Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
2
Overview of Ethical Theories
Subjective relativism Cultural relativism Divine command theory Kantianism Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism Social contract theory
3
Relativism versus Objectivism: Where “The Good” Exists
Subjective relativism Cultural relativism Divine command theory Kantianism Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism Social contract theory Relativism “The Good” is inside Objectivism “The Good” is outside
4
The Workable Ethical Theories: Rational Theories
Not a Workable Theory According to the Author Subjective relativism Cultural relativism Divine command theory Kantianism Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism Social contract theory Workable Theories
5
Subjective Relativism
There are no universal moral norms of right and wrong All persons decide right and wrong for themselves Pros: Well meaning people can have opposite opinions Opposing views do not need to be reconciled Unpleasant debates are avoided
6
Cons of Subjective Relativism
Can be used to rationalize bad behavior Morality becomes meaningless Anything can be called moral Tolerance becomes meaningless Anything can be tolerated even intolerance Ethical decisions don’t have to be based on reason
7
1. Subjective relativism
Case for Well-meaning and intelligent people disagree on moral issues Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless Case against Blurs distinction between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do Makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people SR and tolerance are two different things Decisions may not be based on reason Not a workable ethical theory (according to author) Relativism No universal norms of right and wrong One person can say “X is right,” another can say “X is wrong,” and both can be right Subjective relativism Each person decides right and wrong for himself or herself “What’s right for you may not be right for me”
8
Cultural Relativism The ethical theory that what’s right or wrong depends on place and/or time Pros: Different social contexts determine different moral guidelines One society should not judge another by its own standards The actual behavior of a society reflects its values better than what it says
9
Cons of Cultural Relativism
Different views of right and wrong are not always acceptable Just because they exist doesn’t make them okay Cultural relativism can be vague and subject to different interpretations There are no guidelines for reconciliation between cultures in conflict Cultures have to share many “core values”
10
2. Cultural relativism Case for Case against
Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines It is arrogant for one society to judge another Morality is reflected in actual behavior Case against Because two societies do have different moral views doesn’t mean they ought to have different views Doesn’t explain how moral guidelines are determined Doesn’t explain how guidelines evolve Provides no way out for cultures in conflict Because many practices are acceptable does not mean any cultural practice is acceptable (many/any fallacy) Societies do, in fact, share certain core values Only indirectly based on reason Not a workable ethical theory What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a society’s actual moral guidelines These guidelines vary from place to place and from time to time A particular action may be right in one society at one time and wrong in other society or at another time
11
Divine Command Theory Good actions are aligned with the will of God
Bad actions are contrary to the will of God The holy book helps make the decisions Pros: We owe obedience to God, our creator God is all good and all knowing God is the ultimate authority
12
Cons of Divine Command Theory
There are many holy books that disagree with each other In a multicultural society it’s unrealistic to adopt a religion based morality Some moral problems are not mentioned in the holy books Equating “good” with “God” is the “equivalence fallacy” (trying to equate two things that are similar) Divine Command Theory is not based on reason
13
3. Divine command theory (the virtue approach)
Good actions: those aligned with God’s will Bad actions: those contrary to God’s will Holy books reveal God’s will. We should use holy books as moral decision- making guides. Case for We owe obedience to our Creator. God is all-good and all-knowing. God is the ultimate authority. Case against Different holy books disagree Society is multicultural, secular Some moral problems not addressed in scripture “The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence fallacy) Based on obedience, not reason
14
Kantianism Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) a German philosopher
People’s wills should be based on moral rules Therefore it’s important that our actions are based on appropriate moral rules. To determine when a moral rule is appropriate Kant proposed two Categorical Imperatives
15
First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time universalize. If you act on a moral rule that would cause problems if everyone followed it then your actions are not more
16
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end. If you use people for your own benefit that is not moral
17
Pros of Kantianism It’s rational, i.e. people can use logic to determine if the reason for their actions meet one of the Categorical Imperatives It produces universal moral guidelines All people are moral equals and deserve to be treated similarly
18
Cons of Kantianism Sometimes a single rule is not enough
There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules It allows no exceptions to moral rules But, is it a workable theory in spite of its weaknesses?
