Transcript Philosophy 2803 – Lecture II

Philosophy 2803 – Lecture II
Introduction to Ethical Theory
Why Survey Ethical Theory At All?
 Different Aims in Different Courses
– In a course on ethical theory
 In order to investigate what the correct theory is
– In a course like this
 In order to acquire some tools to work with
 The survey identifies a number of perspectives that should be
taken into account when considering ethically difficult cases
Relativism vs. Objectivism Again
 Last week, we primarily considered moral relativism
 Remember relativism is not just a descriptive theory.
It’s a normative theory.
– It claims not just that people’s moral beliefs differ, but that
all there is to the moral facts is the beliefs held in a
particular culture.
– What’s right = what a culture believes is right
 This week we’ll focus on objectivism
Moral Objectivism
• 'Moral facts' are like 'physical facts'.
• What the facts are is independent of what anyone
thinks
• They have to be discovered like the laws of
physics
• Discovery may be difficult (again, compare to
physics)
• Note: Believing in objectivism doesn’t mean you
know what the moral facts are
Why Focus on Objectivism?
 A glib answer:
– Our culture places importance on justifying our
moral beliefs.
 It says we should, morally speaking, defend those
beliefs.
– As such, even if relativism is true, it seems we’re
morally obligated to defend our beliefs as though
there were objective facts to uncover
What Are the Objective Facts?
 Suppose for the moments that objectivism is
true. What are the objective facts of morality?
 Three Candidates:
– Consequentialism
– Deontological Theories
– Principilism
 See text for other examples
Case #1
 X, an emergency room physician, happens upon a roadside
accident. A car has crashed leaving 4 people seriously hurt
 After calling 911, X begins examining the injuries of the 4 people
 All are in danger of dying if they don’t receive immediate
attention.
 A quick examination reveals that one person, K, will require so
much attention the other three may well die before he finishes
treating K
 If K is left until last, his life is in serious danger, but X will likely
be able to save the other three
Consequentialism
 Consequentialists maintain that whether an
action is morally right or wrong depends on
the action's consequences.
– In any situation, the morally right thing to do is
whatever will have the best consequences.
– E.g., save 3 people, rather than 1
 Consequentialist theories are sometimes
called teleological theories.
What Kind of Consequences?
 Consequentialism isn't very informative
unless it's combined with a theory about what
the best consequences are.
 E.g., Creedism =
consequentialism + the theory that consequences
should be assessed in terms of how they reflect
on the career of Creed
Good for Creed = good consequences
Utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism is the most influential variety of
consequentialism
 The 'Founders' of Utilitarianism
– Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
– John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
 The Basis of Utilitarianism: ask what has intrinsic
value and assess the consequences of an action in
terms of intrinsically valuable things.
Jeremy Bentham
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value
 Instrumental Value - a thing has only instrumental
value if it is only valuable for what it may get you
– e.g., money
 Intrinsic Value - a thing has intrinsic value if you
value it for itself
– i.e., you’d value it even if it brought you nothing else
– It may, however, also possess instrumental value
 What, if anything, has intrinsic value?
What Has Intrinsic Value?
 What Utilitarians Think Is Intrinsically
Valuable: happiness
– Actually, not all utilitarians agree that happiness is quite the
right way of putting this.
– Other suggestions include satisfaction, well-being,
pleasure. (See text)
– Each variation yields a slightly different theory
– For now, the general approach is what matters
The ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’
 "actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness.“ (John
Stuart Mill)
– In other words, judge an action by the total
amount of happiness and unhappiness it creates
– Note: this means the total happiness (and
unhappiness) of everyone affected
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
 Notice that the GHP is a little vague.
 it's not clear whether Mill means
– (i) an action is right if this sort of action tends to promote
happiness or
– (ii) an action is right if this particular action will promote
happiness.
 If you believe in version i, you're a Rule Utilitarian.
 If you believe in version ii, you're an Act Utilitarian.
Case #2
 X has inoperable lung cancer that is unresponsive to
chemotherapy & radiation therapy
 X will most likely die within one year
 X’s physician believes X could not handle this news
 X’s physician decides to lie about the diagnosis for a
while in order to ‘buy X a little more time’
Deontology
 'Duty Based' Ethics
 Deontologists deny that what ultimately matters is
an action's consequences.
 What matters is the kind of action it is.
 What matters is doing our duty.
 Identify principle(s) from which our duties arise
Kinds of Deontological Theory
 There are many kinds of deontological theory
– e.g., ‘The Golden Rule' - "Do unto others as you'd have
them do unto you."
 Deontological theories may be identifed as monist or
pluralist depending on the number of fundamental
principles of duty the theory identifies
– Monist = 1
– Pluralist = more than 1
– See text for examples of pluralism
Kant
 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the most
influential deontologist.
 Rejecting Consequentialism
"A good will is good not because of what it effects
or accomplishes." Even if by bad luck a good
person never accomplishes anything much, the
good will would "like a jewel, still shine by its own
light as something which has its full value in
itself."
The Categorical Imperative
 Kant claims that all our actions should be judged according to a
rule he calls the Categorical Imperative.
 First Version: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule]
whereby you can at the same time will that it become a
universal law."
– E.g., telling a lie whenever you need to borrow money is
morally wrong because this sort of act is not
‘universalizable’.
– If everyone acted this way, the whole practice of promising to
repay a loan would collapse.
The Second Version of the C.I.
 Second Version (The “practical imperative”): “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.”
– Note: Kant is a monist since he thinks both versions of the C.I.
ultimately say the same thing
 This means there are certain ways we must not treat people (no
matter how much utility might be produced by treating them in
those ways)
– E.g., don’t lie to a patient
The Second Principle & Medical
Ethics
 The second principle has been very
influential in medical ethics
 A ‘medical’ reading of this principle
– it is necessary to treat people as
autonomous agents capable of making
their own decision
Autonomy
 A central element in many deontological theories is
the idea of autonomy
 Autonomy = self + rule
 Autonomous decisions are ones which you make for
yourself for your own reasons (ideally, your own wellinformed reasons)
 By respecting your autonomous decisions, we
respect you as an ‘end in itself’
Group Work
1. List the strengths of deontology
2. List the weaknesses of deontology
3. List the strengths of consequentialism
4. List the weaknesses of consequentialism
Strengths of Consequentialism
 Practical, Results-oriented View
 Relatively clear how to make ethical
judgments
– simply reflect on consequences
Weaknesses of Consequentialism

