Transcript Class #15 - 4/28/16

Philosophy 2030
Class #15
Deontology
4/28/16
Return Midterm Exams
Chapter Seven, pp. 320-327.
Portfolios are due today.
•
Although it may appear correct to some
degree, utilitarianism has many critics.
•
It seems not to account for the importance
of duties and obligations and intentions.
•
Consider the case of a man who attempts
to shoot his friend out of rage and jealousy
and misses and hits instead a sniper who is
about to shoot a rifle into a crowded mall.
Did this man act morally? If only
consequences matter, we would probably
have to say that he did.
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Many argue against utilitarianism that what makes an action
moral is the intention under which it is done. A moral act is
done because it is the right thing to do.
•
But what is the right thing to do? Such a view can be
interpreted many ways and may even appear to beg the
question.
•
Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule which is
stated quite explicitly by many early philosophers & in the
New Testament
-- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you, for this sums
up the Law and the Prophets."
This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism,
Confucianism, and Taoism.
But Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
George Bernard Shaw wrote:
"Do not do unto others as you would that
they should do unto you. Their tastes may be
different."
Baseball or opera tickets?
But perhaps "doing as you would be done
by" includes taking into account your
neighbor's tastes as you would that he
should take yours into account.
Thus the "golden rule" might still express the
essence of a universal morality even if no
two men in the world had any needs or
tastes in common.
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule
such as: The golden rule requires that we
treat others only as we would want to be
treated if we were in their “situation.”
But then perhaps you will use the golden
rule to justify that you should help your
friend rob banks because you would
want him to help you if you were
robbing a bank.
Or should we not send criminals to prison
because we would not want to go to
prison if we were in their situation?
The Golden Rule
Dr. Harry Gensler,
Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University
Gensler’s Golden Rule
•
Thus, Harry J. Gensler suggests that the Golden Rule
is more a pathway to help guide us through moral
conduct than a guide or compass to how to conduct
ourselves in a given situation.
•
He suggests that it is a means to test the consistency
of our moral beliefs and values, not a “rule book” for
how to live.
•
Thus, in this view, the “golden rule” functions within
moral decisions much like we have proposed that
critical thinking provides a guideline for philosophical
discussion.
•
That is, it defines consistency between statements and
a rationale for our discussions, but does not provide us
the content in which to make moral judgments!
“The golden rule is best seen as a consistency
principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms.
It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are
right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers.
It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have
our actions (toward another) be out of harmony
with our desires (toward a reversed situation
action). It tests our moral coherence.
If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating
the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the
heart of morality.”
Harry J. Gensler,
Professor of Philosophy,
John Carroll University
The K.I.T.A. Principle
What about the CEO who actually believes that
he treats his employees fairly by paying them
under the minimum wage and that they get
just what they deserve because of lack of
ambition.
This is a problem of knowledge and imagination!
Without proper knowledge and imagination,
the golden rule cannot act as a moral
principle.
We must apply the Golden Rule with:
1) Knowledge
2) Imagination
3) Testing
4) Action
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
But should we use the golden rule when
dealing with evil or immoral persons or
those with evil desires? Do I really think it
is right to treat a terrorist as I would want
him to treat me (even with KITA)?
But should we use the golden rule in dealing
with children? Do I really think it is right to
treat an 18-month child who is just about
to put his fingers in a light socket based
on how I want him to treat me? Or
rather, “what is good for him?”
Who qualifies as an appropriate “other”?
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
If we want someone to do something for us,
does this mean that we should do the
same to them? Maybe this works fine if I
just want my wife to scratch my back, but
surely it is not a universal principle.
If you want your boss to tell you that you are
doing a good job, is the “right” thing to do
really to tell her she is doing a good job
when you know that she is not?
Immanuel Kant
(1704-1824)
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher
who is considered the central figure of modern
philosophy. Kant argued that fundamental concepts
of the human mind structure human experience,
that reason is the source of morality, that space and
time are forms of our sensibility, and that the world
as it is "in-itself" is unknowable.
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which
emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation, Thus, Kant’s
view is a deontological view.
•
In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is
not just because it is done with a good intention.
•
It is the right thing to do if it is done out of an intention to
follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or obligation.
•
Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical
imperative.
•
A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a
conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this
class, you should study for the final exam.