Transcript EVIL IS STILL A PROBLEM!!!

Consequentialism
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill
THIS IS BENTHAM’S REAL HEAD
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
• The Greatest Happiness Principle:
Humans only act for the sake of
pleasure and to avoid pain. The good
is pleasure.
• The Hedonic Calculus – calculate utility of
each possible action
HEDONISM
• Both Bentham and Mill are “Hedonistic
Utilitarians”
• Hedonism has two versions that we must
attend to:
Psychological Hedonism – The claim that
human action is motivated by
pleasure/pain.
Ethical Hedonism – The claim that pleasure
is good and pain is bad/evil.
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity (The relative strength of the
sensation)
2. Duration (how long it lasts)
3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the
sensation is to follow the act)
4. Propinquity or remoteness (how immediate is
the sensation)
5. Fecundity (likelihood of producing further utility
effects)
6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or is it
mixed?)
7. Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY
POINT, NOT JUST YOU]
Bentham’s Moral Theory
Bentham’s Theory of Value: The good is
pleasure. Each action has an objective
value determined by the hedonic calculus
Bentham’s Theory of Right Conduct: every
agent is morally obligated to perform the
action which will maximize pleasure
overall for everyone involved.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Mill defends and extends Bentham’s view
against criticisms.
There are subtle changes which make Mill’s
view superior
These changes result from the attempt to
answer specific objections.
Mill’s Moral Theory-Right Conduct
•
The creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of
pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by the theory, much more
requires to be said; in particular, what things it
includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to
what extent this is left an open question.” (Mill
Util, II, para 2)
“
Mill’s Theory of Right Conduct
• TRC-U: actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure,
and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness, pain, and the
privation of pleasure.
Mill’s Moral Theory- Value
• “But these supplementary explanations do not
affect the theory of life on which this theory of
morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and
freedom from pain, are the only things desirable
as ends; and that all desirable things (which are
as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other
scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure
inherent in themselves, or as means to the
promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
pain.” (Mill, Util, II, Para 2).
Mill’s Theory of Value
• TV-U: Pleasure and freedom
from pain are the only things
desirable as ends.
The Objections:
• Mill formulated his version of Utilitarianism
in response to specific objections which
had undercut Bentham’s version
• These objections either attacked
utilitarianism for denying that humans
were special or by denying that it was
practical.
The Doctrine of Swine Objection
1. Util. assumes that pleasure is the good (Moral
Hedonism)
2. Util. assumes that we only act for the sake of
pleasure (Psychological Hedonism)
3. This is how animals behave, not humans
4. Thus, Util. requires that humans be like
animals (like swine).
5. Hence we should reject Util. because humans
are not swine.
Types of Pleasure Reply
a) So What. If Psychological Hedonism is
true then it is true.
b) Two Types of Pleasure: Higher and
Lower
c) Higher Pleasures are superior (the
comparison proof)
Too High for Humanity
Objection
1. Util. requires that we act for the sake of the
greatest good.
2. This might require a human to act to their own
disadvantage or death.
3. This is an unrealistic expectation, most
humans are constitutionally incapable of
altruism (ought implies can)
4. Therefore, Util. requires more from humans
than they are capable of.
5. Therefore, Util. cannot be the correct account
of human morality.
Individual Goods comprise the
General Good Reply
a) The good of all is the same as the sum of
all individual goods
b) Individuals can always pursue their own
goods
c) If every individual pursues their own
pleasure that is the same as pursuing the
good of all.
d) [Economic Analogue?]
Lack of Time Objection
1. Util. requires that we calculate the value of
every possible act and chose the best.
2. Such a calculation is beyond the ability of
human beings
3. Such calculations would take a great deal of
time
4. We must therefore either act without
calculating or calculate in place of action – we
lack time to do both.
5. Therefore, we cannot fulfill our obligations
under Util.