19
4. Kantianism (the rights approach)
Good will: the desire to do the right thing Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world good without qualification is good will. Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing. Case for Rational Produces universal moral guidelines Treats all persons as moral equals Workable ethical theory Case against Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action. There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules. Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.
20
Act Utilitarianism Principle of Utility
(Also known as Greatest Happiness Principle) An action is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties An action is wrong to the extent that it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties. Happiness may have many definitions such as: advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure
21
Act Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, 19th century
The best ethical course of action is the one that brings the greatest good for the greatest number An action is good if it benefits someone An action is bad if it harms someone Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain Principle of Utility (The Greatest Happiness Principle) An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties.
22
Pros of Act Utilitarianism
It focuses on happiness It is down-to-earth It is practical Well defined It is comprehensive
23
Cons of Act Utilitarianism
The boundaries of an evaluation are not clear It is not practical Too much work can go into every moral decision Ignores persons’ innate sense of duty It is consequence oriented It is susceptible to the problem of “moral luck” The actors are not always in control of the consequences
24
Act utilitarianism - Continued
Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual actions Act utilitarianism Add up change in happiness of all affected beings Sum > 0, action is good Sum < 0, action is bad Case for Focuses on happiness Down-to-earth (practical) Comprehensive Workable ethical theory Case against Unclear whom to include in calculations Too much work Ignores our innate sense of duty Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
25
Rule Utilitarianism Rules are based on the Principle of Utility
A rule is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties The Greatest Happiness Principle is applied to moral rules Similar to Kantianism – both pertain to rules But Kantianism uses the Categorical Imperative to decide which rules to follow
26
Pros of Rule Utilitarianism
Calculating the total happiness is easier than in Act Utilitarianism Not every moral decision requires the utilitarian calculations It’s easier to resolve conflicting rules It overrides “moral luck” It appeals to a large cross section of society Considered “workable” Treats all persons as equals Is rational and reasons can be given to explain why actions are good or bad
27
Cons of RULE Utilitarianism
We are forced to use the same scale or measure for all evaluations even if the consequences are completely different Usually the consequences are expressed in dollars But, many consequences are difficult to measure in dollars It ignores the unjust distribution of good consequences Not all members of society may benefit equally
28
Rule utilitarianism We ought to adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to moral rules Case for Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier to perform the utilitarian calculus. Not every moral decision requires performing utilitarian calculus. Moral rules survive exceptional situations Avoids the problem of moral luck Workable ethical theory Case against All consequences must be measured on a single scale. Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences. Utilitarianism does not always mean “the greatest good of the greatest number” That requires a principle of justice What happens when a conflict arises between the Principle of Utility and a principle of justice?
29
Social Contract Theory
Thomas Hobbes ( ) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( ) “Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well.” Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan Without rules and enforcement people have no incentive to create anything of value as they are not sure they can keep or profit from it State of nature Cooperation is essential Only possible when common guidelines are followed Moral rules are necessary to insure the ‘benefit of social living’ Requires agreement to Establishment of a set of moral rules Government capable of enforcing the rules Rousseau’s The Social Contract No man has natural authority over others Force alone bestows no rights Legitimate authority must be based on agreements
30
Social contract theory
Critical problem is finding form of association that Guarantees everyone safety and property Enables each person to remain free Rousseau states the answer is for each to give themselves and their rights to the community Community makes and enforces the rules Everyone is equal in the community “Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well.”
