- idm o4 - | UBC Sciences



Module 1: Ethical TheoryLesson 1 – Philosophical EthicsDefine:1) Descriptive ethics2) Normative ethics3) Meta-ethicsDescriptive ethics is the attempt to describe a certain population’s beliefs about some ethical issue, and questions in descriptive ethics are answered by empirical investigation (e.g. polls).Normative ethics attempts to determine not what people happen to believe but what they ought to believe about some ethical issue (and why). Questions are answered by consulting reason and argument. Normative ethics is a matter of seeking to identify and defend the correct normative ethical theory – a set of general principles that attempts to explain what makes morally right acts right and morally wrong acts wrong. Sometimes normative ethics is called applied or practical ethics.Meta-ethics is the attempt to understand the nature of morality. The concern is not to determine whether an act is morally right or wrong, but to ask questions about morality like “What are moral judgments?” or what does “moral right” mean? Why are meta-ethics and normative ethics of particular interest to philosophers while descriptive ethics is not?Descriptive ethics is not really philosophical in nature and simply serves to describe a certain population’s beliefs about an ethical issue.On the other hand meta-ethics and normative ethics help understand what people should believe about an ethical issue and not what they happen to believe. The questions in meta-ethics and normative ethics come through logical reasoning and argument.Lesson 2 – Arguments and MethodologyDefine:ArgumentAn argument is a set of at least two claims. One of these is the conclusion; the other claims are premises.PremiseA reason offered in support of the conclusion.ConclusionThe claim that one is trying to prove.Valid argumentAll premises true => conclusion trueInvalid argumentAn argument in which the above does not apply.Sound argumentA valid argument with all true premises.Unsound argumentAn argument that is either invalid or has at least one false premise.Moral argumentAn argument with a moral claim as the conclusion.Inductive argumentThe premises provided may be intended to demonstrate only that the conclusion is probably true. We do not call inductive arguments valid/invalid or sound/unsound but strong and weak. Standard formEach premise is numbered and stated on its own line, and the conclusion is stated last. Conclusion separated from premises by horizontal line.CounterexampleAn example that counters a given claim or argument.Explain the idea of “reflective equilibrium.”The end point of a process of moral deliberation that involves going back and forth between moral principles with the goal of reaching a state of consistency – basically revising the principle until it matches our beliefs.Explain common fallacies: “begging the question”Circularity – the conclusion you are arguing appears as a premise in the argument.E.g. Abortion is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong.Ad hominemOne tries to refute an argument by attacking the one who offered it. Straw manMisrepresenting your opponent’s arguments so that it is easily shown to be unsound or weak. False dichotomyOr false dilemma – presenting fewer options than are actually available. “You are either with us or with the terrorists.”Lesson 3 - Define cultural relativism.Cultural relativism – there is no objective truth in ethics. Morally right and wrong are solely determined by one’s culture.E.g. In a traditional Catholic society, homosexuality is immoral. In a less religious society, homosexuality is morally permissible. “Who are we to judge?”Moral or ethical relativism is the basket of views that deny the existence of ethical claims that are true independently of whether some particular group or individual believes or feels that they are true. That is, there is no objective truth in ethics but instead what is right and wrong is simply relative to a given individual or group.The cultural relativist must be willing to say that Nazi Germany had its moral beliefs regarding the proper treatment of Jews, Canada has its moral beliefs regarding the proper treatment of Jews, and neither Nazi Germany’s nor Canada’s moral beliefs in this matter are objectively better or worse.Explain the Cultural Differences Argument.CDA is the principal argument for CR.P: Different cultures have different moral codes.--C: Therefore, there is no objective truth in ethics.Explain two reasons why the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound.CDA is logically invalid. Even if the premise is true, the premise does not prove the conclusion. Just because people disagree about moral matters is no proof that there is no truth to morality. E.g. people disagree on the existence of God, but that doesn’t mean there is no objective truth to the issue.CDA contains a weak premise. While some cultures may disagree on certain ethical issues, it seems necessary that all cultures will have some moral rules in common – namely, the rules necessary for the continued existence of a culture. E.g. rules prohibiting indiscriminate killing of others are necessary for any culture to continue to exist.Explain three objections to Cultural Relativism.P1. CR is true => one’s culture’s moral values are necessarily true.P2. Not all of one’s culture’s moral values are true.