An introduction to Ethics

Important Vocabulary/Concepts Philosophy Ethics Motive Act Consequence Culpable Consequentialism Utilitarianism The Principle of Utility Vice Virtue Virtue Ethics Intrinsic value Instrumental value The Categorical Imperative

Ethical Philosophy Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Ethical Right and Wrong Vs Factual Right and Wrong ClaimEthicalNon-Ethical Grass is green Right Grass is fluorescent pink Wrong A person should never steal Right or Wrong? A person should never murder Right or Wrong? All human beings ought to die with dignity Right or Wrong? All human beings will eventually die. Right

Ethical Questions Vs Non-Ethical Questions QuestionEthicalNon-Ethical Should all people ought to have the right to vote? Is it legal for women to vote in America today? Is the death penalty legal in Nebraska? Should the death penalty be legalized in all states?

Is it Ethically Right or Wrong???? Throughout the history of humankind, many ethical theories have been devised in order to answer this question. Every ethical theory forms its argument around at least one of these three things: 1.The Motive 2.The Act 3.The Consequence

Motive Noun something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive. the goal or object of a person's actions Her motive was revenge.

Act the doing of a thing anything done, being done, or to be done deed performance Stealing may or may not be a wrongful act.

Consequence Noun something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome. The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.

1 st Motive 2 nd Act 3 rd Consequence

Read the Following Scenario. A young woman is walking down Main St in Santa Ana. A homeless man is sitting on the sidewalk, begging for food. The woman remembers that she has an old cup of unpasturized apple sauce in her purse (which is well past the expiration date) and decides to give it to the hungry homeless man. The woman does not realize the food is past its expiration date. The homeless man eats the apple sauce and dies of E. coli poisoning.

What happened? What was the woman’s motive? Was her motive ethically right/good or wrong/bad? What was the woman’s action? Was the act ethically right/good or wrong/bad? What was the consequence? Was the consequence ethically right/good or wrong/bad?

How can we decide if the woman is morally culpable (deserving blame) for the man’s death? We must decide which of the three (Motive, Act, or Consequence) deserves the most weight. Do you believe her motive should be weighed most heavily when deciding her culpability? What about her act? What about the consequence?

3 Different Theories Motive  Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) Motive and Act  Kant’s Moral Theory (Immanuel Kant) Consequence  Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill)

Virtue Ethics: A focus on Motive Virtue Ethics is most concerned with how a person is rather than how they act. Virtues are good traits such as honesty, loyalty, bravery, temperance, etc. A virtuous person is a morally good person The opposite of Virtue is Vice. Vices are traits like dishonesty, untrustworthiness, cowardice, gluttony, etc.

The Virtuous Mean Vice of Deficiency VirtueVice of Excess CowardiceCourageRashness ShamelessnessModestyBashfulness Want of AmbitionRight AmbitionOver-ambition

The Moral Virtues Aristotle believed that if a person practices certain moral virtues, like honesty and loyalty, then that person will inevitably act virtuously. The focus of virtue ethics is mainly on the virtuous motive rather than the act or the consequence. What would a follower of Virtue Ethics say about the Homeless Man Scenario?

3 Different Theories Motive  Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) Motive and Act  Kant’s Moral Theory (Immanuel Kant) Consequence  Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill)

Kant’s ( ) Moral Theory: A focus on the Act (and the motive), not consequences. Kant says that we ought not be blamed for consequences if we are trying to do the right thing. Our reason for acting is important, not the consequences of our actions. This is because consequences are often out of our control. Motives and acts, however, are in our control. Therefore, we should only be blamed for what is in our control.

Kant’s 2 nd argument against focusing on consequences Kant believes that people have intrinsic value and not instrumental value Intrinsic: native, innate, natural, true, real. Instrumental: serving or acting as an instrument or means; useful; helpful

Kant believes that people ought not to be used. Kant says that if we focus on the importance of consequences (for example: bringing about happiness), then we are focusing on the instrumental value of people. Kant thinks that this is not the correct way to approach ethical questions.

According to Kant, what gives an Act moral worth? The consequence of the act does not give it worth. An act has moral worth if we act out of the right motivation and do the right thing. He even goes as far as to say it is our Duty to do the right thing. Duty: something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation This idea of “Duty” brings us to Kant’s basic moral principle: The Categorical Imperative

Kant’s Categorical Imperative “The Categorical Imperative” is as important to Kant’s theory as “The Principle of Utility” is to Utilitarianism. Act only on the maxim that you can will as a universal law. In other words: We should only do what we can accept or will that everyone do.

Act only on the maxim that you can will as a universal law. -The first Categorical Imperative Ethical Question: Should I steal from my neighbor? The only way I can answer yes is if I can create a universal law (a law that everyone must follow) stating: Everyone must steal from their neighbor. Obviously, this would be a horrible law, therefore, according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it is unethical to steal from your neighbor.

Try again… Ethical Question: Should I be kind to others? Can you rightfully turn this into a universal law? It seems reasonable that all people ought to be kind to others, therefore this question can be answered: Yes! I should be kind to others.

The second Categorical Imperative Kant added one more rule to his theory: Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always as an end. This brings us back to his belief that all people have intrinsic value, not instrumental.

Kant’s View How might Kant address the Homeless Man scenario? Since Kant believes that consequences have no relevance, do you agree or disagree with Kant’s theory?

3 Different Theories Motive  Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) Motive and Act  Kant’s Moral Theory (Immanuel Kant) Consequence  Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill/Jeremy Bentham)

Consequentialism: A focus on Consequence. Consequentialism holds that ethical dilemmas should be evaluated based on consequences. One of the most famous Consequentialist theories is Utilitarianism, based mainly on the writings of Jeremy Bentham ( ) and John Stuart Mill ( ). Pleasure, or happiness, is the consequence all people strive to achieve.

Utilitarianism : A Consequentialist Theory Mill said, “He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble.”

Utilitarianism’s basic moral principle The Principle of Utility (The Greatest Happiness Principle): We ought to do that which produces the greatest amount of happiness (pleasure) for the greatest number of people. Do you agree? If so, you might be a Utilitarian. How might we apply this to the Homeless Man Scenario?

The Pursuit of Pleasure When Bentham first wrote his theory, he argued that a being’s prime interest is decreasing pain and increasing pleasure. His Godson, Mill, revised this theory by identifying the difference between intellectual pleasure and physical pleasure.

For Mill, The Quality of Pleasure Matters. Mill stated, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” For Mill, Intellectual pleasures bring a higher quality of pleasure--which have greater worth--when evaluating an ethical dilemma.

Hedonic Calculus See Handout