From Last Time The good will is the only good thing in an ‘unqualified way” Acting from duty vs. acting in accord with duty Categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives Universalizability test for duty (four examples)

Second formulation of the categorical imperative Treat other people not merely as a means, but also as an end. We always use other people, but Kant thinks its wrong to treat other people just as instruments, as things to be used for other purposes.

Kant and Aristotle Kant takes as fundamental the notion of duty— the right action done from a respect for the moral law. A good person will be one who acts this way (from duty) Aristotle thinks a good person will do the right thing from inclination. They will want to be virtuous. For Aristotle what is fundamental is what makes a person virtuous, not what makes a particular action right

An argument against Kant If Kant’s view is true, some duties are absolute. It is always wrong to make a lying promise But it is obviously right to make a lying promise when you can save an innocent person’s life by doing so Therefore, Kant’s moral theory is incorrect

Utilitarianism The right action is the action that, of the alternatives available to you, produces the greatest net pleasure relative to pain. Consequentialism: The consequences determine what is right or wrong Hedonism: the only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure. The only thing bad for its own sake is pain

Is Hedonism true? Aristotle and Mill: two different conceptions of Happiness. Aristotle: Happiness as pleasure too “brutish” Mill: There are different kinds of pleasures. All pleasure is good, but human beings can experience qualitatively better, “higher” pleasures.

The competent judge argument. If intellectual pleasures are preferred over physical pleasures by those who experience them both, this shows intellectual pleasures are superior People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer intellectual pleasures Therefore, intellectual pleasures are superior to physical pleasures.

What are intellectual and physical pleasures? Intellectual pleasures consist of, e.g. Appreciation of art, literature, philosophy (duh), science. What is a physical pleasure? Food and drink and sex—any pleasure that is shared with non-human animals. What about the pleasures of casual non- intellectual conversation, of sports, etc. ?

Is the argument good? Do those who prefer intellectual to physical pleasures really have adequate experience of physical pleasures? Does the preference indicate an objective fact about the pleasures, or a fact about the kind of person who makes the judgment?

Utilitarianism and rules Moral rules are important but they do not define or constitute morality Moral rules, such as “do not lie” are useful because they generally provide good advice about what actions would produce the most happiness relative to unhappiness Always possible to have exceptions.

Utilitarianism and the virtues Virtues are good to cultivate because they are character traits that in general lead to actions that produce better consequences.

A possible counterexample to utilitarianism Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a headache. The doctor kills this patient and uses the organs to save the lives of five other people. It looks like this doctor performed an action that has much better consequences than the alternative. But was it really the right action?