--C. CR is not true.P1. CR is true => moral values of other cultures are necessarily true.P2. Not all the moral values of other cultures are true.--C. CR is not true.P1. CR is true => moral progress cannot occur because the moral values of any culture are already perfect.P2. Moral progress does occur (e.g. views on racism have changed for the better).--C. CR is not true.Lesson 4Define classical act utilitarianism and its three parts.It is defined as the view that right actions, laws, and policies promote the greatest amount of pleasure, or the least amount of pain, for all concerned.1) Consequentialism – the right act is entirely determined by its consequences: the right act promotes the most good or least bad.2) Hedonism – the sole ultimate good is pleasure and the sole ultimate bad is pain.3) Equal consideration – no one’s good is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.Utilitarians claim that the right thing to do in any situation is to promote the most good or the least bad. Good is defined as pleasure, bad is defined as pain. Everyone’s pleasure and pain matters, and matters equally. The action to perform should maximize pleasure or minimize pain for anyone involved.The consequentialist aspect of utilitarianism is that it is situational (depends on the situation). In this sense, there are no absolute rules. Killing innocent people is bad is an absolute rule that is not true for utilitarians because sometimes it is good, e.g. when they are suffering and when their close ones are also suffering watching them suffer. Apply classical act utilitarianism to various moral problems.Unlike an ethical theory that claims for example that mercy killing is always wrong, utilitarianism looks at the specific situation to determine whether the act is required or forbidden. If mercy killing will do the most good, then it is morally required in that case. If in another situation, it will not do the most good because it may spread fear in the community or because the person would have recovered, then it is morally forbidden in that case.In summary, utilitarianism posits that what is morally right/wrong depends on the situation. Explain objections to each part of classical act utilitarianism.Against consequentialism. For example, tricking someone to sign a form saying they will donate their organs after their death when they actually don’t want to. This would provide the greatest good because an organ would be available for donation to someone who needs it, but is it right? Common sense says otherwise. Utilitarianism is incompatible with individual moral rights.Against hedonism. Pleasure is not always good, and some things are ultimately good besides pleasure. For example, pleasures of a Peeping Tom violating the rights of others. Or, inception – someone being fed images/dreams to make them happy and live a pleasurable life when they are just lying on a bed with tubes in them.Against equal consideration. Given the tremendous amount of suffering in the world, it seems that it would be wrong to acquire any luxury goods or to take any fancy vacations or to hang out with friends/family (special relationships) because this does not maximize utility. Equal consideration is too demanding and it is unable to recognize the importance of special relationships.Also, utilitarianism is not useful. Often, we do not know what will produce the best consequences. Consider and evaluate utilitarian responses to these objections.Most contemporary utilitarians acknowledge that hedonism is flawed. Some argue that what is good is the satisfaction of people’s preferences – the good is the satisfaction of “informed preferences” – people knowing all the relevant information. Some utilitarians opt for a list of objective goods and say that the right acts promote these goods. Also, they argue that utilitarianism may not in fact require that you give every moment of your day helping others, since that would be suffering too as it is very tiring.Reconciling utilitarianism with moral common sense: One response says that many objections are based on improbable situations. For example, the nurse tricking the patient into signing his organ away after death will result in the nurse being caught and punished, and will instill fear in other patients that their rights will not be met. Bite the bullet: Some utilitarians accept that their theory is sometimes at odds with commonsense moral beliefs. Sometimes it requires rights violations, lying, promise breaking, etc to produce the best result. Sometimes it can be demanding, but these implications are not flaws of the theory. Rather, we must realize that utilitarianism is preferable to commonsense moral beliefs – after all, commonsense moral beliefs have been mistaken in the past. It is more reasonable to believe that what is morally right is to act in ways that maximize the good or minimize