Moral Philosophy & Applied Ethics

Moral Philosophy & Applied Ethics Moral Perspectives 1

Moral Arguments A Moral Argument is an argument that: Has a moral conclusion of the form: • We ought to do X. • It is permissible to do X. • We ought not to do X. • It is impermissible to do X. Has at least one premise containing a moral principle that can be used to derive the conclusion Moral premises typically come from a moral theory which aims to justify why the moral principle is the principle we ought to be using.

Moral Arguments: Example Moral Question: Should we invade Syria in order to prevent a great harm from happening to its citizens? • Whenever it is possible to prevent a great harm without causing greater harm, we ought to prevent the great harm. • It is possible to prevent the citizen’s of Syria from suffering a great harm without causing a greater harm. • So, we ought to invade Syria in order to prevent a great harm. Premise (1) is our moral principle – it is a general claim about harm. Premise (2) is claim about the specifics of preventing harm without causing a greater harm. (3) Is our moral conclusion.

Moral Arguments: Evaluation Are the premises true? Consider the moral principle in (1). Whenever it is possible to prevent harm without causing greater harm, we ought to prevent harm. Suppose we can prevent 1,000,000 people from dying of starvation by torturing a single innocent child. Should we torture the child? If you think no, then you have an objection to the moral principle. If you think yes, then if you disagree with the principle, you have to come up with some reason why you disagree.

Moral Arguments: Evaluation Are the premises true? Consider the factual claim in (2). It is possible to prevent the citizen’s of Syria from suffering a great harm without causing a greater harm. For us to know (2) we have to be confident that: • Our own troops won’t suffer a great loss. • The citizens that are innocent won’t accidentally suffer a greater loss. • That there won’t be back lash. Are we really confident of all of that?

Moral Theories: The Fundamental Distinction • Act- Centered vs. Agent-Centered Some theories maintain that the fundamental object of moral evaluation is an Actor action. Some theories maintain that the fundamental object of moral evaluation is an Agent or a person. Act-centered theories come in two types: Intention-based theories maintain that the fundamental moral consideration is about the intentions that go into the action. Consequence-based theories maintain that the fundamental moral consideration is about the consequences of the action.

Moral Theories: Act Centered Questions: Is pushing with the intention to save with the result of killing worse than or better than pushing with the intention to kill with the result of saving? Are intentions or consequences more important in evaluating the morality of an action? Are they equally important?

Act-Centered  Consequence Based  Act Utilitarianism • A common format for a moral problem: We have a serious problem X. We can do either A, B, or C. The consequence of doing A and B are bad. The consequences of doing C are good. So, we should do C.

Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism: One ought to do the action that will create more social utility than any alternative action. There are three main components of act utilitarianism: • Hedonism – the only thing that has intrinsic value is pleasure. • Sum-Ranking Welfarism – State of Affairs A is better than State of Affairs B just in case the sum of positive welfare in A is greater than the sum of positive welfare in B. • Act consequentialism – The right action is that action from the set of available actions that has the best consequences.

Act-Centered  Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism requires us to choose action C, since it has, compared to the other available options the highest social utility. Notice we are taking the total of all individuals involved. So in order to make the table for comparison purposes we need to identify all relevant parties and how they will be effected by the action chosen.

Act Utilitarianism Decision Procedure • What is the moral problem? • Who are the actors? • What are the available actions that can be taken? • Who are the people that are effected by each choice ? • What is the social utility of each action for each individual involved?

Comments on Utility / Pleasure / Consequences Utilitarianism requires that we measure utility for an individual. What is utility? What are we measuring? How can it be measured? Do we only care about pleasure? Do we only care about consequences?

What is Utility? One definition of utility is that it is simply pleasure. Raw sensational pleasure. Question: Are all pleasures the same in terms of their unit value? Drinking beer vs. Reading Shakespeare Darts vs. Poetry Is there a distinction between Higher and Lower pleasures? What is the distinction between the two classes?

What are we measuring? Average vs. Total Do we want more people to get something? or Do we want less people to get more?

How can it be measured? One approach to measuring individual utility is to look at trade offs that we actually can test for. We can run a hypothetical. Assuming you had a large amount of money: Would you choose X over Y or Y over X? If Jill pays more for X than Y, then she prefers X to Y. And If Jill prefers X to Y, then Jill gets more utility / pleasure from X than Y. This is not an absolute measure, but it is a working measure

Do we only care about pleasure? The Experience Machine Test: Suppose we could plug you up to a virtual reality machine for the rest of your life. Once in the machine you would not know that you decided to go into the machine. And in the machine every pleasure and desire you told us you wanted to experience, you would be given. In the machine you would experience your ideal life. Would you choose to enter the experience machine?

