weeks 4-6 up.pdf

lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 What’s Wrong with ‘Deontology’ Week 4 • Some usage of philosophical words obscures or hinders us from asking the right questions • If such words are to be found, they must be banished from the classroom • Deontology is such a word • Warns against usurped concepts that a...

lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 What’s Wrong with ‘Deontology’ Week 4 • Some usage of philosophical words obscures or hinders us from asking the right questions • If such words are to be found, they must be banished from the classroom • Deontology is such a word • Warns against usurped concepts that are different from empirical concepts • Usurped concepts as ‘fate’ or ‘fortune’ may be unjustifiably employed • Problem with words such as fate is that we know what they mean, but we have no warranty to believe in such a thing • They make us as wrong questions, deontology is one such word Benthamine Deontology • Deontology: invented by Jeremy Bentham referring to what is proper or ought to be done • It meant ‘science of duty’ or ‘that branch of knowledge which deals with moral obligations’ • Initial definition innocent, as long as we know that it says nothing about duty itself • However, Bentham’s definition is not what people think of • Modern moral philosophers think of an ethical theory that is not teleological or consequentialist • The word had been largely forgotten – re-introduced by CD Broad in 1930 • Broad unhappy with Sidgwick’s schemata which conflated epistemology and metaphysics • Defined deontology as duty or obligation based • Effectively divided ethics into two: deontological and teleological Attraction of his distinction • 1. does not see the two as the only distinction • 2. deontology is about intrinsic rightness of an action – does not say anything about what makes action right • 3. not all theories fall within this divide • 4. does not see deontological principles as inviolable • Could it mean there is more than one deontological theory? Frankena’s ethics No one in mid 20th century truly appreciated Broad’s distinction Insistence on approaches of two versions Downloaded by Tyla Frank lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • • Misunderstanding of deontology seen in Frankena’s inadequate account for its negative definition Negative definitions • Deontology understood in same way as usage of foreigner • We learn nothing about the foreigner Varieties of non-consequentialist duty • Two understandings of deontology: • 1. theories of what must or must not be done • 2. there are moral requirements that cannot be violated for the good • 1. global (relates to 1st order prescriptions in an ethical theory) • 2. local (internal relations of theory’s moral requirements) • Both not tied to epistemology or metaphysics • Neither entail moral absolutism • WD Ross: none of deontology duties are inviolable • For an ethic to be absolutist it must have non-conflictual constraints The right and the good • Deontology: right prior to the good • Teleology: good prior to right • But right could mean instrumental reason to produce good prescribed by theory • For deontology there is difference in understanding local (good can be pursued by what is set by right) and global (right not brought by good) Questions unanswered and unaddressed • Deontologists: those with internal and those with external motivation • Wrong to label both as deontologists • Deontology does not help us decide how an action is made right Downloaded by Tyla Frank ([email protected]) lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • • Kantian Deontology • Kant never aware of meaning of word as invented by Bentham Deontology like its teleological antithesis is about right and wrong action Not clear what deontological goodness is except that it is not action’s good consequences Kant’s ethics is not what we think it is – a theory of right action • 1. right is rarely used in his foundational work • 2. Kant: right action is not enough – action must be done respect or sake of law • “Kant’s project is to understand the self-contained goodness of moral action • Not interested in right action as his book is analysis of good-willing • Kant’s theory is a local thesis What’s left of deontology • We must understand it to mean non-consequentialist • We must also eliminate two-type dichotomy of ethical theories Jonny Anomaly Week 5 L1 Nietzsche’s Critique of Utilitarianism • Nietzsche’s critique of utilitarianism is linked to his critique of Christianity • Did not reject morality • Merely questioned internal coherence of utilitarianism The utility of neighborly love • The connection between utilitarianism and Christianity is their view of equal worth of each individual • Relies on his difference between slave and master morality • The former is Christian (with characteristics of pity, helping hand, kindness) and the latter is exercised by the powerful – exploit the