Week 3 Lecture Notes PDF

Week 3 Notes Lecture 14 Analytic philosophers are cautious of the tools of the argument. The ultimate values of the objectivist ethicist - reason, purpose and self esteem Which comes about by the corresponding virtues of rationality, productivity, pride. Rationality is man’s basic virtues. The so...

Week 3 Notes Lecture 14 Analytic philosophers are cautious of the tools of the argument. The ultimate values of the objectivist ethicist - reason, purpose and self esteem Which comes about by the corresponding virtues of rationality, productivity, pride. Rationality is man’s basic virtues. The source if all his virtues. Man’s all vices comes from having an u focused mind. Which is the refusal to know and refusal to see. That which is anti kind but anti life. One must never 1. Not form judgments based on someone else’s mind (independence) 2. sacrifice one’s conviction (integrity) 3. Attempt to fake reality (honesty) 4. Never seek the undeserved nor grant the unearned (justice) A strong emphasis on the individual. Never act like a zombie. A person without one’s own purpose or motives. No sphere of life is outside of the filter of rationality. Pride = Moral ambitiousness. Following all virtues that are rational. Reject all unearned guilt, eg. karmic baggage and living in guilt. All life is an end in itself. Man’s achi went of his own happiness is the man’s highest moral purpose. Since man has no automatic knowledge. Man can have no automatic values. He has not innate ideas, hence he can have no innate value judgements. This is man being free. Whether to take responsibility or feel the burden of it is our choice. Emotions are feedback mechanism. They are in direct relation to the value system we hold. Whether we are true to our values or not. Feelings don’t determine our values. When we have self contradictory desires. We are bound to lead a life of turmoil. Happiness is not primary, values are. People with different values like mystics and sadists and masochists adhere to their values. What you choose is very crucial. Ayn Rand calls the happiness of such people a momentary release from the chronic state of terror. Happiness is a state of non contradictory joy- a joy within penalty or guilt. A joy that does not clash with your values. That which makes you happy by some undefined emotion is not necessarily good. Emotions are bot tools of cognition. This is the fallacy of hedonism. Happiness can be the purpose of ethics but not the standard. Desire can’t be the standard of ethics. For desires can be self contradictory. Eg. in the taxation system, if you tax the rich to subsidise the poor. Is looked as moral cannibalism. Robert Nozick talks about this. The humanitarian apostles look down upon self interest. And say the only self interest is by sacrificing for others. Rational selfishness is what objectivist ethicist promotes. There is no conflict of interest in rational men. Trade is representative of the principle of justice. A trader is only paid for his achievements. A lasting friendship is an exchange of values. Both giving and taking the unearned and undeserved is Wrong. Charity and subsidy are both giving the undeserved. Each person should have that sense of self respect. Sartre- if you’ve done something wrong and condoned, or forgiven. That’s also wrong. Punishment is your right. Forgiving someone’s act is belittling their agency. A trader loves only for the other person’s virtues not their weaknesses and flaws. Only a selfish and rational man of self esteem is capable of love. To love is to value. The man who does not value himself cannot value anything or anyone. If a relationship is based on empathy or charity. Where one is feeling sorry for the other. That is not love for an objectivist ethicist. To love is to add value to the other. What is the benefit from living in a human society. Knowledge and trade can be gained. It enables man the division if labour and contribute. These allows them to specialise. No society can be of value to man’s life if the price is to surrender one’s right to life. Migration usually takes place from less free societies to more free sociétés where talent is allowed to blossom. No government should have the power to take the role of a criminal and impose physical compulsion against any man. No man can obtain any values from others by using physical force. The only proper role of the government is to protect man’s rights. Capitalism for Ayn Rand is pure uncontrolled and unregulated laissez faire capitalism. The other three ethical theories are 1. mystic 2. social 3. Subjective They have caused the world to be the situation they are today. They are anti life. Eg. Amitabh Bachchan as the angry young man who was against the injustice of the “Seths”. Post LPG policy entrepreneurs are celebrated for creating wealth. Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value. Self sacrifice is his highest moral duty. She denies the “dog eat dog” criticism given to capitalism. Instead she affirms capitalism as wealth creating. A Heraclitean universe where man gets to decide what is good based on his whim. This is the current state. A state of moral anarchy. Lecture 15 MODULE 4: ETHICAL THEORIES - Consequentialist and Non-consequentialist theories, Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Deontological ethics, Ethical rules, Situation ethics, Virtue ethics. List of Modules 1. Value theory: What is to value? Valuation in different disciplines. Values as foundational. Intrinsic vs extrinsic values. Universal and situational values. Moral and religious values. 