Experience Machine Argument • If we would not enter the experience machine, then there is something other than mere pleasure attained through a certain set of desires being satisfied that we care about. • We would not choose to enter the experience machine. • So, there must be something other than mere pleasure attained through a certain set of desires being satisfied that we care about. The argument challenges the idea that the only thing we care about is mere pleasure attained through the satisfaction of some desire of ours.

Do we only care about consequences? The Spare Part Surgeon Test: Suppose you are a doctor out in the battle field. And you have three wounded soldiers who need to go back out into the field. A perfectly healthy patient comes in for a check up. You could decide to put him out, and use his organs to make transplants into the other wounded soldiers. No one would know, and you would save three at the cost of 1, and also put more out into the battle field. Would you kill the one to save the 3?

The Spare Part Surgeon Argument • If we would not cut up the one healthy patient in order to save the three wounded soldiers, then there must be something more than the consequences of a situation that we care about. • We would not choose to cut up the one healthy patient in order to save the three wounded soldiers. • So, there must be something more than the consequences of the situation that we care about. The argument challenges the idea that we only care about the consequences.

Act Centered  Consequence-Based  Rule Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism: Do the action that is in accord with the rule that would, if generally followed, create more social utility than any alternative rule. Main difference with Act Utilitarianism is the focus on following rules that tend toward greater utility. For example, lying can often be justified on the grounds that in a specific case it will lead to higher social utility for all parties involved. However, if we are following the general rule that we should not lie, we are doing so because we realize that in the long run not-lying produces greater social utility. That is honesty is the best policy because in the long run lying leads to greater social disutility.

Rule Utilitarianism Decision Procedure • Identify the moral problem. • Identify the possible rules at play. • Consider the consequences of adopting each rule. • Select the rule with the most utility. • Apply the rule. • Describe the actions that would conform to the acceptable rules.

Act Centered  Intention Based  Deontology / Kant Immanuel Kant was a philosopher of the late 18th century. He argued for a theory of morality that took into consideration two ideas: • Intentions and or motivations for acting. • Basic respect for persons. He maintained that the only thing that can be said to be good without qualification was a person’s will.

Watering Mike’s lawn while he is out of town Ann is acting out of self-interest. Sara is being malicious. Raj is acting out of affection. Carlos is acting out of Duty. Kant would argue that regardless of the consequences, only Carlos is acting morally, since his motivations come from his duty and respect for persons.

Universal Formulation Categorical Imperative – Universal Formulation: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. Maxim = Moral principle that specifies an intention in performing an action. Universal law = A law that applies universally and with reversability. It applies to everyone, and it applies to everyone the same way it applies to me. The basic idea is that one should act on principles that apply universally and that one would accept as applying to themselves.

Universal Formulation: General Formula Individual Level: Can I do Action A in Context C to Achieve E? Universal Level: What if everyone did action A in Context C to Achieve E? Test: if there is a contradiction at the universal level then one cannot perform the action. In general, I cannot act on a principle that if universalized and applied to everyone would lead to some kind of contradiction.

Example: Making a false promise to pay back a loan Individual Level: Can I make a false promise to pay back a loan in order to get a loan so I can buy a house? Universal Level: What if everyone made a false promise to pay back a loan in order to get a loan so they could use the money for something. Problem: there would be no institution of lending, since lending depends on trust, which means that people don’t generally make promises to pay back a loan when they don’t intend to do so.

Humanity Formulation Categorical Imperative – Humanity Formulation: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. • Don’t use people. • Treat persons as ends in themselves. The core idea is to see everyone as a moral equal. Seeing others as a moral equal rules out using them or seeing them as mere servants, and treating persons as ends in themselves requires cultivating an awareness of others that respects their emotional profile and autonomy.

Humanity Formulation: General Formulation General Idea: Don’t use people as a mere means to an end!!! Action A is permissible: If doing A would not result either in using someone or failing to treat them as a moral equal. Action A is impermissible: If doing A would either result in using someone or in treating them as being morally unequal to oneself.

