Moral Theories in Ethics (Dr MSM) PDF

Action, Free Will & Influential Moral Theories in Ethics DR MOHD SHAMZI MOHAMED DEPT OF BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY  INTENTIONAL ACTION AND FREE WILL  Since ethics is a PRACTICAL subject, we cant help to equate it with ACTION.  Important to consider not everything...

Action, Free Will & Influential Moral Theories in Ethics DR MOHD SHAMZI MOHAMED DEPT OF BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY  INTENTIONAL ACTION AND FREE WILL  Since ethics is a PRACTICAL subject, we cant help to equate it with ACTION.  Important to consider not everything that we DO, but only things that we DO INTENTIONALLY (Those we chose to do).  When talking about ACTIONS in ethics, only counted things that we do intentionally.  Reason: Only things that we chose to do can be counted as RIGHT or WRONG.  You cannot be either PRAISED or BLAMED for something that happened to you.  INTENTIONAL ACTION AND FREE WILL  The Importance of INTENTIONAL ACTION to ethics is underpinned by the importance of the notion of FREE WILL.  We believe that only mature human beings can act morally or immorally since mature human beings are capable of: i. Understand the different between RIGHT or WRONG. ii. Freely choose to perform actions because they are right OR despite their being wrong.  Only adults, in other words, deemed capable of choosing freely to act for moral reasons.  INTENTIONAL ACTION AND FREE WILL  Very young children are not considered to be full Moral Agents  Though they are believed to be able of acting INTENTIONALLY, they are deemed incapable of understanding the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.  In many countries, the law recognised this by not holding children fully responsible should they break the law.  For animal, they are not accorded the status of Moral Agents as, partly, they are not believed to be capable of understanding Right or Wrong. Also partly many thinks they are incapable of acting intentionally, or freely choosing how to act. Minimum age at which children are subject to penal law Country Age Mexico 6 - 12 Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, South 7 Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand, USA Indonesia, Kenya, Scotland 8 Ethiopia, Iran, Philippines 9 Nepal, England, Wales, Ukraine, 10 Turkey 11 Rep Korea, Morocco, Uganda 12 Algeria, France, Poland, Uzbekistan 13 China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Vietnam 14 Egypt 15 Argentina 16 Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Congo 18 Example of Legal age to be prosecuted in Brazil  You might say that your pet understand difference between RIGHT and WRONG. You know this every time he PHILOSOPHICAL looks guilty at you when got caught in the act of doing BACKGROUND sometime heinous OF Arguably, your pet understand the difference UNDERSTANDING between behaviours that attract punishment and those that don’t. That is quite a different. RIGHT AND WRONG If you doubt this, ask yourself which of this reasons prevent you from stealing someone’s purse i. You might get caught & punished ii. It would be wrong One that understand the difference between right and wrong is the one who WOULD NOT STEAL even if there is NO CHANCE OF GETTING CAUGHT. It is different in kind from anything of which animals are capable. Influential Moral Theories In science, theories help us understand the empirical world by explaining the causes of events, why things are the way they are. A moral theory explains not why the one event causes another, but: ❖ Why an action is right or wrong ❖ Why a person or a person’s character is good or bad ❖ Give us reasons for believing them so Influential Moral Theories Moral theories also ❖ Help eliminate grey area ❖ Clarify difficult problems ❖ Resolve conflict that arise Many theories are out there, but this lecture will only focus on: ❖ Utilitarianism Rule-Based Moral Theories ❖ Deontology ❖ Virtue ethics Character-Based Moral Theory  Greek philosopher who considered the topic of how to make decisions that lead to the greatest amount of happiness. Known as a hedonist because he was a person who focuses their life on maximizing pleasure. Early form of utilitarianism - Utility or usefulness of an action and whether this action increases pleasure. Pleasure can be described as the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. Epicurus (341-270 BCE) Epicurus was interested in more than short term self- interest. The consequences of our actions do matter, and other people matter too.  Jeremy Bentham Philosopher, jurist and originator of utilitarianism “An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation”. ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do...' He's saying that people are ruled by pain and pleasure and that this helps us to know what is MORAL. Not just our own pain and pleasure that should matter, but the pain and pleasure of all human beings. Everyone's pain and everyone's pleasure are of equal importance. The Utility of a policy is measured by its tendency to promote good.  