the bad for all concerns than to trust our prevailing mores.Rule utilitarianismRule utilitarianism says that:1) The right thing to do is to follow the best rule2) The best rule is defined as the one which, if consistently followed, will produce the greatest amount of good.Thus, if given a choice between following a rule that says “respect people’s rights” or “violate people’s rights,” it is clear that the former rule if consistently followed will have better consequences than consistently following the rule to violate people’s rights.The act utilitarian would support lying to the organ donor to save a life but the rule utilitarian would presumably view such a deception as morally wrong.In response to the objection that utilitarianism is too demanding, rule utilitarians might say that we should follow the set of rules that actually produce the most good, given the way human beings are, this would be the one that is considerably less demanding – insisting on respecting people’s rights, encouraging people to help others and allowing people to still show special concern for family/friends.Rule utilitarianism still faces a serious problem – it may still not be able to give a coherent response to the objection that focuses on people’s rights. Consider the two possibilities of 1) rule of violating people’s rights and 2) rule of respecting people’s rights. The best rule is in fact a third possibility, 3) Respect people’s rights unless violating them is necessary to do a greater good. However, this is simply act utilitarianism. In response to this, rule utilitarians may argue that the rules that one is to choose between must be more general. Lesson 5 – Kant’s EthicsExplain Kant’s conception of a morally good will.Kant says we are to evaluate the morality of an action by focusing on the agent’s intentions rather than the results of the action.There are two parts to Kant’s ethical theory. One involves when actions have “moral worth” and the other is when acts are morally permissible/morally wrong.Moral worthKant believes that people act on the basis of two different sorts of reasons – hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives (oughts). Hypothetical imperatives state what one ought to do given the presence of a particular desire or goal, e.g. study hard to get good grades. Categorical imperatives state what one ought to do regardless of one’s desires (what is the right thing to do), e.g. never steal.Kant maintains that acts based on a hypothetical imperative have no moral worth. E.g. a person who donates to charity to get a tax reduction may be rational but the act has no moral worth. A person who donates to charity because it is the right thing to do is not only doing the right act but the act has moral worth.To have a good will, and for one’s act to have moral worth, one must do the right act for the right reasons – out of respect for morality. If one does not act out of respect for morality but because it furthers their own desires, then they might be doing nothing wrong but the act has no moral worth.Categorical imperativeKant has a categorical imperative, a test for determining whether some act is morally permissible or wrong. There are many versions.Define, explain and apply the universal law and humanity versions of the categorical imperative.1) Universal law version of the categorical imperative: “Act only on those maxims that you can, at the same time, will as a universal law.”Maxim = principle behind one’s action. Universal law = a principle that states that everyone follows this maxim. Will = sometimes, one cannot will a maxim as a universal law because the practice would be self-defeating or self-contradictory if it were practiced by everyone all the time. This is a contradiction in conception and the action violates a perfect duty, which is a duty that must always be followed. Sometimes, one can conceive of a maxim as a universal law, but still not be able to will it because a contradiction will arise between it and what a person will (later) want – contradiction in will – to act on principles that can be conceived but not consistently willed as universal law is to violate an imperfect duty – a duty that one must sometimes follow.In summary, there is a three-step procedure for applying the universal law version of the categorical imperative:1. Identify the maxim/principle behind the action.2. Universalize the maxim.3. Consider whether the universalized maxim can be consistently willed:a) If it can be consistently willed, then the act is morally permissible.b) If not, then determine why it cannot be consistently willed. If the maxim cannot even be thought of as existing as a universal law, then it violates a perfect duty and is morally forbidden. If the universalized maxim can be thought of (consistently) as existing as a universal law but not consistently willed, then the act violates an imperfect duty – one that should not be ignored entirely but does not always have to be practiced.2) Humanity version of the categorical imperative“One must treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.”Humanity – a