Transcript Ethics in Modern Philosophy

Ethics in Modern Philosophy
René Descartes
Descartes’ Ethics
• The goal of human life is happiness.
• Happiness is mental flourishing,
contentment, and tranquillity: “to love
life without fearing death.”
• Happiness requires a healthy mind.
• The “true health of the mind” consists in
developing wisdom, which is “true and
sound judgment.”
Descartes’ Ethics
• Wisdom requires knowledge and the
use of reason.
• Reason must, in particular, control the
passions and “examine and consider
without passion” our options and ends,
so that “we shall always choose the
better.”
Descartes’ Ethics
• Virtue is reasoning constantly and well:
“a firm and constant will to bring about
everything we judge to be the best and
to employ all the force of our intellect in
judging well.”
Princess Elizabeth
Morality and Rationality
• Is happiness, as described by
Descartes, achievable?
• Reason and feeling are not so easily
distinguished.
• Rational control is not a purely mental
phenomenon.
Morality and Rationality
• Good judgment, moreover, depends on
experience.
• Experience trains our senses and our
passions, making us sensitive to the right
things and enabling us to feel the right
emotions.
• Thinking about moral problems and making
moral choices is at least as much a matter of
feeling as of reason.
Conscience
• We frequently act on the basis of conscience.
• Conscience ratifies our passions to reason,
declaring them as acceptable or unacceptable.
• Reason acts on premises that conscience
provides.
• Reason thus cannot act independently of
feeling.
• Conscience and some passions play important
roles in moral thinking.
Morality and Health
• Morality is not just a matter of health.
• If all moral error is illness, then we have
an all-purpose excuse.
• We can no more be blamed for
immorality than we can for being sick.
• But morality is not therapy. We have
free will.
Consequences
• Assessing consequences requires knowing
what the consequences of an act will or might
be at an indefinite distance into the future.
• It also requires knowing how the values of all
those potential consequences compare with
one another.
• The knowledge required to reach moral
conclusions on such a theory must be infinite.
• It would follow that moral knowledge is
impossible.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Hume’s Ethics
• Morals have an influence on
actions and affections
• Reason alone can have no
such influence
• So, morality is not a
conclusion of reason
• It consists of no matter of
fact
Is —> Ought
• Moral “reasoning” goes
from is and is not to
ought and ought not
• How can we go from is to
ought?
• Reason supplies no
connection
Feelings
• Why is cruelty wrong?
• Why is generosity good?
• No fact of the matter to be found in
them
• “. . .’tis the object of feeling, not of
reason. It lies in yourself, not in the
object.”
• Sentiment or feeling takes us from is
to ought
Slave of the passions
• “Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the
passions.”
• These feelings are particular
• “An action or sentiment, or character s virtuous or
vicious; why? Because its view causes a pleasure
or uneasiness of a particular kind.”
• Moral sense: capacity for the feelings that
constitute the basis for our moral judgments
Is Hume a Subjectivist?
• Subjectivism: Moral
truth depends on our
subjective states of
mind
• Moral truths depend on
feelings
• Feelings are subjective
states of mind
Moral realism
• Moral realism: Moral
truth depends on facts
that are independent of
us
• Is there a real basis for
our feelings?
• Is our moral sense
sensing anything real?
Realism vs. Subjectivism
• Is morality like color?
• Color: There is a real
basis for our color
perceptions, which are
quite regular
– Constant over time
– Intersubjective
agreement
– Physical basis:
wavelengths of light
Realism vs. Subjectivism
• Or is morality like humor?
• Humor: judgments not very
regular
–
–
–
–
–
Not very constant over time
Lots of disagreement
No apparent physical basis
Matter of taste
De gustibus non disputandum
Why there are no turtlefights
Homer’s head x-ray
The pit-bull solution
Immanuel Kant
Reason in Ethics
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Practical test: How
do we tell right from
wrong?
• Theoretical
question: What
makes right actions
right, and wrong
actions wrong?
Rational —> Right
• Right acts are
rational
• Wrong acts are
irrational
• Why be moral? It’s
the rational thing to
do
Intrinsic good
• Intrinsic good: good for its
own sake
• Instrumental good: good for
the sake of something else
• What is good for its own
sake?