Rule of Thumb Reply
a) Not every action requires a new calculation
b) The history of humanity provides adequate
evidence of general rules of utility
c) Traditional morality reflects these general rules
d) Obeying traditional morality yields the same
basic result that would result from calculation
Mill’s Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity (The relative strength of the
sensation)
2. Duration (how long it lasts)
3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the
sensation is to follow the act)
4. Propinquity or remoteness (how immediate
is the sensation)
5. Fecundity (likelihood of producing further
utility effects)
6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or
is it mixed?)
7. Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY
POINT, NOT JUST YOU]
8. Type (higher or lower?)
Mill’s Moral Theory
The basic gist of Mill’s moral theory is this:
Human beings pursuing their own happiness
(primarily intellectual happiness) will over
time produce a world that contains the
greatest net amount of happiness.
Therefore, each person has a moral
obligation to maximize their own pleasure
(or at least to structure their life so as to
permit the pursuit of pleasure).
General Objections to Mill’s
Utilitarianism
•
•
•
•
Immoral to Promulgate
Illegitimate Aggregation of Goods
Cannot Quantify Utility
Allows the ends to justify the means
-Lives for Headaches
-Innocent Spelunker
-Dying Promise Case
A Complication…
• Act-Utilitarianism: The rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined
through case-by-case calculation
• Rule-Utilitarianism: The rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined by
rules that generally tend to promote overall
utility
A Question
(or two, to keep in mind)…
• If Act utilitarianism is too complicated
consequentialists must be rule utilitarians.
• BUT How do we determine the moral
rules?
• And is there any difference between ruleutilitarianism and Kantian ethics?
Is Utilitarianism Correct?
The factors in favor of consequentialism
generally seem less than conclusive.
What are the other options?
-Morality based on Rules/Principles
-Morality based upon Character
Principle based Moral Theories
• Objective moral theories require that
something govern morality which
does not depend upon individual
persons or cultures.
• Consequentialism assumes this must
involve an objective source of value
• Principle based moral theories
assume that moral principles play this
role.
• The most important principle based
theory is due to Kant.
Kantian Ethics
• Immanual Kant
• German Philosopher
• Konigsberg, Prussia
(Kalliningrad, Russia)
• Single-handedly formalized moral
philosophy
Morality and Reason
• Kant’s main insight is this:
If all men are rational and morality is
rooted in reason, then morality will have
the same content for all and make the
same demand on everyone.
Perfectly objective moral theory…
Kant’s Theory of Value
• Kant’s moral philosophy is all about conduct.
But he begins his most influential moral work
with these words:
“The only thing that is good in itself is a
good will.”
The only thing we should value is the fact that a
person is motivated to do what duty requires of
them.
Moral Motivation
• Kant does make a controversial claim
about motivation.
• Mill and Hume say that all motivation is
rooted in desire (BDI model)
• Kant says that some motivation is rooted
in desire but some is based upon reason
alone.
Kant’s Theory of Right Conduct –
Part I
• In broad outline Kant claims that an act is
forbidden if it is incompatible with reason and
required if not doing it is incompatible with
reason.
• There is no MORAL value in the consequences
of an action only in the MOTIVATION behind the
action.
• Consequences can yield only non-moral value.
Commands of Reason
• Kant’s main problem is how to determine
the commands of reason, in particular
those commands which comprise the socalled moral law
• There are two kinds of commands of
reason: moral commands and non-moral
commands.
Maxims
• In order to see how these commands are
commands of reason we need to introduce
the notion of a ‘MAXIM’
• A Maxim = a subjective practical principle,
a rule of rational action that you give
yourself, it involves a description of your
action.
Hypothetical Imperatives
• If your maxim gives a command of reason that
applies to a particular person, in a particular
situation, or relative to a desire, then the
command is not a command of morality.
• Kant calls these HYPOTHETICAL
IMPERATIVES (HI)
- An imperative is a command of reason
- It is hypothetical because it only applies
under certain conditions
Practical Reasoning
• Hypothetical Imperatives are commands of
reason related to the achievement of goals that
we desire or solving problems
• How do I get to Memphis?
• How do I fix my Toilet?
• Why are they commands of reason: because
they relate means and ends—our selection of a
means is determined by the end (goal).
