Ethical Theories: Conclusion Nanoethics Lecture III

1
Ethical Theories ConclusionNanoethics Lecture
III

• Roderick T. Long
• Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

2
Utilitarianism

• A consequentialist theory standard for the
  rightness of actions is beneficial consequences
• Differs from ethical egoism (another
  consequentialist theory) in appealing to
  beneficial consequences for everybody, not just
  oneself
• Claims the virtue of simplicity

3
Utilitarian Simplicity

• We ordinarily think beneficial results are one
  ethical consideration among others.
• Utilitarianism offers to explain the same range
  of ethical phenomena equally well by appealing
  solely to such results.
• This would make it a superior theory IF in fact
  it explains them EQUALLY WELL.
• Does it?

4
Remember Our Problem Case for Utilitarianism

• Five patients need five
• different organ transplants
• Should we kill healthy
• patient and redistribute
• organs?
• Clash between ethical theory (might seem to say
  yes) and particular judgment (no)

5
Three Approaches to Solving Conflicts

• 1. Top-down stick with the theory no matter
  what particular judgments it yields

6
Three Approaches to Solving Conflicts

• 2. Bottom-up stick with particular judgments no
  matter what ethical theory they imply

7
Three Approaches to Solving Conflicts

• 3. Reflective equilibration mutual adjustment
• Whatever they may say, in practice philosophers
  choose RE

8
Analogy With Science

• Top-down science (sticking with theory no matter
  what observations say) is bad science
• But bottom-up science is bad too
• freshman chemist gets boiling water at 90º
• Mutual adjustment in science too
• Difference philosophy conceptual, not empirical

9
Problem Case for Utilitarianism

• Three possible moves for utilitarian
• 1. Reject utilitarianism (in favor of, say,
  Kantianism respecting persons as ends)
• 2. Bite the bullet (accept killing the patient)
• 3. Reformulate utilitarianism so as to avoid the
  undesirable implication

10
Option 3

• Distinguish act-utilitarianism from
  rule-utilitarianism
• Act-utilitarianism choose each action in light
  of social utility
• Rule-utilitarianism choose general rules in
  light of social utility then choose each action
  in light of the rules

11
Rule-Utilitarianism

• Sometimes more effective to pursue goals
  indirectly
• Example referees in sports even if the purpose
  of the game is to give pleasure to the
  spectators, if the referee makes calls based on
  what will please the spectators, the spectators
  will soon be displeased

12
Rule-Utilitarianism

• Another example Francis Bacon on experiments of
  fruit vs. experiments of light
• Value of science is technological goodies, not
  general insight for its own sake but the best
  way to get the goodies is to pursue the insight
• Act as though the end doesnt justify the means
  even though it does!

13
Rule-Utilitarian Solution to ODC

• A general policy of sacrificing few to many would
  make all of society nervous
• Make society better off by committing ourselves
  to a principle prohibiting such sacrifices
• We produce better results by acting as if we care
  about something other than results

14
Rule-Egoism

• Incidentally, Ethical Egoists can (and do) make
  this same move which is why the conduct they
  recommend is usually not radically different from
  ordinary morality

15
Rule-Egoism

• Some ethical egoists combine rule-egoism with
  virtue ethics, advising us to choose the act that
  expresses the virtues that it is in our
  self-interest to cultivate

16
More Moves for the Anti-Utilitarian

• Is rule-utilitarianism stable? If you try to
  treat means as though they were ends well, do
  you really regard them as ends, or dont you?
• If you do, youre no longer a utilitarian.
• If you dont, what keeps you from sliding back
  into act-utilitarianism?

17
More Moves for the Anti-Utilitarian

• Does rule-utilitarianism identify the right
  reasons that killing the patient is wrong?
• Even if killing the patient would indirectly be
  bad for society, is that the main reason its
  wrong?
• Or is it what it does to the patient?

18
More Moves for the Anti-Utilitarian

• Does it even make sense for a benefit to some
  people to make up for a harm to others when
  theyre different people?
• Does utilitarianism treat society as though it
  were on big person?

19
More Moves for the Anti-Utilitarian

• And so the dialectic
• continues .

20
Immanuel Kant

• Perhaps the most influential philosopher of the
  18th century
• A deontologist
• A leading opponent of all forms of
  consequentialism

21
Immanuel Kant
22
Immanuel Kant

• Morality is a set of imperatives (commands,
  instructions)
• There are two kinds of imperatives hypothetical
  (conditional) and categorical (unconditional)

23
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

• A hypothetical imperative is one that is
  rationally binding on you only if you happen to
  have a certain goal (example recipes, driving
  directions)
• A categorical imperative is one that is
  rationally binding on you regardless of what
  goals you happen to have

24
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

• Its part of the concept of morality that moral
  imperatives are categorical you cant get off
  the hook for a moral duty because you happen not
  to care about a certain goal
• But if consequentialism were true, then morality
  would be a recipe for producing good consequences
  and so thered be no reason to care about
  morality if you happened not to care about those
  consequences

25
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

• 1. If consequentialism were true, morality would
  be a hypothetical imperative.
• 2. But morality is a categorical imperative, not
  a hypothetical one.
• 3. Therefore consequentialism is false.
• So concludes Kant.

26
Immanuel Kant

• Whenever I act for a given reason, Im showing
  that I regard it as OK to act that way for that
  reason.
• So Im endorsing a general practice of acting
  that way for that reason.
• Suppose I lie to get money. Im thereby
  endorsing a general practice of lying to get
  money.

27
Immanuel Kant

• But the point of lying is to deceive someone, and
  lying can be a successful means of deceit only
  because truth-telling is the norm.
• So in order to lie I have to want most people
  most of the time to tell the truth.
• Thus by lying Im committing myself
  simultaneously to lying being the rule and lying
  being the exception.

28
Immanuel Kant

• So by lying my will contradicts itself.
• Self-contradiction is irrational, regardless of
  what ones goals are.
• So a prohibition on lying is rationally binding
  regardless of what ones goals are its a
  categorical imperative.

29
Immanuel Kant

• In general its contrary to reason to make
  special exceptions for ourselves to rules we
  expect everyone else to follow.
• When you do that, youre simultaneously endorsing
  the rule and endorsing the exception and so
  contradicting yourself.

30
Kants Answer to the ODC

• If I seek the general welfare by
• sacrificing individuals, I thereby
• authorize anybody to do likewise
• I authorize sacrifice as a general
• policy.
• But it wouldnt work as a general
• policy it would frustrate the goal.
• Therefore killing the one patient is
  contradictory.

31
Kants Answer to the ODC

• Note whats wrong with killing the one patient
  is not that a general policy of doing so would
  have bad results.
• Kants moral theory doesnt depend on the
  goodness or badness of results.
• Rather, whats wrong with it is that theres an
  internal contradiction involved in willing it
  you simultaneously affirm two mutually
  inconsistent principles.

32
Kants Answer to the ODC

• Analogy whats wrong with believing that
• 2 2 5?
• Its not that believing 2 2 5 has bad results
  (even though it probably would) but rather that
  its inherently illogical, even apart from its
  results.

33
Whos Right?