• Aristotle: Happiness
Unqualified good
• Unqualified good: good
unconditionally, good no
matter what
• Qualified good: good for
something, good under
certain conditions
• What is good without
qualification?
Unqualified good
• Unqualified good: good
unconditionally, good no
matter what
• Qualified good: good for
something, good under
certain conditions
• What is good without
qualification?
• Kant: a good will
Good Will
• “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the
world, or even out of it, which can be called
good, without qualification, except a good
will.”
Virtues
• “Intelligence, wit, judgement, and the other talents
of the mind, however they may be named, or
courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of
temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable
in many respects; but these gifts of nature may
also become extremely bad and mischievous if the
will which is to make use of them, and which,
therefore, constitutes what is called character, is
not good.”
Happiness
• “It is the same with the gifts of fortune.
Power, riches, honour, even health, and the
general well-being and contentment with
one's condition which is called happiness,
inspire pride, and often presumption, if
there is not a good will to correct the
influence of these on the mind, and with this
also to rectify the whole principle of acting
and adapt it to its end.”
Impartial Rational Spectator
• “The sight of a being who is not adorned
with a single feature of a pure and good
will, enjoying unbroken prosperity, can
never give pleasure to an impartial rational
spectator. Thus a good will appears to
constitute the indispensable condition even
of being worthy of happiness.”
Good Will
• What is a good will?
– (1) Deciding on the basis of universal
considerations
– (2) Deciding on the basis of respect
– (Feminist critics of Kant) Caring
Universality
• Good will: acts on the basis of
universal considerations
• Not influenced by “subjective,
particular determinations”
• “the proper and inestimable worth of
an absolutely good will consists just
in this, that the principle of action is
free from all influence of contingent
grounds.”
Duty
• A person has a good
will,
• and his/her act has
moral worth,
• when he/she acts
from duty,
• out of respect for the
moral law
Two kinds of moral theory
• Consequentialism: the
value of an act depends
entirely on its
consequences
• Deontologism: the value
of an act depends on
more than
consequences
Evaluating Actions
• Character —> Motive —> Intention —> Action —>
Consequences
• Consequentialists evaluate by what (might reasonably be
expected to) come after the act
• Deontologists judge by what comes before the act
Evaluating Intentions
• Kant is an extreme
deontologist
• Moral quality of an act does
not depend on
consequences at all
• We judge act by agent’s
intentions
• Maxim: “subjective principle
of action”
• Rule reflecting agent’s
intention
Imperatives
• Imperative: expresses
command or obligation
• Hypothetical imperative: “If you
are in circumstance C (or want
D), then do A.”
• Categorical imperative: “Do A.”
Hypothetical Imperatives
• Hypothetical imperatives are
conditional:
• If . . . do . . . .
or
If .
. . don’t . . . .
• depend on circumstances,
goals, desires
• means to end: qualified
goods
Categorical Imperative
• “Do . . .” or “Don’t . . .”
• Independent of goals,
desires, circumstances
• Applies universally
• Appropriate to unqualified
goods
• There is only one
unqualified good—
• a good will
The Categorical Imperative
• There is only one possible
categorical imperative:
• “You ought to have a good will”
• Good will acts only on universal
considerations
• “You ought to act on universal
considerations”
• “You ought to act on principle”
Formula of Universal Law
• “Act only on that maxim
you can at the same
time will to be universal
law.”
• Act as if everyone were
going to act according
to your maxim
• Don’t make an
exception of yourself
A Moral Test
• Test for action A:
– (a) Identify A’s maxim
A Moral Test
• Test for action A:
– (a) Identify A’s maxim
– (b) Ask, “Could it be a
universal law?”
– If not: A is unjust
A Moral Test
• Test for action A:
– (a) Identify A’s maxim
– (b) Ask, “Could it be a
universal law?”
– If not: A is unjust
– If so: (c) Ask, “Could I will it
to be a universal law?”
– If not: A is immoral
– If so: A is permissible
Simple Case
• Should I steal?
– (a) Identify maxim: Steal!
– (b) Ask, “Could it be a universal
law?”
– Could everyone go around
stealing from everyone else?
No:
• There would be no such thing as
property
• There would be no such thing as
stealing
– So, stealing is unjust
Kant’s Theory
Too narrow?