weak and are aware of their power • Though different from Christianity, utilitarians seek not pleasure of conqueror but of the herd Downloaded by Tyla Frank lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • • Herd morality: identification of one with the rest (has been wrongly extended to unequals) • Sees egalitarianism as self-subverting – avoidance of suffering inconsistent with utilitarian goals (suffering is necessary for the survival of the herd) • Sees happiness and its opposite as intertwined • Distinction must be made between utilitarianism as a standard of value and as a standard of procedure • Must work out what utilitarians are committed to The utility of evil Evil does not undermine but enhances man Not praising evil but showing its use as well as how utilitarians are inconsistent • The dichotomy of good and evil by utilitarians is undermined by their belief in natural selection • Equality may enfeeble • What is the psychological possibility of altruism Egoistic altruism • Sees neighborly love merely as a will to conquer • Just an alternative to will to power • Selflessness is not based on altruism but on advantages it brings • N’s criticism (in this instance) is inconsistent with his earlier criticism of utilitarians as seeking to benefit the herd • How do we account for that contradiction? • 1. Maybe he saw human psyche as having conflicting motives • 2. he could have been offering different types of criticism Perfection and culture • Cameron’s objection to Nietzsche critique as based on his desire for perfect man • Anomaly: this is wrong, Nietzsche thinks utilitarians and socialists have an idea of a perfect man • Nietzsche: Christian deterioration has led to belief that man has one ideal Moral criteria • Nietzsche’s two moral principles: universal validity and disinterestedness Downloaded by Tyla Frank ([email protected]) lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • • • Does he criticize utilitarianism because it lacks structure to be a moral doctrine? • Anomaly: that charge ignores his many uses of morality (eg as an anthropological concept or as several European theories) • Objects to utilitarian attempts at finding common criterion • Advocates cultural sensitivity • Distinguishes English universalizability with Kantian universalizability • The former is herd morality • But other high moralities are possible after it In Defense of Utilitarianism: An Economist Viewpoint Week 5 L2 James A Yunker Criticism of utilitarianism has been unfair Utilitarianism is consistent with modern social scientific policy analysis Criticism of utilitarianism unfair, just like criticism of socialism • Advocates pragmatic market socialism • Will defend what he calls broad utilitarianism Broad utilitarianism • From traditional definitions of utilitarianism – it can be said that specifics such as taxation for welfare of all, are difficult to work out • But presumption of social policy implementation must be that it will work out for greater welfare • Broad utilitarianism avoids specificities • Maintains evaluation of desirability of individual behavior and social policy is based on utility • Utilitarian evaluations are not based on reason alone but reason and intuition Features of broad utilitarianism • 1. behavior patterns cant be predicted with certitude • 2. social welfare is over time – as opposed to an instant evaluation • 3. considers relations that exist – not their form – holds that individual and social behavior in calculating utility to be highly complex Downloaded by Tyla Frank lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • • 4. consumption of material goods and services not only measure of utility – knowledge is limited making determination uncertain • 5. distinction between simple goodness/value from moral goodness/value • Turns to respond to criticism The “irrelevance” of utilitarianism • Irrelevant because few people subscribe to it • Example of pesticide exposure to few foreign farm workers • Response: • 1. judgments of condemnation not straightforward • 2. the condemning judgment is made on utilitarian grounds • 3. for officials to be deemed immoral, they would have to be aware of many things including effect pf pesticide on workers etc • Same applies to foreign aid – it is in the US interest to lessen its domestic consumption in support of foreign poor to avoid greater evil Inadequate specifications of utilitarianism • Some critics attack specific formulation of utilitarianism instead of its general form Downloaded by Tyla Frank ([email protected]) lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • Criticism: economic development for third world countries will not bring enduring solutions eg happiness • Response: this is a restricted view of individuals’ utility function • Criticism: utilitarianism is not egalitarian • Response: all egalitarianism is based on some form of utility Higher values than social welfare • There are higher values to social