Ethical Theory Seeking a Standard for Morally Correct Action Week of September 9-13 Ethical Theory Seeking a Standard for Morally Correct Action Phil 240: Ethics

Overview What is an ethical theory? The two main ethical theories: consequentialism and nonconsequentialism Focus on consequentialism Consequentialism as applied in business and public policy

Three Levels of Ethical Judgment Particular cases: e.g., Mary’s abortion was morally wrong. Principles: e.g.: “Abortion is wrong except to save a human life” (applies to all cases of abortion) “Killing another person is wrong except in self-defense.” (applies to all cases of killing) The most general principle would apply to all actions—this is a theory.

A Theory is an Ethical Standard for all Actions An answer to the question: what makes a morally right act right? What do all morally right acts have in common?

Consequentialism The morally right act is the one with the best consequences. Consequentialism also called utilitarianism Totally future oriented: looks at results Certainly general enough. It can apply to all actions. But is it correct?

Are any actions good or bad in themselves? Consequentialism: No: an action is right or wrong depending on whether its consequences are good or bad. Right good Nonconsequentialism Yes: Some actions are inherently good or bad. Rule-based theory Rights-based theory

Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism (Refined) Consequences are the ONLY thing to consider Nonconsequentialism Consequences count, but also rules and rights Consequences are irrelevant Prima facie (non-absolute) rules and rights Absolute rules (Kant) and rights

Are any actions immoral in and of themselves? Imagine you can save 10 children from dying of a painful disease by capturing one child from an orphanage and doing an experiment that will cause that one child a painful death. No other way to save the 10 children. Would it be morally okay?

Are any actions immoral in and of themselves? Churchill example: was it morally right for Churchill to aim to kill innocent civilians in German cities in order to prevent a greater number of deaths from a Nazi victory?

Nonconsequentialist Certain moral rules define correct actions: e.g., “it is always immoral to act with an intent to kill innocent people.” Can be formulated as moral rights of the person acted on; e.g., “children have an absolute moral right not to be subjects of dangerous experiments.” Any act violating a moral rule or right is inherently immoral (regardless of results).

Consequentialist Response Consequentialism not as crude as first appears. Would not condone killing if same good result possible with less harm Must consider long-term and subtle consequences as well (e.g., precedent set)

Consequentialism “in practice” If right act is one that creates good consequences, good for whom? Answer: for everyone affected. Must be impartial: self or family counts no more (or less) than anyone else

If right act is one with good consequences, what is “good”? Happiness as only good Bentham: quantity of pleasure Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure Satisfaction of preferences as the good (less paternalistic?) Goes with capitalism “Preference utilitarianism”

Must Choose Best Possible Act + 15 +9 +8 -10 -3 -1 5 6 7

How Are These Points Determined? Number of people affected “Intensity” of the effect Likelihood (Should we also consider whether effect will happen sooner or later?)

“Consequentialism is flawed because we can’t predict the future with certainty” What should we think of this criticism?

A weak criticism of consequentialism: “we don’t know what’s going to happen” Consequentialism takes that into account (likelihood) Reasonable to “play the odds,” just as we do in everyday life Falsely assumes that a good ethical theory must be simple and easy to apply.

How does utilitarian theory get applied as cost-benefit analysis? The “minus points” are costs (e.g., $$$) The “plus points” are benefits such as Lives saved Reduction in risk of dying Suffering avoided (e.g., days in hospital) Pleasure gained Typical: is it worth spending a million dollars to . . .?

What are the problems of CBA? The “dwarfing of soft variables”—stuff that can’t easily be quantified as dollars like enjoyment of a sunny day. Defining the value of a human life in dollar terms. Willingness to pay for reduction in risks Wording of surveys Expected future earnings? Irrationality of popular perception of risks.

Problems Applying vs Criticisms Problems applying do not challenge the whole approach of utilitarianism They are things utilitarians disagree about If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is the right theory, then we may still debate What things are good (happiness, etc.)? How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life)

Criticisms of Consequentialism Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Criticisms of Consequentialism Phil 240: Ethics 1

Key Concepts Moral rules and moral rights Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Key Concepts Moral rules and moral rights Justice (as one part of morality) Morally relevant difference between acts and omissions Intuition and “reflective equilibrium” Testing whether an argument withstands criticism Phil 240: Ethics 2

You Should Know What are the main criticisms of consequentialism? Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 You Should Know What are the main criticisms of consequentialism? How does the consequentialist respond to each of them? Different views on the role of theory in relation to our intuition on particular cases. Phil 240: Ethics 3

Problems Applying vs. Criticisms Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Problems Applying vs. Criticisms “Problems applying” utilitarianism do not challenge the whole approach of the theory. (Criticisms do.) They are things utilitarians disagree about. If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is the right theory, then we may still debate What things are good (happiness, etc.)? How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life) Phil 240: Ethics

Criticisms of Consequentialism Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Criticisms of Consequentialism Utilitarianism does not take into account rights and rules. Utilitarianism does not take into account justice. Consequentialism does not take into account the morally relevant difference between acts and omissions Consequentialism does not take into account special obligations to special people Consequentialism requires too much of us (relate this to #3) Phil 240: Ethics

Consequentialism ignores moral rules and moral rights Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Consequentialism ignores moral rules and moral rights A fundamental question of all ethics: Do we need the notion of rights? Big problems: Where do rights come from? What rights do we have? But can we have an acceptable ethical theory without rights? Phil 240: Ethics 4

Theory and Particular Cases Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Theory and Particular Cases Can’t decide on particular case first and then pick the theory that matches. Why not? But we do test theory by application to specific cases. (Analogy with science.) Debate on role of intuition. Reflective equilibrium. Phil 240: Ethics 5

Utilitarianism Ignores Justice Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Utilitarianism Ignores Justice 10% of population becomes slaves. 90% are extremely happy. Society has greatest balance of +/- points. Utilitarian chooses this. Everyone has freedom Total happiness not as great Phil 240: Ethics 6

Utilitarianism Ignores Special Obligations to Special People But why should I save my daughter over 100 starving children? Cannot appeal to feelings Cannot appeal to what most people would do. Need an ethical principle.

Morally Relevant Difference Between Acts and Omissions Ethical Theory Week of September 9-13 Morally Relevant Difference Between Acts and Omissions Is it morally worse to kill a patient who wants to die than not to treat? Is it morally worse to bomb innocent civilians than to allow them to die by not acting? What if killing can reduce the number who die, as Williams’ Indian example? Is it wrong to buy running shoes when the money could save many people’s lives? Ut Phil 240: Ethics

Think About What is the strongest criticism of utilitarianism? Why? Can utilitarianism withstand criticism? Basic: A claim is well-grounded if the arguments for it can withstand criticism. A “well-grounded claim” is one more worthy of belief.