2. Concepts: Good, Right, Duty, Justice, Equality, Love, Purusarthas. 3. Egoism, Altruism, Ethical relativism & universalism. 4. Ethical theories: Consequentialist and Non consequentialist theories, Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Deontological ethics, Ethical Rules, Situation Ethics, Virtue ethics. 5. Ethics in the Indian tradition. Applied Ethics: Issues and Dilemmas. Consequentialist and Non-consequentialist theories, Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Deontological ethics, Ethical rules, (WD Ross) Situation ethics, Virtue ethics. Consequentialist and Non-consequentialist theories, How do you determine whether an action is morally worthwhile or not? Either retrospectively (Past) or prospectively (future) What does it lead to? Anything else? If you have a goal, and your actions are driven towards your goal. It is a consequentialist approach. What are the people driven to do something that they are not driven by? The inherent nature of the action? Which is independent nature of action. Independent of the consequences. We usually do something with a goal. Here is the crucial difference between intrinsic and extrinsic. This is basically non-consequentialism If there is something inherent in the action itself than the goal then we are dealing with the school of non-consequentialist Is there a character of the act independent of the consequences? We need to determine the type of consequence Short or long term consequences? Short term consequence of Green revolution was feeding the hungry. Meeting the food gap. (Intended) The long term consequence was the loss of fertility of the soil. (Unintended) Solved short term problems but did create long term consequences. What about intended and unintended consequences? Eg. Man who was pushed in the pond to save a child. Can unintended consequences also be rewarded or recognized? And how would it be compared with intended consequence. Consequences for whom? Consequentialism: Agent relative - different agents can value difference consequences, for example egoistic consequentialism. Agent neutral - granting that each agent has the same ultimate aims, so that different agents' aims cannot conflict.' For instance, utilitarianism. Some aims are similar. Eg. All of us would like to be have a healthy body. Act consequentialism - consequences of an act. Judge an act by the consequence of the act. Case to case basis Rule consequentialism - consequences of a rule. Judge a rule by its consequences Universal rule applicability Th rights surpasses this though. These rights are intrinsic to the individual. This comes close to deontology. Non-consequentialism: If not consequences. then what? Character of an act, intrinsic value independent of consequences, for example, the notion of rights, say human rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): 'Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.' (Article 11 of the UDHR) ◦ Eg of Ajmal Kasab who was given the trial. Where he was presume to be innocent until proven guilty. Independent of public opinion. Non consequentialism: ◦ Deontological ethics (e.g., Immanuel Kant) ◦ Religious laws (intrinsic) If you can suffix a statement by “No matter what” it becomes non-consequentialist The same practice can have either a consequential justification or a non-conseqential justification or even a combination of both. For example, 'one SHOULD NOT lie' because: (a) It is intrinsically wrong (b) It brings out undesirable consequences (c) Or a calibrated threshold where ‘A ’may be violated when ‘B ’exceeds the threshold. Depends on where we peg our threshold, beyond which it is acceptable to lie. Lecture 16 Hedonism Pleasure (including the absence of pain) as the sole intrinsic good in life. Pleasure as Something that is good in itself ◦ This depends on how we define pleasure. Intellectual pleasure, sensual pleasure etc. Pleasure? Happiness? Aristotle's happiness as well being. ◦ Aristotle talks about it in a long term contentment. ◦ A hedonistic value theory does not focus on cumulative aspect. A hedonistic value theory admits of a variety of claims about the characteristic and types of pleasure - quantity or quality - intellectual/aesthetic pleasures vis-a-vis sensual pleasures. ◦ Hedonism as a theory put emphasis on pleasure seeking. ◦ Eg. Intellectual pleasure like observing art. ◦ Plato’s work is in the form of dialogue and arriving at a claim. Plato's Philebus: a dialogue between one view 'that pleasure is the good, the true goal of every living being, and what everyone ought to aim at; and the view that intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are better and more excellent than pleasure for all who are capable of them. (Frankena. William K. Ethics | By l William K. Frankena. 2nd ed.. Prentice-Hall. 1973. pp. 83-94.) 