(False
negatives)
• Permissible
Too
broad?
(False
positives)
Maxim can
be willed as
universal
law
False positives/negatives
• False positives?
• Animals:
– Pulling kitten tails
• Detailed maxims:
– Lying to Hans on May
12, 2009
– Shooting Michael if he
hops, juggles, and
sings the Catalina
Magdalena
Lupensteiner
Wallabeine song
• False negatives?
• Economic acts:
– Buying Apple stock
– Practicing law
– Eating at Mineo’s
• Playing roles:
– Playing the bass
– Playing wide receiver
• Being where you are
Kant’s Examples
•
To Self
To Others
• Perfect obligation
suicide
promises
• Imperfect obligation
talents
charity
Perfect/Imperfect Obligations
• Perfect obligations: specific
obligations to specific people—
give others rights— unjust to
violate them
• Imperfect obligations: allow
choice in how to fulfill— give no
one else rights— wrong, but not
unjust, to violate them
Perfect Obligations
• To self: not to commit
suicide
• To others: to repay debts;
more generally, to keep
promises
Kant on Promises
• 2. Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow
money. He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but
sees also that nothing will be lent to him unless he
promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time. He desires
to make this promise, but he has still so much
conscience as to ask himself: "Is it not unlawful and
inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this
way?"
Kant on Promises
• [a] Suppose however that he resolves to do so:
then the maxim of his action would be
expressed thus: "When I think myself in want of
money, I will borrow money and promise to
repay it, although I know that I never can do so."
Now this principle of self-love or of one's own
advantage may perhaps be consistent with my
whole future welfare; but the question now is, "Is
it right?"
Kant on Promises
• [b] I change then the suggestion of selflove into a universal law, and state the
question thus: "How would it be if my
maxim were a universal law?"
Kant on Promises
• Then I see at once that it could never hold as a
universal law of nature, but would necessarily
contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal
law that everyone when he thinks himself in a
difficulty should be able to promise whatever he
pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his
promise, the promise itself would become
impossible, as well as the end that one might have
in view in it, since no one would consider that
anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all
such statements as vain pretences.
Keeping Promises
• Maxim: “make false promises”
• What if everyone did that?
• Contradiction: no such thing as
promising
• So, making false promises is unjust and
so wrong
• We have a perfect obligation to keep
our promises
Kant on Suicide
• 1. A man reduced to despair by a series of
misfortunes feels wearied of life, but is still so far in
possession of his reason that he can ask himself
whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself
to take his own life. Now he inquires whether the
maxim of his action could become a universal law of
nature.
• [a] His maxim is: "From self-love I adopt it as a
principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is
likely to bring more evil than satisfaction."
Kant on Suicide
• [b] It is asked then simply whether this principle founded on
self-love can become a universal law of nature.
• Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should
be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose
special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would
contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of
nature; hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal
law of nature and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent
with the supreme principle of all duty.
Against suicide
•
•
•
•
Suicide: destroy life for the sake of life
Contradictory
Can’t be universal law
So, suicide is unjust, and thus wrong
Imperfect Obligation: Talent
• 3. A third finds in himself a talent which with the help
of some culture might make him a useful man in
many respects. But he finds himself in comfortable
circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure
rather than to take pains in enlarging and improving
his happy natural capacities.
• He asks, however, whether [a] his maxim of neglect
of his natural gifts, besides agreeing with his
inclination to indulgence, agrees also with what is
called duty.
Talent: Perfect Obligation?
• [b] He sees then that a system of nature
could indeed subsist with such a
universal law although men (like the
South Sea islanders) should let their
talents rest and resolve to devote their
lives merely to idleness, amusement,
and propagation of their species- in a
word, to enjoyment;
Talent: Imperfect Obligation
• [c] but he cannot possibly will that this should
be a universal law of nature, or be implanted
in us as such by a natural instinct. For, as a
rational being, he necessarily wills that his
faculties be developed, since they serve him
and have been given him, for all sorts of
possible purposes.
Developing talents
•
•
•
•
You are a rational being
You can’t help willing your own survival
You can’t help willing your own rationality
You can’t will to be stupid, or irrational, or
ignorant, or ineffective
• Circumstances in which you are stupid,
ignorant, ineffective, or irrational aren’t
contradictory, but can’t be willed
Kant on Charity
• 4. A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that
others have to contend with great wretchedness and
that he could help them, thinks:
• [a] "What concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as
happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can make
himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy
him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his
welfare or to his assistance in distress!"