31
Social contract theory
Based on universal moral rules Rules can be derived through a rational process Negative rights Positive rights Absolute rights Limited rights
32
Principles of Justice John Rawls (1921-2001)
Each person may claim an adequate number of basic rights and liberties as long as everyone else has a claim to the same rights and liberties. Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: They are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume The difference principle: They are “to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society” Rawls’s Theory of Justice Recognizes the harm of concentration of wealth and power Each person may claim ‘fully adequate rights’ so long as they are consistent with other’s claims to those rights Social and economic inequalities must be associated with positions that anyone can hold and to be to the ‘greatest benefit to the least-advantaged’
33
Pros of the Social Contract Theory
It uses the language of rights It explains why rational people act out of self interest in the absence of a common agreement. It provides a clear ethical analysis of some important moral issues regarding the relationship between people and their government It is a “workable” theory.
34
Cons of Social Contract Theory
If we don’t sign the contract why should we be bound by it? Some actions can be characterized multiple ways. It does not have a way to resolve conflicting rights It may be unfair to those who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract.
35
Negative Versus Positive Rights
Negative right (liberty right): A right that another can guarantee by leaving you alone Positive right (claim right): A right obligating others to do something on your behalf
36
Social contract theory (The Common Good Approach)
Thomas Hobbes “State of nature” We implicitly accept a social contract Establishment of moral rules to govern relations among citizens Government capable of enforcing these rules Jean-Jacques Rousseau In ideal society, no one above rules That prevents society from enacting bad rules Case for Framed in language of rights Explains why people act in self-interest without common agreement Provides clear analysis of certain citizen/government problems Workable ethical theory Case against No one signed contract Some actions have multiple characterizations Conflicting rights problem May unjustly treat people who cannot uphold contract
37
Criteria for a Workable Ethical Theory
These criteria are from the author and his colleagues Do we agree? Moral decisions and rules: Based on logical reasoning Come from facts and commonly held values Culturally neutral Treat everyone equally
38
The Four “Workable” Theories
Kantianism Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Social Contract Theory In spite of weaknesses all of the above pass the author’s “workable” test: Ethical decision making is a rational process Moral principles are found by using logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values
39
Morality vs. Legal Are all legal acts also moral?
Difficult to determine because many immoral acts are not addressed by the law Are all illegal acts immoral? Social Contract Theory: Yes, we are obligated to follow the law Kantianism: Yes, by the two Categorical Imperatives Rule Utilitarianism: Yes, because rules are broken Act Utilitarianism: Depends on the situation. Sometimes more good comes from breaking a law.
40
Comparing Workable Theories
Kantianism and Social Contract are based on “doing the right thing” The Utilitarian theories are oriented towards the “consequences “ of actions However, once a rule is established, Rule Utilitarianism requires strict adherence to it. Therefore, Kantianism, Social Contract, and Rule Utilitarianism all use moral rules to determine if an action is moral Act Utilitarianism adds up the total good achieved Kantianism and Social Contract theory focus on the individual decision makers (The Deciders) while the Utilitarian theories focus on all affected parties.
41
Toolbox of Moral Theories
Whether presented with problems that are easy or difficult to solve, the four workable theories, Kantianism Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Social Contract Theory will provide us with solutions to many of the problems that arise from the introduction of Information Technology into society that we will address this semester
42
Comparing Workable Ethical Theories
Theory Motivation Criteria Focus Kantianism Dutifulness Rules Individual Act Utilitarianism Consequence Actions Group Rule Utilitarianism Consequence/Duty Social Contract Rights
43
BASIC Rules for Critical Thinkers
Because you are not perfect, it is inevitable some of the beliefs and viewpoints you firmly hold are completely wrong. You must understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you before you are fully able to understand your own viewpoints. Until you can summarize another viewpoint so well those who hold it agree with your summary, you do not understand that viewpoint. (2)
44
BASIC Rules for Critical Thinkers
You should always assume those who disagree with your viewpoint are as intelligent and as noble-minded as you are. You must be willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints and to change your mind in order to be a critical thinker. A retreat into relativism is a retreat away from critical thinking. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. (2)
Similar presentations
