interpretation of when virtues like kindness should apply. Lastly, Radical Virtue Ethics fails to address moral conflicts. Imagine being asked to comment on someone's bad haircut. You must choose between being honest or being kind, as both virtues conflict. Radical Virtue Ethics can't guide you on which virtue to follow, leaving you uncertain about how to act. This shows that the theory needs more than just general principles like "be kind" or "be honest" to navigate moral dilemmas. In conclusion, Radical Virtue Ethics, by itself, offers vague advice and lacks the depth to deal with complex moral issues. It requires a larger, more comprehensive moral framework. 12.6. Conclusion It seems best to view Virtue Ethics as part of a larger ethical theory, rather than as a complete theory on its own. A complete theory of ethics should include all the factors that influence practical decision- making, along with their rational explanations. The key question is whether such a theory can integrate both the idea of right action and virtuous character. The answer seems to be yes. For example, if we accept a utilitarian theory of right action, which suggests that we should do what leads to the most happiness, we could still consider the importance of virtuous character. A society where people lead happy and fulfilling lives would be ideal. We could then explore which actions, policies, and character traits are most likely to achieve this outcome. In this way, the study of virtue can fit into a broader ethical framework. 13. What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like? 13.1. Morality without Hubris Moral philosophy has a long history, with scholars developing various theories that both attract and challenge thinkers. These theories often conflict, and many are subject to serious objections. This leads to uncertainty about what is truly right. Some philosophers might claim that we don't know enough to reach a final answer, but we do know a lot, and we can form a reasonable view of what a good moral theory could look like. A modest conception of human beings is key to this theory. We must recognize that human beings are just one species among many, having evolved by accident and existing on a small planet in a vast universe. While humans are the most intelligent animals and use language, this doesn't justify placing ourselves at the center of the universe. Understanding our smallness helps avoid the arrogance of believing we are the pinnacle of creation. How reason gives rise to ethics is another critical point. Human beings are rational and can think about reasons for our actions. If an action promotes our interests, we take that as a reason to do it. This ability to reason gives rise to the concept of "ought," meaning we should act according to the strongest reasons available. Reason allows for moral deliberation and helps us recognize when we are being inconsistent. For example, racism is immoral because it involves treating people unequally without valid reasons, going against reason and morality. Morality demands impartiality: we should treat everyone's interests equally. If Psychological Egoism were true, suggesting we only care about ourselves, morality would be impossible. However, this view is false. Humans are social creatures, and we care about others' welfare, which aligns with reason, social living, and our natural inclination to cooperate. This makes morality both possible and natural for us. 13.2. Treating People as They Deserve The idea of promoting the interests of everyone equally is appealing, especially in fighting bigotry. However, there are times when it is right to treat people differently, based on their actions. Human beings are rational and capable of making choices, so those who choose to treat others well deserve good treatment, while those who treat others badly deserve the opposite. For example, if someone like Smith has always been generous and helpful to you, and now she needs your help, you have a special reason to assist her. She has earned your respect and gratitude through her past actions. On the other hand, if your neighbor, Jones, has always been unhelpful, and he now asks you for a ride, he doesn't deserve your help because of his past behavior. If you help him, you would be treating him better than he deserves. Treating people based on their actions is not about rewarding friends or punishing enemies but about recognizing people as responsible agents who deserve responses based on their conduct. There is a clear difference between Smith, who deserves gratitude, and Jones, who deserves resentment. If we didn’t care about these distinctions, it would mean denying people the chance to earn good treatment from others. This is crucial because, in a community, our well-being depends not only on our actions but also on how others treat us. A system that acknowledges deserts (what people deserve based on their behavior) allows individuals to shape their fate. Without such a system, good treatment could only be obtained by force, luck, or charity. Recognizing deserts gives people control over how others treat them, saying, “If you act well, you are entitled to good treatment.” Ultimately, acknowledging deserts is about treating others with respect. 13.3. A Variety of Motives The idea of "promoting the interests of everyone alike" might seem incomplete when it comes to capturing the full picture of moral life. While people should be motivated by impartial concern for others, there are other morally praiseworthy motives that go beyond this idea. For example, a mother loves and cares for her children, not simply because she wants to promote their interests, but because of the special bond she shares with them. Her attitude toward her children is completely different from how she feels about other children. Similarly, a man is loyal to his friends, not because of a general concern for everyone’s interests, but because of his unique relationship with them. Eliminating motives like love, loyalty, and friendship would be harmful to our moral lives. If everyone only acted based on calculated benefits, we would lose these deeply human connections, and the world would be much worse off. Moreover, people may have other valuable motives that are not strictly "moral" but still play an important role in life. For example, a composer works hard to finish her symphony, even though she might do more good by focusing on something else. A teacher devotes time and effort to preparing his classes, even if other actions could result in greater benefits. These motives, such as taking pride in one’s work or creating something of value, contribute to personal happiness and the welfare of others. Just as we should not eliminate love and friendship, we should not eliminate these noble intentions either. 13.4. Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism In earlier sections, it was suggested that we should "promote the interests of everyone alike," but this view doesn't fully capture all of our moral obligations. Sometimes, we must treat people differently based on their individual deserts, and we also recognize that other motives, like love or friendship, are important for a fulfilling moral life. Despite these differences, it is possible to connect these diverse concerns under one standard. The key might be human welfare—promoting happiness for everyone. This broad standard can be applied to actions, policies, social norms, laws, and even individual character traits. However, aiming for the greatest happiness doesn't always mean consciously focusing on promoting welfare. In daily life, we often don't think about maximizing general happiness; instead, we focus on caring for our loved ones, keeping our promises, or taking pride in our work. This practical approach aligns with the view that while the ultimate goal is human welfare, we don't always need to consciously aim for it. This view is not new. The philosopher Henry Sidgwick argued that universal happiness should be the ultimate standard but that this doesn't always require acting from pure benevolence. In some cases, acting from other motives might better achieve general happiness, a position that leads to Motive Utilitarianism. However, a more plausible theory is Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism. This theory recognizes that there are different ways to pursue general welfare, and we may use different strategies to achieve it, such as acting directly to promote welfare or focusing on daily responsibilities like caring for family or doing our job well. One way to make this clearer is to imagine a list of virtues, motives, and methods of decision-making that would help an individual live a good life while contributing to the welfare of others. This "best plan" for living would consider various factors, such as virtues needed for a good life, commitments to others, and duties related to one's role in society. Though creating this list is difficult and might not be possible in practical terms, we can be sure it would promote basic virtues like honesty, kindness, and self-control, while also addressing when to make exceptions to general rules. Importantly, each person’s "best plan" will be unique. People have different personalities, talents, and life circumstances, so their best strategies for living will vary. Some might thrive in roles like being a priest, while others might have different paths to fulfillment. Despite these differences, the right thing to do for anyone is to act in accordance with their own best plan, as long as it promotes the interests of everyone alike. Thus, Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory, even though it might sometimes endorse motives that don’t appear to be directly utilitarian. 13.5. The Moral Community As moral agents, we must be concerned with everyone whose welfare may be affected by our actions. This might seem simple, but it can be challenging in practice. For example, one in five children worldwide do not receive essential vaccinations, leading to about two million unnecessary deaths each year. Citizens in wealthier countries could easily reduce this number, but they don't. If children in our own neighborhoods were dying, we would likely take action, but the location of these children should not matter. The moral community should include everyone, no matter where they live, and all interests should be taken equally seriously. Moreover, the moral community is not limited to people in the present. We must also consider the welfare of future generations. The consequences of our actions today can affect people in the future, and we have an obligation to account for their interests. This has serious implications, especially when it comes to issues like nuclear weapons and climate change. Nuclear weapons have the potential to harm future generations by polluting the environment for thousands of years. Similarly, if we don't take action on global warming, our children will suffer even more than we do. The moral community also extends beyond humans to include other sentient animals—those capable of feeling pleasure and pain. When we harm or kill animals, we are causing harm, just as we would be to humans. Philosophers like Bentham and Mill correctly argued that the interests of nonhuman animals must be included in our moral calculations. Excluding animals from moral consideration based on their species is as unjust as excluding people based on race, nationality, or sex. Therefore, the single moral standard is not just human welfare, but the welfare of all sentient beings. 13.6. Justice and Fairness Utilitarianism has faced criticism for being unfair and unjust, especially in cases involving punishment. For example, it might seem that Utilitarianism could justify framing an innocent person if it promotes the greater good, like reducing future crime. However, this would be blatantly unjust, as the innocent person hasn’t done anything to deserve such treatment. Our theory differs from traditional utilitarian views on punishment. We argue that punishment should be a response to a person’s past actions, which justifies treating them worse than others. It would not be right to punish someone who has done nothing wrong. Justice also arises when people are treated differently based on their actions. For example, if an employer has to choose between two employees for a promotion, and one has worked hard while the other has done the minimum, it is just for the hard-working employee to be promoted. According to our theory, voluntary actions can justify treating people differently, but nothing else should. This challenges the common view that people should be rewarded for things like physical beauty or intelligence, which are largely determined by their birth and circumstances. People do not deserve their natural endowments, as they are the result of a "natural lottery," a concept introduced by philosopher John Rawls. If the hard-working employee were passed over for promotion simply because the other employee had more natural talent, this would feel unjust. The employee who worked harder would rightly feel cheated, as they deserve the promotion based on effort, not luck. In a just society, people should be able to improve their situation through hard work, but not because of the advantages they were born with. 13.7. Conclusion A satisfactory moral theory should aim to maximize the interests of all sentient beings. The theory I find most plausible is Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism, which suggests that we should live according to our "best plan" to achieve this goal. However, it’s important to approach this suggestion with modesty. Throughout history, philosophers have proposed many moral theories, and each has had its flaws. Despite this, there is still hope for finding a satisfactory moral theory, whether it’s my suggestion or another one in the future. Civilization is only a few thousand years old, and if we manage to avoid destruction, the study of ethics has a bright future ahead. Sve najbolje. AUTOR: Nurko Lažić zvani Šefko