Traditional Ethical Theories

Reminder Optional Tutorial Monday, February 25, 1-1:50 Room M122

Reminder Showing of An Inconvenient Truth Next Tuesday, February 26 3:00-5:00 MB305 (Philosophy Dept. seminar room)

Quiz on February 28 Section one (40%): 10 short answer questions, 4 points each. Largely definition of terms and identification of philosophical positions with the appropriate philosopher or belief system. Section two (60%): 1) One medium-length answer to a question on “An Inconvenient Truth” (20%) 2) One long answer to a question from a choice of two. The two questions will be chosen from the following list of four. (40%)

1)Is eating honey (i.e. stealing the product of the bees’ labor) a moral issue? If not, why not? If so, is it justified or is it wrong, and why? Discuss in relation to at least two belief systems that we have studied. 2)What belief system that we have studied is most likely to result in an environmentally sound and sustainable society? Compare your choice with at least two other belief systems. 3)Is it better for people to live a more natural way? Explain what you mean by “more natural”. If it is not better, why not? If it is better, for whom is it better (i.e. for the individuals living the natural lifestyle, for people in general, for future generations, for sentient animals in general, or for the earth/nature as a whole), and why? 4)What has intrinsic value? Discuss in relation to at least two belief systems that we have discussed. Note: belief systems that we have discussed include Aristotelian teleology, virtue ethics, natural law ethics, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, deontological ethics, utilitarianism and the scientific world view/evolutionary theory. Long-answer questions

Virtue Ethics (review) Aristotle Virtue consists of realizing our natural human potential as rational animals (our telos). The cultivation of human virtues Kindness, courage, honesty, justice, etc. Focus on motivations for actions, rather than consequences Problems with virtue ethics: Do people really have a telos? If not, how can the virtues be justified? Is cultivating the virtues really the best way for an individual to maximize his human potential? People can do the wrong thing for the right reasons (e.g. ignorantly kind)

Natural Law Ethics (review) Thomas Aquinas What is natural is good because God made nature and God is good. God gave us the innate ability to know what is good. Morality is universal and objective: it is a law of nature. Problems for virtue ethics: Depends upon belief in God. Without belief in God, there is no justification for believing that what is natural must be good.

Deontological Ethics Kant ( ), German philosopher Rightness of actions is independent of consequences. The Categorical Imperative defines our moral duties. Moral duties, e.g. not to kill or harm innocent people not to lie to keep promises to respect the rights of others The Categorical Imperative can be understood through reason.

Deontological Ethics (cont.) The Categorical Imperative can be worked out through the principle of universalizability: "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will", and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself…" (Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals) Rational beings have an intrinsic worth and dignity. The end (purpose) of morality is in preserving the well-being and dignity of all rational agents: “Act with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim…“ (Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals) You must never treat a person as a means, but always as an end.

Problems with deontological ethics Problem of justification for Categorical Imperative – where does it come from Not all good actions can be universalized Rigid e.g. if we have a categorical imperative not to lie, it is wrong to lie even if by lying to a mad gunman, we can save an innocent person’s life It is not always possible never to treat a rational agent as an end, e.g. war

Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill ( ), English philosopher A form of consequentialism An act is judged to be moral or immoral according to its consequences. Instrumentalist good vs. Intrinsic good Instrumentalist good: good as a means by which to realize an intrinsic good, e.g. medicine Intrinsic good: something good in and of itself, e.g. happiness

Utilitarianism (cont.) Happiness and the absence of suffering are the ultimate intrinsic goods. The goal of morality is to maximize happiness (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) An act is good if it maximizes the collective happiness and minimizes the collective suffering.

Problems with Utilitarianism Seemingly immoral acts can be judged moral, e.g. killing an innocent person. Consequences are often difficult or impossible to predict. The morality of an act may depend on chance (how the consequences happen to play out). How can you calculate units of goodness (utiles)? Happiness and lack of suffering may not be the only intrinsic goods.

Varieties of Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism – classic utilitarianism Preference utilitarianism – aim to maximize the fulfillment of people’s preferences, rather than happiness Rule utilitarianism – act in accordance with rules that, in the long run, tend to maximize happiness/preferences

Exam question on An Inconvenient Truth Are Gore’s arguments for valuing nature primarily instrumentalist or intrinsic? Do you think his views could be best characterized as conforming to virtue ethics, natural law ethics, deontology or utilitarianism? Explain, with concrete examples.

Readings for next time Required: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, chapters 1, 2 and 15, provided in handout Optional: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, chapter 16, “The Rumblings of an Avalanche”, available on reserve (whole book) in the Philosophy Department Office