rational being that is capable of freely making his/her own decisions.Means – a thing – something that is not capable of freely making its own decisions.End – rational being.Therefore, act so that you treat rational beings always as rational beings and never as things.E.g. Lying: the liar treats the person being lied to not as a rational being who is capable of making her own decisions, but a thing to be handled/manipulated – this is fundamentally disrespectful to a person’s rational nature and is wrong.E.g. We are learning from Dr. Smolkin to learn about Kant – therefore we are using him as a means. However, we are not merely using him as a means but an end as well because we are treating him in a way to which he consents.Treating someone as a means only (a thing) is a violation of perfect duty. Failing fully to respect a person as a rational being is a violation of an imperfect duty, like not helping someone who needs a boost for their car battery.Discuss objections to Kant’s conception of a morally good will.What about someone who gives to charity for several reasons? The answer is unclear.Develop objections to the universal law and humanity versions of the categorical imperative.Universal LawIndeterminate maxim objection: The same act can be described by more than one principle/maxim. E.g. “I will deceive the patient” or “I will procure an organ for a dying patient from someone who will no longer need her organs” – this results in the act being morally wrong and morally permissible.Too strict objection: It is too strict – there may be morally permissible actions that the test views as wrong. E.g. a couple deciding not to have children violates a perfect duty because this is not possible for everyone to do.HumanityIncompleteness objection: It does not cover all our moral obligations. It is silent on the question of our moral obligations to non-rational beings like certain animals.Wrong answers objection: The claim that one may never treat a rational being merely as a means is problematic. E.g. a murderer comes to your house asking where your friend is, but you lie. You are treating the murderer as a means.Lesson 6 – Pluralistic DeontologyExplain why Ross thinks utilitarianism and Kantianism are too simple.The utilitarian view that morality is simply a matter of producing the greatest good overlooks the fact that people have many other moral duties, such as duties to tell the truth, to repay debts, to care for one’s friends and family members, etc.The Kantian claim that morality consists in certain absolute moral duties – duties that must never be violated – overlooks the fact that sometimes it is morally imperative to break a moral duty.Ross seeks to develop an ethical theory that more closely accounts for the complexities of the moral life and attempts to develop a normative ethical theory which recognizes that people have many moral duties and which recognizes that how one ought to act varies according to the situation.He is a pluralist – he does not think there is a single basic moral rule that explains all of our moral obligations.Distinguish between prima facie duties, and duties all things considered.Prima facie duties are duties that are conditional. E.g. to tell the truth, to repay debts, not to harm others, etc. Prima facie duties are self-evident (require no proof) and are seen to be correct merely by reflection. Duties, all things considered, are not self-evident but are based on rational argument and a careful analysis of the situation. In judging that duty ought to be followed, one takes a moral risk.Explain Ross' views on how prima facie duties are known, and how one is to make a final determination about how to act.Prima facie duties can conflict with each other. Ross argues that you should follow the prime facie duty that is the most pressing/important in that situation. For example, telling a lie to save your friend. The prima facie duty of telling the truth is overrode by the duty to prevent harm to your friend. Therefore, your duty all things considered is to prevent harm to your friend.Discuss difficulties with Ross' theory.Ross’s pluralistic moral theory avoids the single-mindedness of utilitarianism and the absolutism of Kant’s ethics.Some people say there cannot be self-evident moral principles.Some say that the theory gives too little guidance when determining duties, all things considered.Lesson 7 – Social Contract TheoryExplain the basic idea behind social contract theoryContractarianism is the view that the justified moral rules are the ones that rational individuals would unanimously choose, under certain conditions, for their own benefit.E.g. Contractarians would argue that a rule against murder is justified because we would each agree to this rule, since each of us benefits from it.Distinguish Hobbes's state of nature and the role it plays in his ethical theory from Rawls's original position and the role it plays in his ethical theoryPeople choose moral rules from what Hobbes calls a state of nature, which is a time and place with no organized government or society, no rules, etc. This state of nature would