Example: Buying stamps You go to the post office to buy stamps. You pay the postal clerk money to buy stamps. And you interact with him as another human being who is more than just their job. However, you do use the postal clerk for the end of attaining stamps. Did you do something morally wrong? NO! Because you did not use the postal worker as a mere means to an end. The postal worker • Consented to being employed in this way. • The postal worker was treated with respect by you. • The postal worker knew what he was doing when he choose the job.

Humanity Formulation: Information we need • Did the person consent to being treated in a certain way? • Did the person have other options? • Were those options minimally good enough? • Was the person rational when they consented? • Are they mentally disabled or unable to exercise decision making on their own behalf? • Are they suffering from duress and or confusion? • Did the person have all the relevant information that they could have expected to have at the time? • Was some one lying to them about the facts? • Was something omitted that was actually important information?

Respect for Others: Moral Rights • The term ‘moral right’ is used synonymously with ‘human right’, but that doesn’t make them identical to human rights. Moral rights could apply to non-human creatures. • Moral rights are not the same as legal rights, which are a function of the legal system of the nation we are a citizen of or the international legal rights that apply to all of us. • Moral rights are not the same as civil rights, which are a function of the civil regulations that govern us, these regulations can vary from state to state, or from nation to nation. The moral rights tradition is a long and old tradition that Kant’s theory is seen to lend itself to a defense of.

Moral Rights • Moral rights are rights that societies should enforce. If we are really persuaded that people have a moral right to X, then we should enforce violation of the right. • Moral rights imply duties. Negative view: If P has a right to X, then everyone else is required to refrain from interfering with P’s having X. Positive view: If P has a right to X, then everyone else is required to refrain from interfering with P’s having X, and should cooperate, when necessary , in P’s having X.

Moral Rights: Example: The right to life Example: Jane slips and is drowning in a pool. Mary could easily save her, but Mary chooses to watch her drown. Question: Did Mary violate Jane’s right to life? Negative account: no one should interfere with a person’s exercise of their right to life. Mary did not interfere, so she did not violate Jane’s right to life. Positive account: where it is not too demanding one should also cooperate with another’s exercise of a right. Mary did notcooperate in Jane’s right to life. So, Mary did violate Jane’s right to life.

Moral Rights: Conditions / Questions • Moral rights cannot be waived. If P has a right to X, then P cannot give up his/her claim to X. • Moral rights take precedence over all other considerations. If P has a right to X, P’s claim to X counts more heavily than any other consideration. • Moral rights apply universally. If P has a right to X, then anyone else in P’s situation would have a legitimate claim to X. What is the criterion for bestowing moral rights?

Agent Centered  Virtue Theory / Aristotle • Virtue is an old word for what we now call character. • Virtue theory, in western philosophy, comes from the philosopher Aristotle. • A virtue is a mean between two extremes. One that is too much of something, and the other which is too little of something. Example: Courage is a virtue. It is the mean between being a coward and being foolhardy.

Two Kinds of Virtues: A general virtue is a virtue that makes one a good friend or a good citizen. It is not specific to a kind of craft, trade, or special activity. A special virtue is a virtue that helps you to fulfill your function in society. Special virtues vary from profession to profession. We expect doctors to have one set of special virtues, and musicians to have another set of special virtues. However, We expect doctors and musicians to have the same set of general virtues that allow them to function in society as friends, citizens, etc…

Aristotle’s List of Virtues

Virtues in general • There are different lists of virtues, because different virtues support different kinds of societal structures. • We in general learn virtues from elders that teach them to us by example. • To argue on the basis of virtue is to say that being a certain way leads to a good society, where a certain kind of society is argued to be valuable. • Vice is the opposite of virtue, a vice is a habit that we should aim to not cultivate. • Recognizing character traits in others is important for moral evaluation.

Virtue Theory Decision Procedure • Who are the main agents / actors involved? • What virtues or vices are the actors / agents in the situation displaying? • What role did these virtues and vices play in how they behaved? • How could we avoid behaving the way that the participants in the situation behaved?

Moral Table Analysis To do a moral table analysis: create a table that has: • All the actors / agents / effected people listed. • All the intentions and consequences that you can discern. • All of the moral rights involved, and whether they were violated. • All of the virtues and vices being displayed. Use the moral table to help you create a moral argument / decision on what to do, and to decide whether what was done by others in a situation was morally right or wrong.

Moral Philosophy & Applied Ethics