John Stuart Mill Disciple of Jeremy Bentham “Good” as happiness is a more complex notion, achieved by living a principled and prudent life. Pointed out that while everyone's pleasure is of equal importance, all pleasures are not equal. To Mill, some pleasures are more valuable than others. Some pains are more troubling. Emphasize that, Unless an action hurts someone else, others do not have a basis for regulating what a person should do (Avoid to interfere with a person's liberties). Reason that our internal feelings also help regulate our actions, such as feeling sympathy for others.  Utilitarianism Many people have strong intuitions to the effect that, it is only the consequences of an action that matter morally The CONSEQUENCE of one's conduct are the ultimate BASIS FOR ANY JUDGMENT about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Focus here is on consequences of action. RIGHT ACTIONS - those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved.  Example of Utilitarianism Should the judge let the convict go? A utilitarian will say yes, because this maximizes total happiness while causing no future pain in this case. Here are some other actions that might trigger these intuitions in you: I. A patient with a terminal and painful illness desperately wants to die. His family are exhausted and beg their doctor to help him. The doctor gives him a dose of morphine intending it to kill him. II. A high ranking officer, knowing the terrorist plan to attack a particular hotel, tells the hotel manager to close the hotel on the grounds of an outbreak of food poisoning. The manager does so. III. A father, knowing his unemployed son is depressed, forces him to work in the family business in order to regain his self- esteem  Utilitarianism For the Utilitarian the end does justify the means. There is no action that cannot be performed so long as performing it would produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It is possible for the right thing to be done even from a bad motive. To answer the practical question of “What ought a person to do?” A utilitarian answer is that a person ought to act so as to maximize happiness or pleasure and to minimize unhappiness or pain.  Counting Costs & Making Tough Calls Military decision-making, and public policy generally (including economic policy), frequently make use of “outcomes-based” reasoning The “right” decision, action, or policy is often defined as the one that optimizes the balance of benefits over harms for all affected. For example: US decision to use nuclear force on Hiroshima Utilitarian may reason to drop the bomb, while other group was against it. Which choice bring the greatest happiness? What if the US lost the war? Is victory = tyranny of the masses ?  Triage tent 1. Will die without extraordinary measures 2. Will live…Don’t treat now 2 3. Might save if they get medical attention Is this a “fair” concept? ❖ How do you morally justify letting people die without medical attention? Shouldn’t we try to save all life? 1 3 ❖ How would you feel if you woke up in Tent #1? ❖ How we morally explain to patient in tent#1 they would not see a doctor?  Criticism on Utilitarianism Some have said that Utilitarian → because they don’t recognize any act as absolutely wrong → They can’t recognize rights Early criticism of utilitarianism – Hedonism is moral theory fit for swine. Atheistic – leave out God or by extension, other higher order moral considerations. Promote selfishness – calculus of pure self-interest Quantification and measurability of “the good” Incommensurate notions of “the good”  Other problems of Utilitarianism Are there really no actions that are intrinsically wrong? How do we know in advance what the consequences of our actions will be? Must we always act to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number? What is happiness and how do we measure it? Whose happiness must be counted? Can a utilitarian account for personal integrity?  Deontology German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will. Good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well- motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect’ for the moral laws that are universal.  Deontology Disagree and contrasted with consequentialism. Kant view that the core of morality consists in following a rational and universally applicable moral rule and doing so solely out of a Sense of Duty, free of personal desires and goals. Two types of duties: ❖ Perfect duty: is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time. e.g., don’t kill, don’t tell lies, don’t steal, don’t break promises ❖ Imperfect duty: is that which we should do as often as possible but can not be expected to do always e.g., be charitable, loving. Deontology is the “Study of Duty” & Kantian is its leading theory.  