TEST 1 ETHICS PDF

Subjectivism _________________________________________________________________ Right for me, wrong for you It is the idea that ethical statements are really statements of personal opinion, nothing more. Since most people believe everyone’s opinion counts equally, it...

Subjectivism _________________________________________________________________ Right for me, wrong for you It is the idea that ethical statements are really statements of personal opinion, nothing more. Since most people believe everyone’s opinion counts equally, it makes ethical argument pointless When someone says “X is what is right to do” what they really saying “I like X” Weaknesses of Subjectivism It cannot deal with ethical disagreement. When people disagree ethically, they are saying “I believe X and you should too!” People generally do not include the italicized part above when talking about opinion. E.g. No matter how much you like McDonald’s you probably don’t believe everyone should like it as much as you. However, you might feel that you are right about your position on the death penalty and people should agree with it. If ethics is just about opinions, than no one was ever wrong about racism, slavery, sexism, genocide, or pretty much anything! People actually change their minds about their ethical standpoints, or at least questions them… this is incompatible with subjectivism since, by its nature, assumes people are infallible about their ethics (opinions) Cultural Relativism__________________________________________________________________ Grouping Ethics in the Group’s Opinion The ethical theory that says right and wrong are relative to one’s culture. No universal ethics exist; what matter to individuals is the collective ethical opinions of their groups There is no single, overriding ethical standard for cultures to follow. Each culture exists in its own little ethical bubble. Two Elements to Cultural Relativism The Diversity Thesis: Ethical standards differ from culture to culture; what may be right in one may be wrong in another. E.g. Equal rights for women, blasphemy, etc. The Dependency Thesis: Therefore, what people ought to do is based on their own culture’s ethical standards. Note that this thesis sidesteps what ethics depends on except for what is commonly understood.  Weaknesses of Cultural Relativism It is difficult to define cultural boundaries within even one geographic domain, such as Canada People generally find their identity in more than one culture or subculture… what then? Curiously, Cultural Relativism lacks respect for tolerance. If cultural relativism were to encourage tolerance everywhere, it would be suggesting an ethical standard that transcends all cultures… breaking its own rule Free Will_____________________________________________________________________ What does “Ought to” really mean? To recap, ethics is less about the way things are, and more about how they ought to be When describing a phenomena, people use descriptive statements, striving for a non-biased neutral account. When speaking ethically, people tend to use normative statements, which describe how things should be, according to norms Therefore, when I use a normative statement such as “You should take out the garbage,” I am describing things as I believe they should be, according to a norm of behaviour. Implicit in this is that you can, actually, perform the action you are ethically required to do “Ought” implies “Can Imagine someone named Nick with no arms or legs… it would seem ridiculous to say Nick is morally required to take out the garbage! Note, however, that we may still find a normative statement that demands that Nick contribute to the household: “You should help your younger sister with her homework.” It isn’t just the physical world that might interfere with our “ought” premise… If one believes fate has laid out all our choices… does ethics even exist? In other words, if our actions are determined, then are we responsible for them? There are many types of determinants: Genetic, Psychological, Theological, and Causal Determinism It seems that if I do not have the choice to make a particular decision, it would be difficult to hold me responsible for it  Ethics would be incoherent in a world where no one chooses their actions If no one chooses their actions, then no one is responsible for them either Responsibility To further examine this, we need to distinguish between two types of responsibility Causal Responsibility is simply determining whose actions caused what result E.g. The Joker poured poison into the water reservoir and people died… it seems logical the Joker is causally responsible Another example: Batman starts up the Batmobile, startling the bats in his cave which fly out and distract another driver, forcing her car off the road. Is Batman causally responsible? Moral Responsibility is basically seen as follows: does the person in question deserve the moral praise or condemnation for the action in question? As previously seen, it seems free will is required to be responsible and therefore earn the moral praise for an action E.g. If something good happens