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 ones 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 disagreement 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 (TRA) 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. Generally, 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 it to work A common line of criticism of virtue ethics points to the difficulty of putting this TRA to work in making moral decisions. Who counts as a virtuous agent? How do we know when they are acting in character? What if our situation is sufficiently different from the one that they face? In response, virtue ethicists have emphasized the virtues themselves, their agent specificity, and what they would seem to require for their exhibition. Let’s consider the example of humility. Humility is going to function differently in different circumstances. In some cases, we may be required to be humble about what we can legitimately claim to know. Clearly, however, different people are differently situated with regards to specific knowledge claims. Exhibiting the virtue of humility would require different things of different people in different situations. Ex.: The debate about global warming.

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 (1225- 1274). 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. TRA for Kantian Moral Theory: 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. Consequentialist theories are value-based. 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. The consequentialist account of right action is a maximizing conception. 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.