Deontology Kant called this morality rule a system of Categorical Imperatives A categorical imperative is an ABSOLUTE RULE, a rule that binds us irrespective of our desires or any other consideration We are truly moral agents, according to Kant, only when we act out of reverence for the moral law; i.e., only when we obey the categorical imperative If we act for any other reason, we are not acting morally (even if our act is identical to one, we would have performed if we were acting out of reverence for the law) So what are “imperatives”? An imperative is a ‘SHOULD’ or a ‘MUST’ statement: ❖‘You should do this’ ❖‘I must do that’ These are imperative utterance Here is a simple imperative of the sort you act on daily: I want to get to Exam Hall by noon I believe that I can only get to the Exam Hall by noon if I catch the 10.30 am commuter train I must, therefore, catch the 10.30 am commuter train This, though, is actually an example of HYPOTHETICAL Imperative. Your being rationally bound by this imperative depends on your HAVING THE DESIRE AND THE BELIEF that function as premises (Or a statement about what a person need to do to achieve a desired aim)  Categorical Imperative A categorical imperative is different. It binds you in virtue of your rational nature (There are some “SHOULD” for everyone). Your desires become irrelevant because it is a rational moral obligation. Here is a categorical imperative: ✓ I believe it is right to do A ✓ Therefore, I should do A The imperative comes straight from the belief, no desire is needed Categorical = Absolute = Universal  You probably immediately think – but there is a premise missing What about ‘I want to do the right thing’? Kant would say that if you think like this you haven’t properly understood the moral concept ‘right’ To say that in order to do the right thing you must want to do the right thing → implies that you will only do something you recognize to be right if you want to do that thing. The thing about morality is that it requires us to act whatever we want. So, a categorical imperative is a form of rule that rationally binds us irrespective of our desires. But what about its Content? In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant offered several formulations the ‘categorical imperative’, all supposedly equivalent. Here are two: 1. The principle of humanity: Always treat humanity whether in yourself or in another, as an end (in themselves), never solely as a means. Human being has inherent values. It is always wrong, according to Kant, to use others as nothing more than tools by which to achieve your own ends.  2. The principle of universalizability I should never act in such a way, that I could not will that my maxim should be universal law Kant argues that before we act for a given reason, we should always ask ourselves ‘what if everyone were to do this?’ For Kant, the moral law binds us absolutely in virtue of our capacity for reason: to act immorally is to act irrationally. In a nutshell: Kant believed that MOTIVATION & SENSE OF DUTY, rather than consequences was an important component of moral reasoning and that goodwill was a universal moral decision-making and part of a categorical imperative.  Example of Deontology What should the doctor do?  In this case, the duty of the doctor is to go through whatever channel he can and see to it that the heart transplant takes place Dr. Hamid does have a duty towards the parents of Emma since she is a minor. He needs to talk to Emma's parents and get the consent to go through with the procedure. According to deontology, Dr. Hamid's duty towards Emma's parents is less important than his duty as a physician. If consent cannot be obtained, Dr. Hamid's duty still doesn't change in performing the operation. He must then obtain a court order giving him permission to operate against the wishes of both the girl and her parents. Consider deontology: Problems / Critics for Deontology: How do we know which actions are intrinsically right or wrong? Are there any actions that are intrinsically right or wrong? How could blindly following a set of rules make us moral? Aren’t there sometimes moral reasons for breaking moral rules? What if someone has more than one duty and is in conflict? How do they then choose to act? Kant's theories presuppose that a person making a moral decision is a rational actor, when not everyone is rational or uses reason when making a decision. Definition of Virtue Ethics Relies on Virtues (i.e., qualities that are considered morally good) to make good ethical decisions  What is Virtue? Aristotle characterizes virtue as a mean between two extremes: deficient and excessive; with regard to passions, desires, etc. DEFICIENCY OF TRAIT EXCESS OF TRAIT  What is Virtue? People learn virtues by seeing others who exemplify them. Then attempting to emulate that person. At first, a person is merely mimicking virtue and may apply their understanding of virtue incorrectly. Moreover, their virtues will be incomplete. Over time, however, a person will begin to feel the appropriate emotions in the appropriate amount at the appropriate time; and their general understanding of themselves and their circumstances will be developed. At this point, their attempts to express virtue will be more than mimicry, and it could be said they are expressing their own character.  