be horrible to live in.In order to escape the state of nature, people would agree to rules like do not harm each other, etc – these are justified moral rules that people would unanimously choose to escape the state of nature and have a better life. This is not a historical claim. The question is rather “what rules would people agree to in order to escape the state of nature?” and the answer tells us which moral rules are justified. This means that morality is not just feeling, it involves objective moral truths. Also, social contract theory explains that it is rational to be moral because one benefits from a system of moral rules when compared to a state of nature.Hobbes attempts to explain the nature of all moral rules. On the other hand, Rawls only explains the principles of justice that are needed to regulate major institutions in society. Rawls sees the appropriate principles of justice (or moral rules in Hobbes’ case) as an agreement between rational individuals for their mutual benefit, but for Rawls, the initial situation is what he calls the original position – where rational, self-interested individuals are choosing principles of justice for all time from behind a veil of ignorance – they do not know their gender, their financial status, their political position, etc. People will therefore choose the principles in a way that is not biased to suit their particular circumstances. Rawls’ theory is also known as justice as fairness.Explain, with examples, some of the moral rules that would be justified on Hobbes's theory, and some of the moral rules that would not be justified on Hobbes's theoryRules against racial and sexual discrimination are morally wrong.Rules against prostitution, same-sex relationships, or voluntary euthanasia would likely not be supported according to Hobbes’ theory, since we could allow for such behaviour without threatening to fall back into the state of nature..Example 1. Universal health care. Using Rawls’ theory to determine whether there should be a universal health care system financed by taxation, or a purely private health care system where health care is distributed by the person’s ability to pay. The rational decision to choose in the original position would be the universal health care system.Example 2. Right to refuse medical care and allowed to die. The Rawlsian would say yes, people should have this right.Explain Rawls's principles of justice, and the reasoning from the original position that leads to these principlesSee above.The purpose of the veil of ignorance is two-fold. First, it is to facilitate agreement between people in the original position. If self-interested people know their personal situations, it will be very difficult to reach unanimous agreement on principles of justice.Second, and more importantly, the point of the veil of ignorance is to ensure fairness in the choice of principles of justice. People will be forced to choose fairly, or in an unbiased manner.Discuss objections to Hobbes's moral theory and to Rawls's theory of justiceHobbesIt cannot satisfactorily explain all of morality. We recognize obligations not to be cruel to non-human animals, to respect and support people who are disabled, and to provide for distant generations. Social contract theory has a difficult time explaining the existence of these obligations.Social contract theory gets things wrong when it views morality as the product of agreement. For this implies that if we were in a state of nature, then nothing would be moral or immoral and thus, rape and torture would not be wrong in a state of nature; and kindness to children or sharing one’s food with the hungry would not be virtuous.Social contract theorists argue against these objections by biting the bullet and denying the commonsense moral moral claims about animals being protected by morality, and that there can be morality/immorality prior to agreements. And as for non-rational humans, social contract theorists might suggest that they would, in fact, be protected by a contract between rational individuals because these individuals may realize that it is in their best interest to protect the non-rational humans because one day they will become vulnerable and non-rational.RawlsTheory does not apply to all moral issues – it is meant only to regulate major social institutions. This is not really an objection but pointing out a limitation – what one owes to friends, what it is to lead a virtuous life, and how one ought to treat non-human animals are moral questions beyond the scope of his theory.The original position is not a fair choice situation. For example, some claim that it is biased against certain religious groups. Rawls assumes that people in the original position want more primary social goods (liberty and rights, opportunities, income and wealth) but these assumptions are biased against communities like the Amish or ultra-Orthodox Jews because they view their religion and its teachings as the source of truth and not as biasing conditions. Further, these religious groups do not value the primary social goods of liberties, opportunities, income