How can we know all the consequences of an
action?

How can we compare utility from person to person?

Do we include all generations? All species?

Will utilitarianism lead us to ‘repugnant
conclusions’?
–
In theory, any kind of action could be justified if the
consequences of the situation work out just right.
Strengths of Deontology
 Sets clear moral boundaries
– Some things just can’t be done
 Possibility of multiple principles allows
for flexibility
– Only on pluralist versions of deontology
Weaknesses of Deontology
 If we don’t rely on consequences for moral
justification, then can we find a convincing
case for identifying basic moral principles?
– Deontology’s basic approach is not as simple as
consequentialism’s
 Deontology can seem overly ‘legalistic’
– i.e., too focused on rules
– too inflexible
The Point
 Considerations raised by both theories
are worth taking seriously
 We’ll close by considering a theory that
tries to encompass both: principilism
Principilism
 Principilism attempts to have it both ways
 Popularized by Beauchamp and Childress
– Principles of Biomedical Ethics (1979)
– The ‘Georgetown Mantra’
 Now the dominant theory in medical ethics
Four Principles




1. Autonomy
2. Beneficence
3. Non-maleficence
4. Justice
– The text might call this a pluralist deontological
theory since it endorses a number of fundamental
principles
– I disagree. Conditions 2 & 3 identify this as a
hybrid of consequentialism and deontology
The Principles
 1. Autonomy
– The autonomy of patients (families, coworkers, etc.) must be respected
 2. Beneficence
– Help others (i.e., benefit them)
The Principles
 3. Non-maleficence
– ‘Do no harm’
 4. Justice
– “fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment in light of what is
due or owed” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001, 226)
– Treating like cases alike
Assessing Principilism
 Note: while this is the orthodox theory in medicine
these days, it’s not the be all and end all of medical
ethics
 Principilism’s virtue: takes consequences and
principles seriously
 Principilism’s vice: how do we balance consequences
and principles when push comes to shove?
– This is a question we’ll confront numerous times in this class
The Point (Again)
 As noted, we will not attempt to settle the question of
which ethical theory is correct
 Think of the theories discussed tonight as identifying
viewpoints that must be considered when taking a
stand on issues in medical ethics
 We must be prepared to consider challenges to our
views and arguments from these viewpoints