Categorical Imperatives
• If a command of reason applies to all rational
agents in all circumstances, situations, and
without regard to desire then the command is a
moral command or reason
• Kant calls commands of the moral law
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES (CI)
- It is categorical because it commands all
members of a group: Rational Agents
Categorical Imperatives II
•
Kant offers several ways to test potential
actions (maxims) to see if they agree
with the Moral Law (i.e. if they express
CIs) We will look at two:
1. The Universal Law Test
2. The Humanity Test
CI as Universal Law (UL)
CI-UL: “Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that
it should be come a universal law”
Applications:
-The Shopkeeper
- Lying Promise
- Suicide
Application of UL (1)
• Shopkeeper [Maxim from self love I will
act so as to treat people such that I can
maximize my gain at their expense]
Inconsistency: Will self love and gain
while I also will that I be used by others
Application of UL (2)
• Suicide [Maxim: from self-love I make as
my principle to shorten my life when its
continued duration threatens more evil
than it promises satisfaction]
Inconsistency: will self-love (preservation)
and from self-love that you die (nonpreservation)
Application of UL (3)
• Lying Promise [ Maxim: when I believe
myself to be in need of money, I will
borrow money and promise to pay it back,
although I know I can never do so.]
Inconsistency: I will that I commit myself
and that I not be committed.
CI as Equal Regard (ER)
CI-H: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end and
never simply as a means”
- An end is a being capable of setting its own
goals and making choices.
- If I treat you as a mere means, I make choices
for you and substitute my goals for goals you
might choose.
Application of ER (1)
• Shopkeeper [Maxim from self love I will
act so as to treat people such that I can
maximize my gain at their expense]
Problem: If how I treat you varies based
upon my desire, then I chose for you how
you will be treated.
Application of ER (2)
• Suicide [Maxim: from self-love I make as
my principle to shorten my life when its
continued duration threatens more evil
than it promises satisfaction]
Problem: If I kill myself, I deny my future
self choice. I subordinate my existence to
my suffering. I would not choose to die in
other situations.
Application of ER (3)
• Lying Promise [ Maxim: when I believe
myself to be in need of money, I will
borrow money and promise to pay it back,
although I know I can never do so.]
Problem: If keeping a promise depends
upon my needs then I reserve the right to
determine for you whether you benefit or
not from my promise.
Kant on Right Conduct II
Moral vs Legal Actions
The importance of motive reveals the distinction:
Act from duty: Moral Act
Act from desire, but in accord with duty: Legal Act
Only Moral acts have value!
Very hard to tell if an act is moral—motive MUST
be PURE
Kant on Right Conduct III
Legal acts are still morally RIGHT, but they
do not contribute to the moral worth of the
world (the good will).
There are many duties:
Perfect duties—specific commands
Imperfect Duties – non-specific commands
Morality and Reason (2)
Why think that the commands of reason are moral
commands?
Perfect Moral Agent (God)
Imperfect Moral Agents (Humans)
God WILL do what reason demands
Humans OUGHT to do what reason demands.
Autonomy and Morality
• The essence of Kant’s moral theory can be
reduced to the notion of AUTONOMY.
• - Gk: Auto-Self, Nomos-Law
• The be autonomous is to give the (moral) law of
reason to yourself.
• If you let something outside of yourself (e.g. an
object of desire) command your will then the law
comes from that object.
• External law is called “Heteronomy”
• The Law from within is pure, based in reason
alone, thus autonomous.
John Rawls (20th c. Kant?)
(Dead) American Philosopher John Rawls reformulated the
Kantian insight in his A Theory of Justice which was the
theoretical basis for much of late 20th. C. social policy in
the US.
Rawls’ two principles:
Maximum equal liberty (maximize liberty consistent
with equal liberty for all)
Difference (differences in liberty, power, authority,
etc. must benefit ALL members of a society)
Comments on Kant
• Theory of Motivation is wrong
• No way to be moral (pure action is
impossible)
• Exceptionless?
• Absolutism does not resolve conflicts
• Multiple descriptions/Many Maxims for one
act
Virtue Ethics
The third main objectivist moral theory focuses on
the moral agent.
The aim of a virtue theory is to explain how and
why we should live and structure our lives.
