Transcript Nonconsequentialist Theories of Morality

Introduction
 Based on something other than the consequences of a
person’s actions
 Unlike Egoism
 People should act in their own self-interest
 Unlike utilitarianism
 People should act in the interests of all those concerned
 Goodness of an action measured by how well it serves
interests or creates good consequences
 Nonconsequentialists
 Consequences should not be considered
 Depends on whether they are right, people are good
 i.e. Divine Command Theory
 Must accept the consequences whatever they are
Act Nonconsequentialist
Theories
 Reminder: Different than act and rule utilitarianism
 No general theories at all, must approach each situation
individually
 Decisions are made intuitively, without rules
 If it feels good – do it. Do your own thing.
 Not based on reason
 Emotive Theory
 Ethical words do two things
 Express people’s feelings, Evoke certain feelings
Intuitionism
 Support of moral intuitionism
 Well-meaning people have immediate sense of right and
wrong
 Human beings had moral ideas before philosophers existed
 Our reasoning upon moral matters is used to confirm
perceptions
 Reasoning can go wrong, unlike intuition
 Criticism of moral intuitionism




Hunches are difficult to hold to
No proof we have innate ability to be moral
Intuition immune to objective criticism
Some humans do not possess moral intuitions
Criticisms of Act
Nonconsequentialism
 How can conflicts between opposing intuitions be
resolved?
 How do we know what we intuit will be morally correct?
 How can we know when we have sufficient facts?
 How can we be sure we are doing the right thing for
anyone else involved?
 Can we really rely on nothing more that momentary
intuitions?
 Can actions be justified in this way?
Rule Nonconsequentialist
Theories
 Believe there are or can be rules that are the only
basis for morality and that consequences fo not
matter
 Various methods of establishing the rules
 Divine Command Theory
 Based on something higher, an all-good being who is
supernatural and can communicate with humans
 Criticisms
 Inherent lack of rational foundation, are they trustworthy
Rule Nonconsequentialist
Theories
 Various methods of establishing the rules
 Kant’s Duty Ethics
 Several Ethical Principles





Good Will
 Ability to act in accordance with moral rules
Establishing Morality By Reasoning Alone
 Possible to set up valid absolute moral rules on
 Logical, universal truths
 Universalizability the important part
The Categorical Imperative
 Act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into
a rule for all humans
Practical Imperative
 No human should be thought of or used for another’s end
Duty Rather Than Inclination
 Must act on sense of duty
Criticism’s of Kant’s Duty
Ethics
 Does not tell us which rules are morally valid
 Never tells us how to choose between conflicting duties
 Many rules of questionable moral value can be universalized
without inconsistency
 Kant answered this by criterion of reversibility
 Golden Rule concept, if an action were reversed would a person
want it to be done to him

But this shows inconsistency, which Kant would not have approved of
 “Do not kill except in self-defense” and “Do not kill” are both
universalizable
 What happens when duty and inclinations are the same?
Ross’ Prima Facie Duties
 Sir William David Ross agreed with Kant that
morality should not rest on consequences
 Disagreed with unyielding absolutism
 We have certain duties we must always adhere to
unless serious circumstances or reasons tell us to do
otherwise
 Actual duty may be different than prima facie, “at first
glance”
Ross’ Prima Facie Duties
 Examples of prima face duties







Fidelity
Reparation
Gratitude
Justice
Beneficence
Self-improvement
Nonmaleficence
 Two principles
 Always do that act in accord with the stronger prima facie
duty
 Always do that act that has the greatest degree of prima
facis rightness over prima facie wrongness
Criticisms of Ross’ Theory
 How are we to decide on these prima facie duties
 Claimed we know them to be true
 Basing them on intuition
 Which duty takes precedence?
 Example?
Criticisms of
Nonconsequentialist Theories
 Can we, and indeed should we, avoid consequences when
we are trying to set up a moral system?
 Is it entirely possible to exclude consequences from a
moral system?
 What is the point of a moral system if not to do good for
oneself, others, or to create a moral society?
 How do we resolve conflicts among moral rules that are
equally absolute?
 Any system that operates on a basis of such rigid
absolutes closes the door on further discussion.