Transcript Survey of Philosophical Moral Theory

PHIL 219
A SURVEY OF PHILOSOPHICAL MORAL THEORIES
Virtue Ethics
Though historically speaking, Virtue Ethics is the
first systematic, philosophical ethical position, it
had until somewhat recently been pushed aside by
other ethical theories like the one we’re going to
spend our time with today.
One reason for this is that these other theories
focus our attention on the ethical evaluation of
acts, while VE focuses on character.
There are lots of (not necessarily all good) reasons
to prefer the former.
An Ethic of Virtue
The lack of attention (until recently) paid to VE has
the result that there is still a great deal of
disagreemednt about the basic structure of VE.
We can say a few basic and uncontentious things
about such theories.
The first and most important one is the VE makes
the concepts of virtue and vice basic.
◦ Right and Wrong become derivative concepts.
Virtue and Vice
Virtue: “a trait of character or mind that typically
involves dispositions to act, feel, and think in
certain ways and that is central to a positive
evaluation of persons” (25).
◦ Honesty, Courage, Justice, Temperance, Beneficence
Vice: “a trait of character or mind that typically
involves dispositions to act, feel and think in certain
ways, and that is central to a negative evaluation of
persons” (26).
◦ Dishonesty, Cowardice, Injustice, Intemperance, Selfishness
A TRA for Virtue Ethics
On the basis of the distinction between virtues and
vices, it is possible to articulate a general Theory of
Right Action for VE.
◦ An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent (acting in
character) would not avoid doing in the circumstances under
consideration.
◦ If a virtuous agent would do it, the action is obligatory; if
they might do it, the action is permissible; if they
wouldn’t do it, the action is forbidden.
◦ “Acting in character” points to the concept of “practical
wisdom” and the significance of moral judgment/intuition
for VE.
Putting Nature in Natural Law
Natural Law Theory is based on the assumption
that there are objective facts about human nature
that can serve as the ground for objectively true
moral principles.
Because of this, NLT is a value-based moral theory,
one that focuses our attention on the value of the
intrinsic characteristics of human nature
highlighted by the specific version of NLT that is
employed.
Aquinas on Intrinsic Value
The chief historical
proponent of NLT is St.
Thomas Aquinas (12251274).
According to his theory
of human nature, there
are four basic intrinsic
goods.
◦
◦
◦
◦
Human Life
Human Procreation
Human Knowledge
Human sociability
These four values serve
as the basis for his NLT.
TRA of NLT
However we conceive of human nature and its
intrinsic value, the theory of right action of NLT is:
◦ NLT: An action is right iff in performing the action one does not directly
violate any of the basic (intrinsic) values.
Thus stated, NLT seems to straightforwardly and
non-controversially satisfy both the theoretical
and practical aims of Moral Theory. But this
picture is more complicated than it first appears.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
In many cases, a proposed action both potentially protects
one and violates another of the basic values.
◦ Example: Ectopic Pregnancy
To deal with these cases, proponents of NLT rely on the
Doctrine of Double Effect.
◦ DDE: An action that would bring about at least one evil and one good
effect is morally permissible if and only if:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Intrinsic Permissibility: action (minus effects) is permissible.
Necessity: good effect requires the action.
Nonintenionality: evil effect is not intended
Proportionality: evil effect not out of proportion with good effect.
Kantian Moral Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) revolutionized philosophical
ethics. Prior to Kant, people sought the origin of morality in
the natural order, in the ends proper to human beings, or in
feelings. In contrast, Kant seeks the conditions of the
possibility of morality and locates them in the autonomy,
the self-legislation, of the will.
When we think about moral obligation, he argued, what we
need to account for is its categorical character, the fact that
it commands us absolutely.
Kant and the Categorical
The focus on the categorical nature of
obligation suggests a TRA: those actions are
obligatory which we are categorically
commanded to do, wrong which we are
categorically commanded not to do, and
permissible if we are not either commanded
or forbidden to do.
The categorical character of obligation also
provides us with a Theory of Value: that will
is good which freely choses to satisfy her
duty.
Two Different Imperatives
The form taken by the categorical nature of obligation is
what Kant calls an imperative. Imperatives are expressions
of the human will, but only some of them exhibit the
categorical force of a duty.
There are two types of imperatives. The more common is
what Kant calls a Hypothetical imperative. It has the form:
“If I have an end/goal ‘X,’ and doing ‘Y’ is required for ‘X,’
then I should do Y.