Virtue ethics was first made clear by Aristotle
Virtue ethics is teleological but not consequentialist
Aristotle
Aristotle
• Greek philosopher
• Student of Plato
• Trained as Natural
Scientist and
Physician
The Highest Good for Humanity(1)
• Virtue ethics is teleological (goal directed), but
the goal is not to achieve certain consequences.
• The goal is to perfect the character of the
person. Character is a state of the soul.
• A person’s character helps determine their
desires and reactions, so character will help to
govern action.
• A person of good character will not be disposed
to do what we might call ‘evil’.
The Highest Good for Humanity(2)
•
•
The goal for Aristotle is the “Highest
Good”
What goal does all human activity aim
at?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wealth? (no…)
Honor? (no…)
Pleasure? (no…)
Wisdom?
ALL HUMAN
ACTIVITY AIMS
AT HAPPINESS
What is Happiness?
• The Greek term is:
Eudaimonia:
Eu – Good
Daimonia – state of being or state of spirit.
This is not the same as ‘feeling happy’.
Happiness is more complex than a mere
feeling
The Good Life for Humanity
For Aristotle Ethics was part of Politics.
The aim of politics was to determine the best
form of government: A government that
would allow people to live the good life
The study of ethics was to determine the
good life for humanity.
Happiness is the good life
To experience Eudaimonia is to live the good life.
Aristotle’s task is to determine what the good life
for human beings looks like
To discover the nature of the good life Aristotle
looks at the essence of a human being, the
human soul
The Platonic Soul
Aristotle’s view is a reaction to Plato’s thought.
The Platonic Soul had 3 parts:
1. Appetitive – desires
2. Spirited – sensory and motivating, the will
3. Rational– thinking
Human psychology was seen as a battle between the
Appetites and Reason for control of the will
The Just Soul for Plato is ruled by reason assisted by the
spirited soul.
The Aristotelian Soul
•
Aristotle’s picture of the soul also has 3
parts:
1. The Nutritive Soul -- life
2. The Appetitive Soul – desires and action
3. The Rational Soul –reason
BUT only the Rational soul was essentially
human.
This insight is cashed out through Aristotle’s socalled Function Argument.
The Function Argument (1)
• What is the function (Ergon) of Man?
• The proper human function is some activity of the
human soul, which only humans can do. Therefore it
is the function of the reasoning or rational part of the
soul.
• (Aristotle argues for this claim by elimination)
1) Plant souls are nutritive, so anything we do in
common with plants is not uniquely human.
2)Animal souls are both appetitive and nutrative, so
anything we do in common with animals is not
uniquely human.
3)What is left is the rational soul.
The Function Argument (2)
1. The proper human function is the function of the reasoning or rational
part of the soul.
2. The Human Soul expresses its rationality in two ways: (a) by having
reason (understanding or thinking, intellectual activity), and (b) by
obeying reason (practical problem solving, knowing how to do things).
3. Human life is either a capacity or an activity. Life is best seen as an
activity, since we wouldn't call something with the capacity to live, but
which doesn't actually live alive.
4. Combining (1), (2), and (3) Aristotle concludes that:
The proper function of a human being is, the activity of the human soul
which expresses its reason either by having it, or by obeying it.
(Translation: The uniquely human thing about us is that in our
activities we try to understand about the world and how to best do
things).
The Function Argument (3)
1. For any thing of type F, e.g. a flute, an F (flute) and an excellent
F (excellent Flute) will have the same proper function.
2. A human being’s proper function is "the activity of the human
soul which expresses its reason either by having it, or by
obeying it.“
3. The Good Life (excellent life/virtuous life) will be a life where our
function is done well.
4. Doing a thing well is the same thing as doing it with its proper
virtue.
5. The GOOD LIFE (Human Good), therefore, is "the activity of the
human soul which expresses its reason either by having it, or
by obeying it" which expresses the proper virtue(s)
6. If more than one virtue is involved, the Good will be the most
complete virtue.
Comments on The Function
Argument
• The difference between life and good life
is the presence of something good (or
excellent).
• A complete virtue is a virtue that cannot be
enhanced by adding more X