Virtue Ethics The virtue ethicist argues that what matters morally is not what we do at a time, but what we become over time. To the virtue ethicist it is the acquisition of a good character that is – or should be – our moral aim. This involve practicing Practical Wisdom. Thus, virtue ethics is a radically different kind of moral theory, it focus on the development of virtuous character.  Virtue Ethics Character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. The central task in morality is being and becoming a good person, someone possessing the virtues that define moral excellence. For Aristotle, this is called “eudaimonian ethics”, which holds that the final goal of virtue ethics is reaching eudaimonia, meaning achieving happiness, flourishing, or rich and satisfying life. Note that eudaimonia does not mean a life based on physical pleasure. That will be hedonistic.  Virtue Ethics Importantly the virtue ethicist rejects the idea that we should: (a) Follow rules (b) Try to produce certain consequences Importantly we can’t be born virtuous, virtue is something that must be acquired. Being virtuous is a matter of acquiring the right habits. Just like an athlete must acquire the right habits so his natural strength will flourish. Similarly, human beings must habitually act in accordance with virtue to avoid becoming morally flabby.  Virtue Ethics Since virtue is a mean between excess and deficiency. Thus, practicing virtue ethics means engaging in a process in which one reflects on what the virtues are in order to determine how one should act. Once you have become virtuous you will: ❖ Know what the right action is; ❖ Perform the right action; ❖ Perform the right action because it is the right action.  Virtue Ethics Importantly acquiring the virtues cannot be understood as a means to happiness. Anyone who attempts to be virtuous because they want their own happiness has missed the point. Virtue is its own reward. A virtue theorist insists there is no such thing as a manual that will tell us how to act morally. The only guidance virtue theory offers us when it comes to our own actions is to tell us to seek out virtuous people and emulate them.  Example of Virtue Ethics A friend of you is drowning. You can swim. Why would you save him? From deontologist view, performing that action is simply because duty requires it. The friend we saved from drowning would probably be appalled if we declared that we saved him out of duty even though we did not really care whether he lived or died. According to virtue ethics, if we save a drowning friend, we should do so out of genuine feelings of compassion, kindness, or loyalty- not because of moral rules or social expectations. Here are some considerations that may prompt you to accept Virtue Ethics… A poverty-stricken scientist is offered money by a rival company to share details of her work. The scientist knows these details will soon be in the public domain, so no harm would be done by accepting. Nevertheless she rejects the offer, unable to betray her company. An unemployed biologist is interviewed for his dream job. The interview goes well until he discovers the company is funded by a Christian organization that expects employees to be Christian. Although he could get away with claiming to be a Christian, the biologist doesn’t want to lie and so loses the job.  Problems for Virtue Ethics How do we know who is virtuous? Are there any virtuous people? Is an act virtuous because a virtuous person performs it, or does the virtuous person perform it because it is a virtuous act? Comparison Utilitarianism Deontology Virtue Ethics Morality is about Morality is about finding Morality is about good outcomes good rules people We should work on We should assess the becoming honest, most likely result of our We should come up with the compassionate, kind, actions & choose the system of rules to guide our courageous etc. As we actions with the best behaviour and stick by it. becomes more virtuous, we result will make more ethical choices & won’t need rules Greater Net happiness Divine Law Habituation  The Trolley Problem Moral dilemma that famous in 1976, forces us to think how to choose when there are no good choices. A. Do you pick the action with the best outcome? B. Or stick to moral code that prohibits causing someone death? https://youtu.be/bOpf6KcWYyw https://youtu.be/yg16u_bzjPE https://youtu.be/Qfn9Jl6TIRA  Thanks You Want to meet Jeremy Bentham in person (Father of utilitarianism) ? Then you can visit UCL COLLEGE now in LONDON Wax Head New Home Real Head