1. © 2002, Karey Perkins The Commandant Example  The Baby? - or-  The 5,000?

2. ACT-BASED THEORIES Kinds of ETHICAL THEORIES ETHICAL THEORIES  Consequentialist -or-  Deontologicalist

3. © 2002, Karey Perkins consequences The morality or immorality of an ACT (and hence the rightness or wrongness of an act) is a function solely of the consequences of the act, and the natural tendency of those consequences to produce one or another of the following: pleasure or pain, or goodness, or happiness, in some degree and in some way. Consequentialist (teleological) views nature of the act itself. The morality or immorality of an act has basically nothing to do with the consequences, but resides within the nature of the act itself. Deontologicalist views Act Based Theories

4. Other theories  Care Ethics  Character-based Ethics  Virtue Ethics  Developmental Ethics  Ethical Skepticism  Ethical Nihilism  Emotivism (Logical Positivism) © 2002, Karey Perkins

5. All moral theories have a:  Theory of the GOOD: What in the world is good or valuable  Theory of the RIGHT: What agents need to do in response to valuable properties (the good)  WHO matters: Individual? Community? Universal (all rational or sentient beings? © 2002, Karey Perkins

6. Options for the good:  Hedonism: pleasure/absence of pain = good Pain/absence of pleasure = bad  Preference satisfaction  Welfare (satisfaction of interests, or preferences in ideal choice situation)  Pluralism (a variety of things) © 2002, Karey Perkins

7. Assuming that some acts are and can be known to be RIGHT or WRONG, how do we determine which are right or wrong? In other words, what is the answer to this question: "An act is right, if and only if, __________________.” Some Act-Based Theories

8. © 2002, Karey Perkins  Ethical Egoism  Ethical Hedonism  Act Utilitarianism  Rule Utilitarianism Some Kinds of CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

9. © 2002, Karey Perkins happiness …the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the agent. (Ayn Rand, Max Stirner) ETHICAL EGOISM Self-interest vs. Selfishness Egoism vs. Altruism Descriptive vs. Normative Egoism

10. What would an egoist do?  Lifeboat?  Loaning class notes?  Robbing a bank?  Going to school? © 2002, Karey Perkins

11. pleasure …the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the agent. (Epicurus) ETHICAL HEDONISM Happiness vs. Pleasure Long term vs. short term pleasure Higher vs. lower pleasure

12. What would a hedonist do?  Eat a whole chocolate cake?  Drink a bottle tequila?  Run a marathon?  Drive a big comfortable vehicle that pollutes the air? © 2002, Karey Perkins

13. greatest number …the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of good or pleasure for the greatest number of all those affected by the act. (Jeremy Bentham) ACT UTILITARIANISM Applies only for this particular act, this particular time No general rules, each situation is different Mill’s greatest happiness principle

14. What would an act utilitarian do? Would Jones stand in a long line to cast his vote in on a cold rainy day ? Would Smith rob a bank if assured anonymity and the bank’s ability to absorb the cost? The Sheriff case © 2002, Karey Perkins

15. when adopted as a rule …the act tends, when adopted as a rule, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number of all those affected by the act. (John Stuart Mill) RULE UTILITARIANISM Anyone in the same position should act in the same manner: Jones should vote; Smith should not rob the bank; the sheriff should not accuse an innocent man. Ambiguity Objection: How can we know, and how should we choose? Distribution Objection: Ten people receive ten units of happiness equally? –OR-- Two people receive 30 units, and 8 people receive 5 units.

16. More problems with utilitarianism:  Punishes the innocent (sheriff case)  Lets the guilty go free Diplomat case Evil Scientist case  Epistemic problem  Demandingness Objections (three) © 2002, Karey Perkins

17. Demandingness Objection One  Meaning and Value in Life: if we always act to promote greatest happiness, we won’t have sufficient time and resources to enjoy life (Ex: CNN Heroes).  Reply: If world were better, we could have time. © 2002, Karey Perkins

18. Demandingness Objection Two  Partiality Objection: No special duty to friends and family  Lifeboat case  Father who leaves child in burning building to rescue others  If anyone stops to think about what to do in this case, that’s one thought too many.  Reply: If we are/everyone were partial, everyone’s interests are maximized. © 2002, Karey Perkins

19. Demandingness Objection Three  Compromises integrity; alienates us from what we hold most dear:  George example: Ph.D. in chemistry, has chance at job to create chemical/biological weapons.  Jim example: Biological researcher, honored visitor to primitive country, ten natives are about to be put to death; he can save nine by killing one. © 2002, Karey Perkins

20. More cases:  John and Linda case  Lisa and Helen case  Reply: Rialton: Alienation sometimes good Paradox of hedonism (tennis, friendship) © 2002, Karey Perkins

21. Bibliography Almeder, Robert. Human Happiness and Morality: A Brief Introduction to Ethics. New York: Prometheus, 2000. Baier, Kurt. “Egoism.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1991. 197-204. Goodin, Robert E. “Utility and the Good.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden: MA: Blackwell, 1991. 241-248. Pettit, Philip. “Consequentialism.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden: MA: Blackwell, 1991. 230-240. Railton, Peter. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13. 1984. 134-171. Williams, Bernard. “Consequentialism and Integrity.” Consequentialism and its Critics, ed. Samuel Scheffler. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988. Thiroux, Jacques P. Ethics: Theory and Practice. 7 th Ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, 2001. © 2002, Karey Perkins