QUESTIONS PHILOSOPHERS ASK:



ReviewWe have looked at several systems of moral decision-making so far. One focused on groups of people (society, or culture) as the source of moral values. Another claimed that ethics goes no deeper than the strong emotions one feels. Two of the systems focused on consequences as the prime source of moral values. “Will this action give me what I want?” asks the egoist. “Will this action accomplish the goal I have chosen?” wonders the utilitarian.We have found that each system has serious deficiencies. One reason that recurs is that each system could yield the verdict that a particular act was moral, yet that same act, if performed, will thoroughly violate one or more of the objective moral standards we have considered in Unit 1. For example, the relativist will conclude that the Sudanese practice of female circumcision is moral (if Sudanese culture approves and advocates the practice), yet this barbarity often results in disease and sterility, and always results in the female losing God’s endowment of marital satisfaction. For another example, consider the forced resettlement of Native Americans in the 1800’s to the worst tracts of land (“reservations”) in territories (often far from their ancestral homelands). The emotivist cannot conclude that there was anything morally objectionable about that practice if nobody feels any strong negative emotions about it, and the emotivist cannot provide any lasting reason that anyone should feel strong negative emotions about it.The short stories “The Way Up to Heaven” and “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” each vividly illustrate how egoism and utilitarianism, respectively, could easily lead people to moral decisions that trample crucial objective moral standards, like the right to life.We have also found that relativists, egoists and utilitarians smuggle in absolutes that their own respective systems cannot produce. For example, relativists assume that tolerance is always good, so you should be reluctant to reject their diversity and dependence theses, for fear of being intolerant or ethnocentric. However, in doing so, they violate their own belief that all moral norms are non-absolute. Egoists teach that one can decide which of one’s wants one ought to pursue, but cannot tell you how to do this, without using some external absolute criteria to assess one’s many competing desires. Utilitarians assume that happiness must be the supreme goal, but cannot provide the means of measuring happiness qualitatively without relying upon absolute values that utilitarianism as a system is incapable of providing.Each of these systems is an approach to making moral decisions, and each one of these claims to have no need for Scriptural support. This means that they are secular systems, and that the worldview that forms the foundation for these approaches to ethics is secular. One more secular approach needs to be explored before we move into religious systems.Deontology: The Study of DutyWhat about the ideas that right and wrong are simply matters of duty? Is it moral to tell the truth even when one cannot determine the outcome of doing so? Is it ethical to help someone when there is no possibility of payback to you, and when there is no assurance that helping will produce a beneficial consequence even for the person being helped? Are there times when the only clear direction in a situation is simply to do your duty? In one way or another, three deontological ethicists Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross and John Rawls ask and seek to answer questions like these. Please use the three short descriptions of each philosopher’s system to making ethical decisions to help you to prepare for our in-class discussions. Be sure to read the short ethics problem at the end of this document entitled “Lifeboat.”ETHICS as ABSOLUTESImmanuel Kant felt that the consequences were not the important thing. Principles ought to win out. His system has been called a deontological system, because it emphasizes duty, not goals.MEMORY IMAGE: A LIGHTHOUSEFive basic things to know about Kant:Immanuel Kant (German, 1724-1804) – lived all his life in the university town of Konigsberg, Prussia. Began as a rationalist, was awakened from his “dogmatic slumbers” by the radical empiricist David Hume, and then brought about a remarkable fusion of the two.The Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a universal law.”UniversalizabilityThe Humanitarian Principle: Always treat persons as ends in themselves, not merely as a means to some other end.Inherent worth vs. Lifeboat Game valuesWhat is absolutely good? A good will AltruismWhat drives our ideas of right and wrong? Duty, not goals.Four points from Kant on ethics:It’s always wrong to lieYou must always treat each person as an end in him/herself. Never treat a person merely as a means to get something else.An action is right when it satisfies the Categorical ImperativeSome duties are unavoidable (“perfect duties”). Some duties are optional (“imperfect duties”). Rights are rooted in perfect duties, freedom is rooted in the concept of imperfect duties.Objections and responsesConflicting duties arise. How do you resolve the conflicts, if every duty is based on the Categorical Imperative?There is no logical limit to the number of maxims to be formulated.The Humanitarian Principle depends upon the definition of a person: personhood from conception? From birth? Only upon demonstrating you can function as a person?The Good Will may be wishful thinking. Does anybody have an autonomous self-regulating will?Kant’s responses generally included an appeal to the amazing rational abilities of humankind. “Upon analysis and reflection, the answers to these can be found.” His answers are at times enigmatic, and the objections are still being debated.ETHICS by INTUITIONTHE ETHICS OF W. D. ROSS (English, 1877-1971)Ross sought to find a middle ground of sorts between the relativism of utilitarianism and the absolutism of Kantianism. His system has also been called Prima Facie Ethics.MEMORY IMAGE: A LIGHTBULBFive facts about Ross’s system:Rightness is a property that partly depends upon the non-moral specifics of a situation.Ross is an intuitionist. He believed that when a person “reached sufficient mental maturity,” and gave “sufficient attention” to the moral question facing him, the prevailing duty will be self-evident without any need of proof, like an axiom of geometry.There are two categories of dutiesActual duty: In a situation, what you must do.Prima facie duty: What you consider an obligation, when specifics are not considered (Prima facie means “at first sight,” or “other things being equal.”)There are 7 prima facie duties:Fidelity: telling the truth, keeping your promises.Reparation: righting the wrongs we have done to others.Gratitude: recognizing the services others have done for us.Justice: being sure pleasure and happiness is available to all on the basis of merit.Beneficence: doing good for others, helping to better the virtue, intelligence or pleasure of others.Self-improvement: bettering ourselves with respect to virtue or intelligence.Nonmaleficence: avoiding or preventing an injury to others.When duties conflict,Do what is required by the most stringent prima facie duty.Do what tips the balance in favor of the highest degree of prima facie rightness.Objections and responses:“Common sense” is not common. Intuition may yield many different ideas of right/wrong.Is the prima facie duty list complete? (What about stealing?)Does the prima facie duty list obligate us to do them? (What if I make a rash promise? Am I bound to keep it?)Ross’s fondness for moral intuition makes debate nearly impossible.Ross’s responses would include reference to a universal awareness of general moral principles throughout history, coupled with a belief in the inherent sensibility of humans. ETHICS as FAIRNESSRAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS John Rawls (American, 1921- 2002) was a Harvard philosopher whose book A Theory of Justice (1971) has generated a tremendous amount of interest in social and political philosophy, and has molded attitudes toward entitlement, welfare and taxation. MEMORY IMAGE: A BLINDFOLDThree short facts about Rawlsian ethics:Q. How do we decide what are principles of justice?A. We go to the ‘original position’ with its ‘veil of ignorance.’All in this situation will choose two principles:Equal rights for everyone: in order to survive, each one of us should have access to the goods of society Distribution of inequalities on the bases of merit and need: what to do with the excess when each person’s minimum survival needs have been metThere are four natural dutiesThe duty of justiceThe duty of helping others in needThe duty not to harmThe duty to keep our promisesObjections:Is the veil of ignorance reasonable? Isn’t this utilitarianism, with the goal of fair distribution of societal goods?LifeboatIn 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than thirty survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold seven. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued. When they got to dry land, the captain was arrested and tried in a court for his action. If Immanuel Kant had been on the jury, how would he have decided?If John Rawls had been on the jury, how would he have decided? ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download