Transcript Class #9 - 5/7/14

Philosophy 2030
Class #9
Tonight (5/7/14):
Final Portfolio Due
From your portfolio tell your “best” story
to the class (5-10 minutes each)
Discuss the Golden Rule
Continue Discussion of Chapter 6 –
Deontology in relation to “High Noon”
Next Week (5/14/14):
Watch “42 – The Jackie Robinson Story”
Complete worksheet.
Read Chapter 7, pp. 320-327.
Online Course & Instructor Feedback
Please Don’t Forget!!!
4/15/14/ - 5/15/14
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Many argue against utilitarianism that what makes an action
moral is the intention under which it is done. A moral act is
done because it is the right thing to do.
•
But what is the right thing to do? Such a view can be
interpreted many ways and may even appear to beg the
question.
•
Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule which is
stated quite explicitly by many early Greek philosophers & in
the New Testament
-- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you, for this sums
up the Law and the Prophets."
This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism,
Confucianism, and Taoism.
The Golden Rule as “God’s Morality”?
•
A popular view of morality of course is the view that
moral duty is set by a divine being.
•
But does anyone here remember Socrates?
•
But is an act right simply because God has
commanded it, or does God command it because it
is right?
•
In the first view, is God’s commandments arbitrary?
That doesn’t seem right. In the second view, is
there a criteria for morality which we can study
independent of God’s approval of certain acts?
Thus, many suggest that the Divine Commandment
view “begs the question.”
Problems Even With the Golden Rule
•
But how does one know how others want to be treated?
You may not be able to ask them because they do not
have the relevant experience.
•
"Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto
you. Their tastes may not be the same."
…George Bernard Shaw
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
But should we use the golden rule when
dealing with evil or immoral persons or
those with evil desires? Do I really think it
is right to treat a terrorist as I would want
him to treat me?
But should we use the golden rule in dealing
with children? Do I really think it is right to
treat an 18th month who is just about put
his fingers in a light socket based on how
I want him to treat me?
So who qualifies as an appropriate “other”?
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
If we want someone to do something for us,
does this mean that we should do the same
to to them? Maybe this works fine if I just
want my wife to scratch my back, but surely
it is not a universal principle.
If you want your boss to tell you that you are
doing a good job, is the “right” thing to do
to tell her she is doing a good job when you
feel that she is not?
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule
such as: The golden rule requires that we
treat others only as we would want to be
treated if we were in their situation.
But then perhaps you will use the golden
rule to justify that you should help your
friend rob banks because you would
want him to help you if you were
robbing a bank.
Or should we not send criminals to prison
because we would not want to go to
prison if we were in their situation?
Is the Golden Rule Always Right?
Maybe we should re-formulate the golden rule such as:
The golden rule requires that we treat others only
as we would consent to being treated in the same
situation (Gensler’s Golden Rule)
This seems to resolve previous issues but even
then, is this always right?
What about the CEO who actually believes that
he treats his employees fairly by paying them
under the minimum wage and that they get
just what they deserve because of lack of
ambition.
This is a problem of knowledge and imagination!
Without proper knowledge and imagination,
the golden rule cannot act as a moral
principle.
Gensler’s Golden Rule
•
Thus, Harry J. Gensler suggests that the Golden Rule
is more a pathway to help guide us through moral
conduct than a guide or compass to how to conduct
ourselves in a given situation.
•
He suggests that it is a means to test the consistency
of our moral beliefs and values, not a “rule book” for
how to live.
•
Thus, in this view, the “golden rule” functions within
moral decisions much like we have proposed that
critical thinking provides a guideline for philosophical
discussion.
•
That is, it defines consistency between statements and
a rationale for our discussions, but does not provide us
the content in which to make moral judgments!
“The golden rule is best seen as a consistency
principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms.
It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are
right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers.
It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have
our actions (toward another) be out of harmony
with our desires (toward a reversed situation
action). It tests our moral coherence.
If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating
the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the
heart of morality.”
Harry J. Gensler,
Professor of Philosophy,
John Carroll University
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which
emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation
•
Thus, Kant’s view is called Deontology.
•
In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is
not just because it is done with a good intention.
•
It is the right thing to do if it is is done out of an intention to
follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or
obligation.
•
Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical
imperative.
•
A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a
conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this
class, you should study for the final exam.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is done out
of the categorical imperative which does not depend on
circumstances or conditional wants or desires. The act is
done for the sake of the principle of doing the right thing.
•
To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that our
own intentions ought to applied as a general law for
everybody.
•
Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are truly
acts of good will and thus, the person who does so has a
good will.
•
Thus, Kant’s view is a modified view of the Golden Rule.
Kant is a hard universalist and relies on conformity to rational
principles.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is
done out of the categorical imperative which does
not depend on circumstances or conditional wants or
desires. The act is done for the sake of the principle
of doing the right thing.
•
Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are
truly acts of good will and thus, the person who
does so has a good will.
•
To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that
our own intentions ought to applied as a general law
for everybody.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, another way of stating the categorical
imperative is that we should treat all mean as ends in
themselves, never as means to an end. Treat someone as
they agree to be treated.
•
This second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is
essentially the same principle as the first because the
categorical imperative universalizes your maxim. Both
formulations are basically saying do not treat yourself as an
exception!
•
Both formulations capture the essence of seems to be the
wisdom of the golden rule!
Kant’s Deontology:
Discussion
•
Consider examples:
•
Store owner
•
High Noon examples
•
•
•
•
Marshall Kane?
Amy Kane?
Mrs. Ramirez?
Others?
Video:
The Four of Us Are Dying
An Episode of
The Twilight Zone (1960)