Transcript Ethics & Nanotechnology Summer Bridge Program XXVI

Ethical Theories:
Introduction
Nanoethics Lecture II
Roderick T. Long
Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
What Are Ethical Theories?
Explain what makes an action right or wrong
Ethical theories vs. particular ethical
judgments
Analogy with scientific theories and
observations
Some Kinds of Ethical Theory







Consequentialism
Deontology
Virtue Ethics
Contractarianism
Natural Law
Relativism
Divine Command Ethics
Consequentialism
The rightness/wrongness of an action
is determined by its consequences
Consequentialism
Example: utilitarianism
The right action is the one that
promotes the greatest happiness of
the greatest number (maximizes
social utility)
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
THESE GUYS AGAIN!
Consequentialism
Another example: ethical egoism
The right action is the one that
promotes the greatest happiness of
the agent (maximizes the agent’s
utility)
Two Ethical Egoists
Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939)
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Deontology
The rightness/wrongness of an action is
determined by inherent features of the action
itself, or by an inherently valid rule
Deontology
If an action is of the wrong kind, it is
forbidden, no matter how good its
consequences are
Rejects both Utilitarianism and Ethical
Egoism
“The end doesn’t justify the means.”
Deontology
Example: Kantianism
Right actions must be
universalizable and must
treat rational agents as
ends, not mere means
(trade-offs forbidden)
Immanuel Kant (17241804)
Kant’s Deontology
Universalizability: must be
possible to will the principle
of your action for everybody
without inconsistency.
Lying violates
universalizability because
lying presupposes and
exploits a general practice
of telling the truth
Kant’s Deontology
Ends, not mere means: don’t
treat rational agents (others or
yourself) as mere objects to be
used or exploited.
Personhood is the basis of
ethical value and can’t be
subordinated to other values.
Mustn’t sacrifice the few even
to benefit the many.
Virtue Ethics
The rightness/wrongness of an action is
determined by the character traits it
expresses
Emphasize what kind of person you should be
Virtue Ethics
Examples: Aristotelianism, Confucianism
Aristotle
(384-322
BCE)
Confucius
(551-479
BCE)
Virtue Ethics
Virtue-ethicists tend to side with deontologists
against consequentialists – though not always
Contractarianism
The rightness/wrongness of an
action is determined by
whether rational people do, or
under appropriate conditions
would, agree to it
Example: John Rawls’ Veil of
Ignorance
(about which more later on)
Natural Law
A body of legal or quasilegal precepts that:
 are based in human
nature, not convention
 can be ascertained by
human reason
 set the standard for,
and take precedence
over, manmade laws
Natural Law
“One may well ask: ‘How can you
advocate breaking some laws
and obeying others?’ The answer
lies in the fact that there are two
types of laws: just and unjust. I
would be the first to advocate
obeying just laws. One has not
only a legal but a moral
responsibility to obey just laws.
Conversely, one has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust
laws. I would agree with St.
Augustine that ‘an unjust law is
no law at all.’ …
Natural Law
“… Now, what is the difference between the
two? How does one determine whether a
law is just or unjust? A just law is a
manmade code that squares with the moral
law or the law of God. An unjust law is a
code that is out of harmony with the moral
law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas
Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that
is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Any law that uplifts human personality is
just. Any law that degrades human
personality is unjust.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Letter from Birmingham Jail
Natural Law
Natural law theories
1. often combine deontology &
virtue ethics
2. are sometimes theologically
based (Thomas Aquinas,
John Locke, Martin Luther
King) …
Natural Law
… but not necessarily so
(Hugo Grotius,
Lysander Spooner)
Natural Law
… but not necessarily so
(Hugo Grotius,
Lysander Spooner)
Example of a
Natural Law Theory
The doctrine of double effect (Aquinas) –
If an action has two results, one good one bad,
it’s permissible only if a) the good outweighs
the bad [consequentialist component] and b)
the bad is only foreseen, not intended [nonconsequentialist component]
Actions individuated by their intentions
Example of a
Natural Law Theory
So collateral damage OK
(civilian deaths foreseen but
not part of plan)
Dresden/Hiroshima not OK
(civilian deaths part of plan)
Too strict for many
consequentialists
Too permissive for many
deontologists
Relativism
The rightness of an action depends on the
approval of some person/group/culture.
Allows conflicting moralities: such-and-such
is right for group A (because group A
approves of it) but wrong for group B
(because group B disapproves of it).
Relativism
(What most philosophers regard as) bad
arguments for relativism:
 relativism will make us tolerant (but the
Nazis were relativists)
 cultures disagree about moral values (but
they disagree about scientific facts too)
 ethical disagreements can’t be settled (but
what’s wrong with reflective equilibration?)
Divine Command Ethics
What makes an action right is
the fact that God commands
it.
(As opposed to the view that
God commands things
because they are right
already.)
A form of relativism?
Divine Command Ethics
Problems for divine command theory:
- A perfect being would have good reasons
for whatever she commands – but DCE
seems to make that impossible
- Is it possible to praise God if DCE is true?
- God must already be good before she
commands, so goodness isn’t reducible to
divine commands
Divine Command Ethics
Defense of divine command
theory:
How could God be subject to
moral standards he didn’t
create?
Reply: the standard of morality
might be God’s nature rather
than God’s will
(Thomas Aquinas, c. 1225-1274)
Ethical Theories
and Ethical Standing
What has ethical standing?
- individuals?
- communities?
- non-human animals?
- plants?
- the non-living environment?
Ethical Theories
and Ethical Standing
Kantianism: rational agents only
(cruelty to animals bad only because it
tends to make you the sort of person
who’ll be cruel to people)
Contractarianism: only those beings that
can enter agreements
Ethical Theories
and Ethical Standing
Utilitarianism: those beings who can feel
pleasure or pain (“The question is not, Can they reason?
nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” – Jeremy Bentham)
Virtue ethics: whatever beings a virtuous
person would care about!
Divine Command: whatever beings God
cares about!
Applying Reflective Equilibration
to Ethical Theories
Case study: Utilitarianism
Advantage: simplicity (analogy with
superiority of Newtonian over Aristotelian
mechanics)
Disadvantage: potential conflict with
existing norms
Simplicity in Science:
Aristotle vs. Newton
Apple falls, moon
doesn’t: why?
Aristotle: two kinds of
matter with different
principles of motion.
Terrestrial matter has a
naturally vertical
motion; celestial
matter has a naturally
circular motion
Simplicity in Science:
Aristotle vs. Newton
Newton: same laws of
motion apply to both.
Simplicity: if two
theories explain the
same phenomena
equally well, the one
that posits fewer
explanatory principles
is better.
Simplicity in Ethics:
Utilitarianism
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 consequences.
This would make it a superior theory – if in
fact it explains them equally well.
Does it?
A Question for Next Time!