Charity: Perfect Obligation?
• [b] Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking
were a universal law, the human race might
very well subsist and doubtless even better
than in a state in which everyone talks of
sympathy and good-will, or even takes care
occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the
other side, also cheats when he can, betrays
the rights of men, or otherwise violates them.
Charity: Imperfect Obligation
• [c] But although it is possible that a universal law of
nature might exist in accordance with that maxim, it is
impossible to will that such a principle should have
the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will
which resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch
as many cases might occur in which one would have
need of the love and sympathy of others, and in
which, by such a law of nature, sprung from his own
will, he would deprive himself of all hope of the aid he
desires.
Kant’s Practical Test
• Good will acts out of
respect for moral law
• For others as rational
beings
• “You ought to respect
moral agents”
• “Don’t use people”
• “Treat people as ends,
never only as means”
Kant’s Theory
Too narrow?
(False negative)
• Permissible
Too
broad?
(False
positive)
Treats
everyone as
an end, not
merely as a
means
Examples
• Suicide: uses him/herself to avoid pain
• False promise: uses the promisee to gain
advantage
• Talents: uses his/her life for mere enjoyment;
doesn’t give him/herself full respect as
moral/rational agent
• Charity: doesn’t give others full respect as
moral/rational agents
Autonomy
• Autonomy: we live under
rules we set for ourselves
• Imagine yourself legislating in
the kingdom of ends
• Heteronomy: living under
rules set by others
• Autonomy —> dignity
Madame de Staël
Reason and Passion
• Madame de Staël rebelled against the
dominance of reason, insisting on the
importance of enthusiasm, which “leads us to
recognize the value and beauty in all things.”
• Influence of the Passions upon the
Happiness of Individuals and of Nations
treats the passions as the greatest obstacle
to human happiness.
Reason and Passion
• The passions are hugely important in
human affairs and also as potentially
hugely destructive.
• The very thing that gives life its greatest
meaning and vibrancy also threatens it.
Reason and Passion
• Plato, in his metaphor of
the chariot, saw the spirited
horse as working in general
in harmony with reason.
• Madame De Staël sees it
as even more disruptive
and unruly than desire.
Reason and Ethics
• The chief task of ethics must be to
restrain the passions, to allow reason to
direct us to what we ought to do.
• The best means to happiness is not to
worry about happiness.
Utilitarianism
Maximize good
Jeremy Bentham
• Principle of utility: Maximize
good
• “... the greatest happiness of the
whole community, ought to be the
end or object of pursuit. . . . The
right and proper end of government
in every political community, is the
greatest happiness of all the
individuals of which it is composed,
say, in other words, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.”
Bentham’s Principle
• “By the principle of utility is
meant that principle which
approves or disapproves of
every action whatsoever,
according to the tendency it
appears to have to augment
or diminish the happiness of
the party whose interest is in
question: or, what is the
same thing in other words to
promote or to oppose that
happiness.”
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
• “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.”
Consequences
• Consequentialism:
an act’s value
depends on its
consequences
(effects on the
amount of good)
• Universalism:
everyone’s good
counts equally
Motives, intentions, etc.
• Utilitarians treat what comes before the act as
relevant, but only because of consequences:
– 1. An intention is good if it tends to lead to good actions.
– 2. A motive is good if it tends to lead to good intentions.
– 3. A character trait is good if it tends to lead to good motives.
– 4. A person is good if he/she tends to have good character traits.
– 5. A society is good if it tends to have good people.
Intrinsic good
• Maximize what?
• Utilitarians need a
theory of basic or
intrinsic good
• Moral good =
maximizing basic
good
• Basic good = ?
Hedonism
• Intrinsic good:
Happiness
• What is
happiness?
Happiness
• Bentham & Mill:
pleasure and the
absence of pain
• Hedonism: pleasure
and pain are the
only sources of
value
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
• A good act increases the balance of pleasure
over pain in the community
• A bad act decreases it
• The best acts maximize the balance of pleasure
over pain
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
• We must consider, not just
ourselves, but everyone
affected
• Individualism: effect on
community is sum of
affects on members
Moral Calculus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
People affected
A
B
.