because of something you did accidentally, do you deserve the cheers you are hearing? E.g. If someone tricked you by deceiving your senses, would you deserve the moral condemnation you are feeling? As such, one could only earn the praise or condemnation if one CHOSE the action that would elicit the response Results that happen bereft of the element of choice may be seen as tragic, but not really immoral. E.g. “Act of God.” Back to Determinism Many determinants were mentioned six slides ago, such as Genetic, Psychological, Theological, and Causal … could insanity be considered one of them? The Argument Ethics requires Free Will, and being morally responsible for something requires that one uses one’s free will to choose the action for which they are morally responsible The exercise in free will is seen in our ability to have desires about our desires… second-order desires Notice this process is a reasoned one (even if it leads to the wrong conclusion!) and involves choice  E.g. It is 9 at night and Stacy is exhausted. She wants very much to sleep. However, she has an exam the next day and wants to review. As well, her favourite program is coming on. Just as she is about to turn on the TV, the cute guy from class finally calls her and asks her out for coffee, then and there. Stacy has many desires all competing at the same time. Using reason and exercising free will, she can make second-order desires about her first desires to determine her course of actions. So, she may decide to TiVo her program, meet the cute guy for coffee and hope the caffeine will keep her awake to pull an all-nighter Note that you may disagree with Stacy’s final decision; you may feel she could have made a better choice If this is so, this just further emphasizes the idea of free will: You have freely analyzed the situation and, using reason, determined a better conclusion. You would have ordered your desires differently. This is the very essence of moral responsibility. Why? Because we feel that people who make immoral choices are those who have not “correctly ordered” their first order desires into second- order ones E.g. A CEO has desires to amass personal wealth, make money for her shareholders, and act responsibly with her business practices If she were to dump chemicals into a public lake because it was cost- efficient, we might say she ordered her desires in an immoral fashion; she bears moral responsibility So the question becomes… … does the Joker have free will? Which is to say, can the Joker make second-order desires out of his initial ones? Can the Joker Freely Choose? We may want to answer “yes” so that the Joker can be held responsible, both causally and morally for the evil he has done… … but ask yourself this: If the Joker got the idea in his head to put psychotic grimaces on all the fish in Gotham’s fishing waters… do you think he could talk himself out of it? If he had a sudden desire to kill a henchman who displeased him, could he hold back? In Other Words…  Do you think the Joker can ever make second-order desires about his initial desires? Or does he (psychotically) always pursue his first-order desires? The Reality-Revealing Questions______________________________________________ The Moral Object There is no such thing as an action that is inherently good or evil; an action’s “goodness or evilness” is determined by the context under which it took place To avoid confusion, understand that many descriptive terms we have actually combine action and context together. E.g. “Rape” and “Genocide.” Therefore, to understand the context of what we are discussing (the Moral Object) we need to determine its reality in its component parts. What? It is necessary to put aside myths and presuppositions regarding the moral object and understand what is empirically, with as little bias as possible E.g. The Napalm example in class Why? Refers to the motivating reason or intention of the person performing the action Motive gives essential meaning to the human action since we are the only creatures who act out of thought E.g. The money-lending scenario from class How? Refers to the method in which the action manifests It is not simply “If you do nicely, it is good” or “If you lack style, it is bad.” Usually about issues of integrity E.g. The sledgehammer mercy killing example from class Who? To do ethics abstractly and ignore the who that you are dealing with is a tragedy, since every person is utterly unique This does not mean that what Lola wants is good for Lola. It means taking into account the identities of all involved Where?  