and wealth but obedience to their religion and the right to be left alone.Lesson 8 – Virtue TheoryExplain the basic idea behind virtue theoryInstead of looking at the right act, think about ethics by focusing on the question of living well. Aristotle asked “What is the best life for a human being?” His answer is that the good life is the happy or flourishing life. The question then becomes “What is it to lead a happy or flourishing life?” Simplified, his answer is that the good life is a life of virtuous activity. The good person is one who consistently manifests the moral and intellectual virtues, like honesty, loyalty, courage, honesty, compassion, friendliness, etc.Virtue theory focuses on moral character.Define moral virtues, and illustrate with examplesVirtues are character traits that dispose one to act and feel in a way that is appropriate. Virtues are positive character traits and are necessary for the supreme good – eudaimonia – “flourishing” or “happiness.” Morality consists in living a life in accordance with the virtues.Explain the idea that virtues are in the mean between extremesBetween the means of excess and deficiency. Courage is the virtue between cowardice and rashness. Honesty is between dishonesty and brutally honest. This idea can help us understand what virtues are indeed virtues.Apply virtue theory to moral problemsExample 1. Organ donation upon death. We should do it because it is generous and compassionate.Example 2. The life of leisure. A virtue theorist would say a person who lives a life of complete leisure and relaxation is not developing or manifesting human virtues and is lazy. A virtuous person would be industrious, active, and curious.Explain the challenge that virtue theory lacks clear guidanceEthics concerns itself with more than just character, but questions like how to design just institutions or fair tax codes, etc. Virtue theory does not give guidance on these.Explain the objection that virtue theory fails to fully identify what makes an act morally right or wrongDifferent virtues can recommend different courses of action. For instance, would a virtuous person who has young children get a divorce if she is unhappy in her marriage? Loyalty and compassion will speak against divorce, but courage, and honesty might speak in favour of her divorce.Virtue theorists simply say that hard choices are not easy.Also, virtue theory “mislocates” the reason for a particular right or wrong action. The virtue theorist recommends compassion because the compassionate person does better in the long run than the uncompassionate person, but this is not why people ought to be compassionate.Lesson 9 – The Ethics of CareExplain the basic idea of the ethic of careSome feminists defend what is known as an ethic of care. Care theorists begin with the conception of a person as embedded in a complex web of relationships, and they maintain that the moral life involve attending to and caring for those relationships.The idea is that one is to attend to the needs of those with whom one is in a relationship, and to respond in a caring and sensitive, collaborative manner.Describe why an ethic of care may be better suited than an ethic of principle when dealing with the morality of personal relationshipsThe focus is on maintaining and improving one’s relationships. For instance, if a relative is sick at a hospital, a Kantian may reason that one ought to visit the sick relative because one could not will it as a universal law that one should not care for the needy. The utilitarian may recommend visiting the hospital because he sees it as a way of promoting overall welfare. These seem like the wrong reasons for visiting a relative. Instead, one ought to visit one’s relative in the hospital because one cares about one’s relative and one’s ongoing relationship with him.Sensing and interpreting the needs and interests of self and others, and learning how to appropriately respond to those needs and interests is every bit as important as being able to universalize maxims.Explain why the ethic of care appears to be an incomplete view of moralityCare requires an ethic of principle. An ethic of principle will be needed to determine who should be cared for, when not everyone can simultaneously or equally be attended to. It seems an ethic of principle may be needed to determine when a particular relationship is no longer worth continuing.Care ethics is incomplete. Ethics involves more than just attending to relationships. Ethical obligations we have involve looking after/respecting people with whom we are not in a relationship. For instance, people in future generations, people in distant countries, non-human animals, etc.In response to this, care ethics say (1) we have no ethical obligations to these groups, (2) we do have an ethical obligation to these groups, and care ethics can explain why that is so and (3) we do have an ethical obligation, and that unsupplemented care ethics cannot account for these obligations but care ethics properly supplemented with an ethic of principle can. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download