The moral imperative is a function of categorical willing,
and can only be observed when it is the moral law itself
that directs our will.
What about the Practical Aim?
So much for the Theoretical Aim of MT,
how does Kant address the Practical Aim?
He does so with a fundamental moral
principle called the Categorical Imperative.
Applying the categorical imperative to
proposed actions provides a principle of
moral evaluation, directing us to the right
actions.
CI: Humanity Formulation
CIHumanity: An action is right if and only if the action
treats persons (including oneself) as ends in
themselves rather than as means to our ends.
There is both a negative (don't treat others as
means) and a positive (treat others as ends in
themselves) requirement contained in the
formulation.
◦ The positive requirement is captured by Kant with the
notion of Dignity.
CI: Universal Law Formulation
CIUniversal Law: Act always in such a way that you can
will the maxim of your action to be universal law.
Despite the proximity of this formulation to the
Golden Rule, it is really quite different. The UL
formulation imposes a consistency requirement.
You should only act in such a way that everyone
else should act (not that they would, or will act).
Putting Kant's Theory to Work
• In employing either the Humanity or Universal Law
formulations of the CI the question to answered is:
"Does the action under consideration satisfy the
specified constraints?"
• Kant held that the formulations are functionally
synonymous. That means that they produce the same
moral verdicts.
• Unfortunately, it's not always easy to see that this is
the case. Timmons highlights some common
examples which do support Kant's contention. See the
discussions starting on pp. 16 & 19.
Consequentialism: The Basics
Consequentialism is the name given to a family of more specific
normative ethical positions all of which share the conviction that it is
the consequences of actions which determine their moral worth.
As Timmons expresses it, all of these positions are committed to the
following claim.
◦ Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the overall intrinsic
value of the consequences of the action compared with the overall
intrinsic value of the consequences associated with alternative actions an
agent might perform instead.
Thus, an action is right iff its consequences would be at least as good
as the consequences of any alternative action that the agent might
instead perform.
Implications
There are a number of important implications of
this statement of these claims.
1. Consequentialist theories are value-based.
2. They are comparative theories. They make specific
reference to alternative actions and the rightness or
wrongness of any action is dependent on the value of the
consequences of those actions.
3. The consequentialist account of right action is a
maximizing conception.
4. Consequentialism is an impartialist moral theory. We have
to consider the consequences for everyone and everyone
counts equally.
It’s All in the Family
The various specific forms of
consequentialism share a commitment to
these basic claims.
They differ in their theory of value.
◦ The TV of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value with
human welfare or happiness (it’s expression).
◦ The TV of Rule Consequentialism identifies intrinsic value
with the acceptance value* of rules.
◦ *The value of the consequences of the rule were it generally
accepted
Utilitarianism
The basic idea of U is that the rightness or
wrongness of actions is determined by the their
effect on human welfare or happiness, with
maximization and impartiality assumed.
◦ Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net value of the
consequences of actions.
Result is the Principle of Utility.
◦ An action is right iff its performance would likely produce
at least as high utility as would any other alternative
action.
What makes you fare well?
An important issue that all utilitarians must
address is how to understand human welfare.
Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham)
identify happiness (and thus human welfare)
with pleasure and pain.
◦ For this reason they are labeled Hedonsitic
Utilitarians.
As such, it is important to consider various
senses of pleasure and pain.
◦ Bodily Pleasure vs. Intellectual Pleasures
Rule Consequentialism
Versions of consequentialism like Utilitarianism
place the focus on individual actions.
◦ They are both forms of Act Consequentialism.
There are a number of well recognized challenges
to act consequentialism.
◦ Ex: Problem of Justice (Framing an innocent.)
As a result, some consequentialists have shifted
their focus to the capacity of rules to guide our
action.
Playing by the Rules
On the assumption that some rules produce more
valuable consequences than others we can specify a TV
for RC.
◦ An action is right iff it is permitted by a rule whose associated
acceptance value is at least as high as the acceptance value of
any other rule applying to the situation.
In the face of more than one possible action, RC directs
you to identify the rules governing the possible actions
and then compare the rules’ acceptance values to
determine which action is right.
Consequentialism in Action
◦
◦
Applying consequentialism requires calculation and
comparison.
Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a more
informal estimation. The explicit goal of the
calculation is to identify the action/rule that
maximizes the specified value(s).
Comparison must include all parties affected (in a
relevant or significant way) by the proposed action.
Evaluating consequentialist claims requires us to
consider the truth and/or adequacy of the claims
made, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness
of the calculation and comparison.