.
.
Z
• Total
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pleasure
P(A)
P(B)
.
.
.
P(Z)
B(Z)
• P
Pain
L(A)
L(B)
.
.
.
L
Difference
B(A)
B(B)
.
.
.
L(Z)
B
Bentham’s Arguments
• Common sense: common sense moral
judgments agree with PU
• Arguments for other principles assume
PU: “if people don’t follow this rule, bad
things happen.”
• We can resolve conflicts; we must have
a measure of value that allows us to do
that
Bentham against conscience
• “Principle of sympathy and
antipathy” tends to severity or
leniency
• Capricious: people’s reactions
differ
• Confuses motive with
justification
• PU is justification, not motive
Utilitarianism
Too narrow?
(False negative)
• You ought
to do it
Too
broad?
(False
positive)
It maximizes
the balance
of pleasure
over pain
Carlyle’s Objection
• Thomas Carlyle: “Pig
philosophy!”
• Utilitarianism: good =
feeling good
Mill’s 1830s response
• The goal is to maximize the good
for mankind as a species
• This has two implications:
– I can best do that by promoting my
own good; we are all best off when
each tends his own
– I have reason to develop my
capacities, my talents, and my
intellect; they produce benefits for
mankind, not just for me
Qualities of pleasures
• Mill: pleasures differ in
quality as well as quantity
• “It is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied.”
• We are capable of better
pleasures than pigs are
Judging Quality
• Which pleasures are
higher?
• See what the competent
judges prefer
• Who is competent to
judge? Those with
experience of both
• Intellectual > social >
sensual
Qualities of Pleasure
• Intellectual
• Social
• Sensual
Virtue
• Even if higher pleasures were not more
intrinsically valuable, utilitarianism would
not be pig philosophy
• Higher pleasures —> virtues —> benefits
for others
• Mill affirms his 1830s answers
Bentham v. Mill
• Bentham agrees that pleasures differ in quality: “In
regard to well-being, quality as well as quantity
requires to be taken into account.”
• He has an entire chapter on kinds of pleasures
Bentham v. Mill
• But Bentham thinks you are the most
competent judge of quality for you:
• “Quantity depends upon general sensibility,
sensibility to pleasure and pain in general;
quality upon particular sensibility: upon a
man's being more sensible to pleasure or
pain from this or that source, than to ditto
from this or that other.”
Bentham on Liberty
• I can know quality for me by reflection
• But I can judge qualities for others only by
what they say and do
• So, each can judge best for him/herself:
“every man is a better judge of what is
conducive to his own well-being than any
other man can be.”
Mill on Liberty
• Harm principle:
• The only justification for
restricting liberty is harm to
others
• Self-regarding actions: sphere
of liberty
• We ought to be free to do
what we please so long as we
don’t violate someone else’s
rights
Mill on Rules
• Principle of utility justifies acts
• It need not be a motivation or even a practical
test
• We apply it by “secondary principles,”
common sense moral rules
• We justify these rules by utility
• We appeal to the principle of utility only when
secondary principles conflict
Act v. Rule Utilitarianism
• Act utilitarianism (Bentham): an act is right if it
maximizes good
• Utility —> act
• Rule utilitarianism (Maimonides): an act is
right if it accords with the rules that maximize
good
• Utility —> Rules —> Act
• Disagree when a rule conflicts with utility
Breaking Rules
• What if we can do better by
breaking a (good) rule?
• Don’t break it!
• Rules essential to moral
thought
• We are tempted to break rules
for our own advantage
• We’ll usually go wrong
• Moral chaos
Interpreting Mill
• Is Mill an act or ruleutilitarian?
• His greatest
happiness principle
speaks of acts
• But he stresses
secondary principles
Mill: Breaking Rules
•
•
•
•
Letter to John Venn:
Advocates act utilitarianism
But agrees with Maimonides
If we break a rule, we’ll usually
go wrong
• So, better to obey the rule
Mill: Acts and Rules
• Act utilitarianism is right, but
act as a rule utilitarian
• Act utilitarianism is theoretically
correct: it tells us what makes
right acts right
• But rule utilitarianism is a
better practical test