'Intelligence, knowledge & wisdom' Vs. pleasures - either refined or basal? ◦ If a resource scare nation uses its money to build monuments and museums to provide aesthetic pleasure to it citizens. This sort of nation ascribes to a refined hedonistic value theory. ◦ Try to connect theory with real life examples. Observe expenditures, both personal and organisational and see what goals they opt for. Quantitative and qualitative hedonists - details of defining pleasure in a hedonistic value theory. ◦ Eg. A government has to choose the diet for the hungry population in the country. The ugly choice between giving quality food to a few or quantity but less quality to all. ◦ Usually organisations opt for quantitative hedonistic approach. Thought Experiment To test our theories and boundaries of our thought. Imagine a hedonistic chair, where your nervous system is attached to simulator (Eg Matrix, a video game) Having an altered sense of reality, with minimal risk and maximum pleasure. One could argue that this is not pleasure, because it does not involve any risk. One is not “really” in that situation. This is providing pleasure without the usual process that the same task would require. Morality aside, people naturally seek pleasure - psychological hedonism. ◦ Just because we naturally, physically seek pleasure, we should also morally seek pleasure. Morally we should seek pleasure - ethical hedonism. ◦ We ought to seek pleasure morally. ◦ If change our pleasures to more refined pleasures, such as knowledge and wisdom, then the theory is taken more seriously.  Paradox of hedonism: 'Many of the deepest and best pleasures of life (of love, of child rearing, or work) seem to come most often to those who are engaging in an activity for reasons other than pleasure seeking.' (P. 442 Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2015.) ◦ Most acts which give us pleasure are those words which we don’t do just for the sake of pleasure. Eg Child rearing ◦ If you chase pleasure you are unlikely to get it. When you immerse yourself in the pursuit, pleasure comes as a side effect. Hedonism is a moral theory that is often underrepresented and refuted but that is not the case. Lecture 17 Utilitarianism Maximise utility or happiness Dam example Dams provide electricity and water in lean periods Dams also submerge a significant portion of land on the banks of it. This leads to relocation 5000 relocated while 100000 depend on the dam’s electricity. Can the rights of 5000 be overlooked for the benefit of 1,00,000 people. If yes -> a utilitarian stand If no -> a deontological stand Utilitarianism a form of consequentialism. Consequentialism is bereft of content. Utilitarianism provides that content Utility of 5000 vs utility of 1,00,000 A utilitarian can make a comparison A deontologist will not make such a comparison. From the Cambridge dictionary The 'moral theory that an action is morally right if and only it it produces at least as much good (utilit for all people affected by the actions as any alternative action the person could do instead. (CDP) The guiding principle is - "The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number - Francis Hutcheson, Inquiry Concerning Moral Good and Evil. This is the core of utilitarianism JS Mill - Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) also called the principle of utility. James Bentham & JS Mill. They are the founders of utilitarianism. Early utilitarians held variations of hedonism Utilitarianism = Consequentialist principle + Hedonic aspect. These are the 2 sides of the same coin. Felcific calculus: 'The alleged possibility of computing the value of 'units' of happiness, is associated the utilitarianism of Bentham. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2015) Eg. how does a democratic government choose what to do. You can try to calculate the unit of happiness that comes from type A act ans type B act. (Space va defence. Poverty vs infrastructure) Used to compare two acts and see which would be beneficial. Utilitarianism is most optimised when the number of people affected are large. Utilitarianism as a universal teleological principle that calls for the maximization of goodness in society, or, put another way, the greatest goodness for the greatest number.' Teleology = Purpose; Same as consequentialism. Telos in Latin stands for purpose This is in contract to deontology It is universal become it takes into consideration a large number of people. Eg. two people on a raft. With provision only for 1 to survive. 1 is a scientist with possible cure of cancer and the other is an undistinguished person. How do we share the provision. This gives us clarity on the concept of “fairness”. A utilitarian would say, the scientist should eat because there is maximisation of utility in that. A ruthless preference to the happiness principle. The utilitarian principle is in a way unfair to the minority. Just because their happiness units are less, their happiness is overlooked. Utilitarianism can turn into majoritarianism without the notion of “rights”. Rights keep utilitarianism in check. Is utility the same across individuals or does it vary? Some people are easily satisfied while some aren’t. Act and Rule utilitarianism Act utilitarians 'say that we ought ideally to apply the principle to all of the alternatives open to us at any given moment.' No need to just stick to the rule, evaluate acts which are available to us and then decide. "Rule utilitarians, on the other hand, state that an act is right if it conforms to a valid rule within a system of rules that, if followed, will result in the best possible state of affairs. Always stick to the rule, this is the way to optimise the system. Lecture 18 Non-consequentialism (Deontology