Punishment Recap Utilitarianism Kantian Deontology Virtue Ethics

Criticisms / Problems What were some of the issues with the different approaches? What did you find out?

UT Criticisms Unfair preventative punishment Minority report Race riots Disproportionate punishment Hangings for evading parking fines Unfairly long prison sentences to ensure social harmony Response: Rule utilitarianism: Only punishing the guilty, and in proportion to their crime, is a rule that will create more happiness than the alternative

Is the rule utilitarian’s response adequate? Why / why not? Criticism: Still fails to take account of motive. What makes the punishing of innocent people wrong is not that it leads to social insecurity. It’s that they don’t deserve to be punished!

Kant Criticism Kant argues that people deserve to be punished. They wanted their crime to be universalised (as they carried it out) therefore they need to see what happens when it is. But we may ask - why add more unhappiness to the situation, unless it brings about some benefit? Utilitarianism argues that the point of punishment is to bring about more happiness, but Kant has no such aim. What then is the point of punishing someone? If there is no benefit is it really something we should be doing?

Criticisms Do all crimes give the criminal an advantage? Do punishments remove this advantage? Murder and life imprisonment Talk of gain and loss doesn’t focus on victim, rather justice itself. What is good about justice (in relation to eudaimonia)? Practice of punishment is needed to develop virtue (consequences) Individual punishments justified deontologically

Why might people have an issue with simulated killing? Key Question: What effect does simulated killing have on society, on the individuals who enjoy it, and on those involved in making it? Why might people have an issue with simulated killing?

Two Issues We may start by saying that obviously simulated killing is not wrong for the same reasons that actual killing is wrong. But we could still ask if there is something wrong with the depiction of or taking part in (sometimes quite graphic) simulated deaths. Why are we OK with viewing / playing these types of scenarios whilst other morally questionable topics are off limits? Why does there seem to be a difference in how we feel morally depending on how the scene is depicted? Does simulated killing have any effect on the way people treat others in real life? Is there a link between violent video games / movies and actual violence?

Two Points of Discussion Watching simulated killing Playing the killer

What do the theories say? Read the section on your theory Take notes of the key points Prepare to present the key points Consider: Does the theory justify S.K.? If so, how? List some criteria. Does it say S.K. Is morally good / permissible / morally bad? Does this fit with your intuitions?

Deontology Think back to Kant on animals – direct & indirect duties. Simulated killing doesn’t treat anyone as simply a means to an end. However, does it affect how we are likely to treat others? If yes, then S.K. is bad If no, then S.K. is morally permissible, but not good

Virtue Ethics Looks at the effect it has on character – is it actively getting in the way of achieving Eudaimonia? What are your instincts? McCormick: Computer games, even if no-one is harmed, still affect our character. We are ‘eroding away’ the virtues by pretending to harm people. No need to show an empirical link! Habituation – we are habituating negative, excessive and wrongful actions. This means our character will change accordingly! Could we not be doing something more valuable with our time?

Films & plays Aristotle: Plays could have a cathartic effect on the viewer, allows them to better deal with tragedy / problems in their own lives. Release tensions and emotions built up in life throughout the play / film. We are thrilled by emotions like fear, but don’t want to experience them for real in life, so plays and films give us a safe ‘simulation’ in which to have these experiences. However habituation is still important! Will we want more once we’ve been through this process once? If so, at what point has it become too much? Links into the psychological study showing that general empathy levels are decreasing.

Utilitarianism All pleasures matter equally. No entertainments are intrinsically wrong (or right), no matter how much S.K. they involve. Wrong / right is determined purely by pain / pleasure balance. So they would calculate the pleasure / pain balance for S.K.

The calculation Pleasure Pain Very popular – lots of people enjoy Secondary pleasures from sharing with others Successful industry – creates jobs Develops motor-neurone skills Violent crime has decreased over last 20 years in UK Some studies show a link in violent individuals and their use of S.K. entertainments Could have secondary harmful effects on health (not enough exercise etc.) People disapprove, feel offended - sadness

Higher / lower pleasures Could be that video games etc. are a ‘lower’ pleasure What would a competent judge prefer? But how do we calculate the overall effect of it as a lower pleasure? This is unclear. Also, are they really lower pleasures? Contrast with e.g. Drinking vodka till you pass out

Offense Some people are offended by the very existence of these types of games and movies. UT must take their displeasure into account when calculating Utility. If alternative methods of entertainment produce the same amount of pleasure / pain, should we use those instead? But if we start to base morality on whether someone is offended by something, this may open up the floodgates for a lot more issues. Mill would argue it is a matter of liberty that we are allowed to do as we wish as long as we do not harm (and offense is a fairly minor harm) others.

In your notes So, offence doesn’t count too highly in the calculation. Many people get pleasure from these types of entertainment. The empirical evidence for violent tendencies after playing violent video games / watching violent movies is fairly low. What does this leave? For a utilitarian, it looks like S.K. brings about more pleasure overall, and is therefore morally good.

Tips for 12 mark questions Make it logical – start by outlining the relevant bits of the theory Then say how it relates to the particular issue at hand Be as detailed as possible in your explanation If it doesn’t ask for ‘one way’ a theory might respond, mention another possibility, if you know two. But make sure you have enough of the core detail! Be precise – make the exact point, using the exact words Don’t repeat yourself Be succinct – to the point

12 mark question Outline how a virtue ethicist might respond to the issue of viewing simulated killing for entertainment 5 minutes planning 10 minutes writing 5 minutes reviewing