welfare such as equality • Some behavior may be approved/be socially beneficial while detrimental to social welfare • Bernard Williams’ example of a tyrannical dictator • Response: 1. utilitarianism will never see this socially disadvantageous behavior as beneficial 2. even though this behavior is undesirable – under the circumstances it is beneficial 3. standard morality used to condemn utilitarianism has no superior basis • In atypical cases consequences will always vary • Utilitarians are not likely to approve behavior which is undesirable • In the case of the dictator, any number of considerations may come in play for B • We also consider the desirability of the undesirable act (B could be worthier than C) • Standard moral rules are no better than utilitarianism in dealing with dilemmas (eg B’s killing of C can be seen as self-defence) • Utilitarianism can also imagine and propose dilemmas for standard rules adherents eg maniac with hijacked bus full of school kids • Adherents will not admit that justification is on the utility of the lie • Rather, they will invoke Kant’s duty to save life overriding the duty to tell the truth • This shows duties may conflict • Further, what theory could allow duties to conflict and how do you solve that conflict? Qingjuan Sun Week 6 L1 Relationship between Confucian and care ethics • Rejects two approaches: i) Confucian and Mencius ethics as care; ii) Confucian ethics and care ethics as virtue ethics lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • Old view: Confucian ethics embraces care and justice • Li: different ethics may embrace single value but have different ways of constituting it • The two contradict each other, can’t be configured into a single value system Differs with Li: ren (benevolence) is not the uppermost in Confucianism, but at times, li (ritual propriety) is uppermost • The other two virtues are yi (righteousness) and zhi (wisdom) • No priority is placed on any • All four are indistinct • An agent cannot act on the basis of one virtue only, eg Mencius uses ren and yi together • Yi restricts ren • This is meant to show different emphasis in different roles of agents • On the other hand care ethics is about the other, not the carer • Care can lead to the carer doing the absurd (moved by feelings for the other) • Mencius’s ren than the care in care ethics Rejection II: Confucius Ethics is Care Ethics • 1. Caring cannot be reduced to jen, it is only a part of it • 2. jen and caring do not pursue universal principles • 3. both promote their ideals with gradations • There is no alignment between jen and care in care ethics • Holds that care is particular while Confucianism holds general principles • Also, li serves as a general principle guiding ren • Ren is internalization of li • Though li is not ultimate, it is indispensable for realization of ren Rejection III: Care ethics is merely a virtue ethics • While gradation is true for both, that of ren is different from caring • Confucian love begins and prefers those familiar • Confucian Golden Rule: “Do not impose on others what you, yourself, do not desire” • Give others what you want – limitation: do others want what you want • In contrast, care ethics is other-concerned lOMoAR cPSD| 27236268 • • No other concern for the carer, except the needs of the cared for Michael G. Barnhart Week 6 L2 Theory and Comparison in the discussion of Buddhist Ethics • Attempts have been made in comparing Buddhist ethics to Western traditions • Question is does Buddhism stand alone or does it belong to some cluster? While there is no theory like Buddhism, its questions and searches are not entirely unique • There are many approaches with Theravada appearing to be virtue oriented • Santideva appears to be consequentialist • One path follows reverence for Buddha, the other does not • Buddhist variety has been compared to Christian Protestantism • But all tend to hold four noble truths: 1. suffering; 2. cause; 3. end of suffering; 4. path that leads to the end of suffering • Its ethics will also tend to differ Buddhism and Deontology • Buddhism opposed to duty • Lacks metaphysics and structure to put obligation on others • There are duties but are derived from insight of nature of existence and delusions of selfhood Buddhism and utilitarianism • Connection thought to be found in Buddhism’s version of living meaningfully • However, the connections made between Buddhism and utilitarianism are tenuous since the cited conditions are necessary but not sufficient for utilitarianism • Also, not entirely clear if utilitarian calculus is always applicable to Buddhism Buddhism as virtue ethics • Buddhism’s fundamental commitment is to principles which promote certain values or goods • Aristotelian view of Buddhist insight of human nature: 3 basic human goods (life, knowledge, friendship) • These are fundamental to human flourishing • However, is there a way to see what suggested fundamental values of Buddhism are