or Duty) A teleological system is goal oriented. Deontology is action and means oriented. Deontological ethics are 'based on the notion of a duty, or what is right, or on rights themselves, as opposed to ethical systems based on the idea of achieving some good state of affairs (… Consequentialism) or the qualities of character necessary to live well (... Virtue Ethics).' (ODP, 2015) ◦ Most of lives decisions are value oriented. ◦ When you build a dam on a river, it is teleological because it brings about convenience. It is also deontological because it affects the rights of the villages around the banks of the river. ◦ The goods that it brings about is electricity but this is in contrast to our duties towards the tribals living their fro centuries. ◦ The goodness of the action is not dependent solely on the action but also the virtues of the agent performing the action. ◦ Always try to connect the value theories with practice. Example- ◦ Eg. Choosing between either nullifying the score of the two students who did have access to the question paper or re conducting the exam ◦ Deonotlogical solution would be to reconnect the exam to maintain the sanctity of the exam. ◦ This is because deontology puts the load on the system or the collective. ◦ It has to be done “no matter what” Immanuel Kant is known for deontological ethics. Deontological theories contradict teleological theories Deontological theories of morality accord the moral property of actions as many times independent of the non moral consequence they bring along. ◦ When there is an act which has a nn moral consequence, eg building a dam to allow irrigation for all. ◦ In the process of building the dam, the people around the dam are affected. This is the process of building the dam which affects the people around. ◦ Just because people will have access to irrigation, does not justify the moral claims on the people being rehabilitated. Simply put, deontological theories hold that there are fundamental moral claims that do not gain their justification by the non moral consequences. ◦ This means there is something intrinsically wrong with the act. For instance, 'keeping one's commitment' or 'not indulging in unprovoked violence' can be examples of deontological claims when they are prescribed irrespective of the non moral consequences that they might bring along. Teleological theories (Consequentialism) Deontological theories (Non- consequentialism) - A moral 'good' is good only because it - There can be moral 'goods' that are good brings about a non moral good. irrespective of the non moral consequences they bring about. - Teleological theories assume that there is - Deontological theories assume that there only one basic or ultimate right-making may be many basic or ultimate right making characteristic, namely the comparative non characteristics. moral value. Lecture 19 Ethical rules (WD Ross) A model of non-consequential or deontological ethics. Prima facie duties (ethical rules at first glance) Ross postulates his moral theory on moral rules, a version of which is termed as the 'prima facie' (lat. 'in first glance') duties. ◦ Duties are intrinsically valuable. ◦ Ross want to put up a theory of moral decision making. He gives rules which are intrinsically valuable. The prima facie duties need to be calibrated according to the situation and are intrinsically valuable. Prima facie duties are duties that become apparent /evident on the first encounter with a moral dilemma Ross' view is that our actual moral duty in any situation has to arrived at by weighing our prima facie duties and deciding which is most important. The duties according to Ross: Duties which need to be done. No matter what. We only have to decide the precedence over the other. 1. Duties from the previous acts of the agent: - Duties of fidelity: keeping one's commitment (implicit or explicit) (keeping promises) - Duties of reparation: Making good a wrongful act. (If you have wronged someone, you have to correct it) 1. Duties of gratitude: repay obligations 2. Duties of justice: preventing inequitable distribution 3. Duties of beneficence: make better the lives of other beings. 4. Duties of self-improvement: growth in the agent's own virtues or of intelligence. 5. Duties of non-maleficence: "not injuring others" What about the decision? The 'decision' is to be taken by the agent in due cognizance of the particular situation. ◦ The six rules are not mechanically applicable. One has to take into consideration the situation. There can be a hierarchy amongst duties, when other components are equal. There can be no absolute hierarchy amongst the duties. Upshot: The middle path ? Ross' theory remains absolutistic yet attempts to cater to the particularities of varied moral dilemmas The rules are absolute, but the hierarchy depends on the particular situation. The hierarchy amongst rules is decided by what? Hierarchy depends on situation. There is an accommodative quotient. Moral intuition! Do we have a moral sense? Moral qualities supervene on sensible qualities? Essentially moral judgements? Can there ever be a uniformity in judgements? Finally: A uniformity in judgements requires a uniformity in human nature Our moral ideas and moral judgements are based on certain common facts about human nature Within our enormous variety lie some essential similarities and that is the source of our morality!