Odd to think of geography as making a moral difference, but it can. An action in a particular location may be offensive where it otherwise mightn’t be E.g. Loading a gun at a firing range versus a crowded bus When? The time factor often affects what you are dealing with, influences the chain of events and limits the alternatives available The timing matters, whether it is when you break bad news or when you decide to terminate life What are the Foreseeable Effects This question does not demand some sort of omniscience; rather, based especially on the answer to “who”, one should attempt to determine what are the most likely consequences to the action being considered What are the Viable Alternatives? This question is necessary to prevent someone from stubbornly “force- fitting” the answers from the others questions to make a desired course of action seem reasonable. And now… Once the Reality-Revealing Questions have been answered, we have done what we can to set up the moral object. We are now in a position to begin a moral or ethical analysis of the object in question. In essence, the RRQ provide a sort of fact sheet; it is a laying out of the essential circumstances of the case Egoism_______________________________________________________________________ A heavy responsibility When does one intervene? How? Why? Perhaps most importantly, what are the consequences for action? For inaction? The writers of the movie are trying to demonstrates the wisdom that is necessary to go along with the power, to be able to answers these questions Did any of you choose the power to heal? If you did, did you think about how to use your gift? Why would we agree that with powers comes responsibility, when, you first got your powers in slide 1, you didn’t behave according to that, but rather self-centeredly? Your answers probably have to do with the ethical theory of Egoism Egoism is the idea that we act based on our self-interest.1`q Psychological Egoism is the theory that people are essentially self- centered, acting on what is good for them. It is a descriptive theory. Ethical Egoism is the theory that people should act on their own best interests. It is a normative theory. Psychological Egoism One formulation of this theory is that people act for their narrow, short- range self-interests. Another formulation suggest that this self-interest can be understood more broadly and long-term. Long-term self-interested goals such as career or health, would need to avoid short-term selfish goals in order to be fulfilled. The Western philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was one of the greatest proponents of this theory. He believed that maximizing your self-interest is a core aspect of what being a human being is. It is our nature. Hobbes also believed it was rational to pursue our self-interest… it’s just that people don’t always pursue the most rational strategy in advancing their own good. Naïve Egoism: suggest you pursue all your immediate interests as they pop up. E.g. Keep promises until it no longer serves your needs, take whatever is needed at the time, etc. Enlightened Egoism: suggest being willing to frustrate short-term interests for the sake of long-term ones. E.g. while inconvenient, keeping a minor promise may have a bigger payoff later when someone more important decides you’re trustworthy Egoism Hobbes believed that the pre-societal state was ruled by naïve egoism, but that society is formed by people thinking along the lines of enlightened egoism. Joining society maximizes long-term interests, but puts some restrictions on immediate behaviour in order to create the maximizing conditions for all… including yourself. Since there are always some who think they can maximize their long- term goals without the commensurate restrictions on their immediate behaviour, Hobbes believed society needed an iron-fisted ruler (the Leviathan) who would mercilessly punish those who would “cheat the system.”  Questions Relating to Psychological Egoism Do people always act according to what is best for themselves… or what they think is best for themselves? How does Psychological Egoism deal with the problem of “Weakness of Will?” Does the satisfaction I get out of an action mean that the satisfaction itself was the motivation for the action? Ethical Egoism Individual Ethical Egoism: I ought to look out for my own interests. Help is given to others only when it also helps myself Universal Ethical Egoism: Everybody ought to look out for their own interests. Help is given to others when it coincides with helping with helping oneself. Which is the basis for a Hobbesian society? Universal Ethical Egoism What are some questions raised by Egoism? What is the lesson of “The Ring of Gyges?” What “solution” would have been necessary to address the problems found in the story? Why would people opt for the “Leviathan?” Is Psychological Egoism innate? How is Ethical Egoism like the free-market economy? Is Universal Ethical Egoism coherent? Is Egoism about morality? Utilitarianism_________________________________________________________________ Do you think… … the Ends ever justify the Means? … results matter more than methodology? … happiness is the goal of the human being? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you may be a Consequentialist Why Consequentialism Makes Sense In Consequentialism, “good” is determined by results; the better the consequences, the more responsibility you have to bring them about. Under this system, any method is considered fair game for usage if such usage would bring about better consequences If you had a choice between several options, and the one you chose didn’t create the best outcome, you could have chosen better, right? Acting within Consequentialism  Which of the RRQ does Consequentialism focus on? While some people act according to principles or certain character traits, consequentialists would consider that selfish In such a view, principles and character traits operate as roadblocks to what may be the method that achieves the best consequences for all Utilitarianism: More Pleasure, Less Pain (please!) Utilitarianism is the form of consequentialism that evaluates consequences based on how much happiness and suffering they contain. Jeremy Bentham is most closely associated with Utilitarianism; he believed the good humans pursue is happiness, and the absence of pain. He referred to this as The Principle of Utility. So… What’s “Good” is “What Is Good for Me?” Awesome! Not so fast… Bentham married Hedonism (pursuit of pleasure, or in this case, happiness) with egalitarianism What this means is that everyone’s happiness is valued equally As such, when a decision is made, the happiness and suffering of all involved is taken into account. This is referred to as Maximizing Utility. Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus For Bentham, the following could be used to help determine an action’s potential utility: Intensity: The pleasure of eating a carrot versus eating chocolate Duration: Pain of stubbing one’s toe versus breaking it Certainty: Jumping from a great height to concrete versus a giant fluffy pillow Propinquity: Refers to the immediacy of the pleasure vis-à-vis the action. E.g. eating an ice cream cone versus working out at the gym Fecundity: How likely is the action to be followed by more pleasure (if it is a pleasurable) or pain (if it is painful). E.g. A good conversation with a friend would have high pleasure fecundity. Purity | Impurity: Basically the opposite of fecundity, it measures how likely the action will be followed up by the opposite feeling. E.g. Eating all the candy in a bowl has high propinquity and low purity (or high impurity Extent: Refers to how wide of an effect the action has. Some decisions affect only ourselves, while others affect millions MacBeth or Jersey Shore? John Stuart Mill continued Bentham’s line of thought in his book, Utilitarianism  One issue he noticed is that people seem to get pleasure from different things, but that there seemed to be a noticeable difference in the quality of said things As such, Mill distinguishes between higher pleasure and lower pleasure Levels of Pleasure This seems to interfere with Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus, but Mill believed it made sense for even utilitarians to seek the higher pleasures While the average person does not know enough about opera to properly enjoy it, they need no such training to enjoy slapstick comedy However, the Opera Lover is capable of enjoying both, and seems to enjoy opera more. What this seems to indicate is that when one has equal experience with both the higher and lower pleasures, they seem to always prefer the higher pleasures. E.g. An older person would probably not want to trade places with a younger person, since the lower pleasures (younger body) would not really compares with the higher pleasures the older person already has (greater wisdom, experience, etc.) Approaches to Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism: Involves directly increasing the good through one’s actions, in each situation. Done in the following way: 1. Assess the options 2. How much good or utility is produced by each option? Remember Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus 3. Chose the right option Rule Utilitarianism: Involves indirectly increasing the good by following rules of behaviour. This is accomplished in the following steps: 1. Ascertain your general rule of conduct 2. Ask what would happen if everyone followed this rule 3. Ask about the opposite rule 4. Choose the best alternative that would have a net increase in utility over the long run Challenges to Utilitarianism Justice and Rights? If the best consequences can be achieved through bending of rules or suspension of rights, utilitarianism believes that should be done. E.g. The (act) utilitarian justification for slavery Utilitarianism is too demanding? This objection centers on the need to preserve common-sense distinction between required ethical conduct and supererogatory conduct (which is above and beyond one’s ethical duties)  o E.g. If everyone had the demand to move to a third-world country to help the poor like Mother Teresa, there would be a net loss of happiness over time. A threat to integrity? An adherence to utilitarian values requires a detachment from your sense of self and a diminishment of identity. o E.g. George and Greg the competing biochemists o E.g. The demands to save a stranger over a loved one Can we really know what produces the most good? Because knowing what will actually happen is impossible, utilitarianism may yield some weird results: Being praised for actions that would seem wrong or blamed for action that seem right o Counter-argument: Differentiate between expected and actual consequences (Rules Utilitarianism)