wow what a lot of love

Τeleological theories

CD Broad “hold that rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad”

-Takes a relativist approach, outcome rather than action

-Appeals to common sense, instinctively consider how an act will affect us

Deontological v consequentialist

Teleological theory maintains that the moral judgements are based on an actions consequences

Deontological theory maintains that the rightness of an action does not depend solely on its consequences

>actions have inherent rightness or wrongness

Eg Pacifists armed agression is always wrong

>may consider the motives of an act

Eg duty or good intentions make an action good

>any bad consequences dont detract from the actions goodness

Act utilitarianism

-Βentham

-from a teleological pov what is significant is the consequence

-striving for the greatest happiness for the greatest number- principle of utility

-The consequences of each action should be considered

-Moral relativism (not inherently right or wrong, depends on outcome)

-Utilises hedonic calculus to determine amount of pleasure and pain and correct action

-Consequentialist

-Principle of utility applied directly to individual actions/moral situations.

-Moral rules can be a useful guideline for behaviour but can be violated if doing so would bring about the greatest happiness.

Deontological argument

CD Broad “such and such a kind of action would always be right (or wrong) in such and such circumstances, no matter what its consequence might be”

-The rightness of an action doesn’t depend solely on consequence but on the acts feature

Eg Pacifist act of aggression always wrong

>absolutist approach

-Intentions matter, following duty and such, if intentions are wrong then the act is tainted

Meta-ethical aspects of utilitarianism

• Cognitivist theory: proposes that there are such things as moral truths. Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• Moral naturalism: proposes that moral facts are also natural facts. Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'. We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

Moral naturalism

• proposes that moral facts are also natural facts.

• Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'.

• We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

Cognitivst theory

• proposes that there are such things as moral truths. Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• Metaethical

Moral naturalism

• Proposes that moral facts are also natural facts. Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'.

• We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

• Utilitarian equate goodness with happiness

• Meta-ethical

Psychological hedonism

• the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain

• Bentham believes we are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain

• 

Ethical hedonism

• the view that only pleasure has moral worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.

• Bentham believes we should seek pleasure

Types of Hedonsim

• Psychological hedonism: the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain

• Bentham believes we are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain

• Ethical hedonism: the view that only pleasure has moral worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.

• Bentham believes we should seek pleasure

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• If it produces the same amount of pleasure they are equally important

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

Quantitive utilitarianism,

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• If it produces the same amount of pleasure they are equally important

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

Bentham on hedonism+utilitarianism (what is it, who does it effect)

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

• Also follows psychological+ethical hedonism

• For Bentham, the ability to experience pleasure and pain is the basis for something to be considered a moral patient i.e. to be taken into moral consideration when we act).

• included animals as part of his moral consideration because of their capability to experience pleasure and pain

  "The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

• Differs from egoism

  though my pleasure is significant the pains of others are significant “each is to count for one and none for more than one”

Utilitarianism for Bentham

• Consequentialism - (or teleological)

  utilitarianism suggests that it is the outcomes of an action that makes it right or wrong, not the action itself, nor the intention.

• Bentham thought that the consequences of each moral situation should be considered, rather than the general outcomes of following moral rules.

  This is called act utilitarianism.

• A form of relativism - Bentham's act utilitarianism does not hold that any actions are intrinsically wrong in themselves.

  this is dependent on the outcomes it will have based on the particular situation.

  This is not an absolute meta-ethical relativism - Bentham still believes in moral truths such as 'pleasure is good'.

• Principle of utility - utility means 'usefulness'. In the context of his ethical theory, Bentham intends this to mean that our actions should promote the best outcomes, and the betterment of society as a whole.

  The principle of utility is usually summarised as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number.'

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• Does allow us to scarifiée the pleasure of some for the pleasure of the many

Jonathon Jacobs on utilitarianism

-Utilitarianism supplies a clear answer to the question, ”where is moral value located? or “what do we look to in making moral judgements and decisions?”

> “we are to look to what difference is made by an action (or a practice, or the following of a general rule).” That is, ”we are to look to the consequences of actions or the states of affairs that they bring about.” (State of affairs- way things are)

virtue-centred theorizing value is located in the character of the agent + subsequent action .

Kantian morality, moral value resides in the agent’s volition+duty (rejects consequentialism)

JS Mill, a Utilitarian theorist, endorsed the view that the moral value of actions depends upon what they bring about. It depends upon the

causal difference they make to states of affairs, and he sharply distinguishes this from the

moral evaluation of agents. In regard to evaluating agents, motives matter. But in regard

to evaluating actions, wat matters is what difference they make, not the motive or

character of the agent. Mill never says that the morality of agents is not important but he

clearly distinguishes between that issue and the rightness or wrongness of actions in a

way that neither Aristotle or Kant did so.

A main reason for this is that Mill and other utilitarians were convinced morality has a

claim on us because of how being moral contributes to increasing happiness or welfare.

How could an action or a practice be a right action or practice if it did not increase (rather

than decrease) happiness? How rational is it to act according to principles such that doing

so is an impediment to happiness or actually increases suffering?

An important aspect of this is that utilitarians saw themselves as demystifying morality

and making it eminently practical. They thought that moral theory could be empirical,

objective, and could be freed from controversial theological commitments, unargued

intuitions, and the weight of custom and convention taken as justifications regardless of

whether they are rationally supportable. In fact, Mill opens Utilitarianism by pointing out

how the debate about the highest good and the basic principles of morality has remained

stubbornly unsolved. He points out how there are competing strategies of justification for

them, and he thinks that utilitarian theory can free us from this unsatisfactory situation.

He and other utilitarians believe that the theory supplies a clear and compelling answer to

the questions of (i) were moral value is located, (ii) what has moral value, and (iii) how to

reason about what to do, given the answers to (i) and (ii). Utilitarianism claims to have the

distinctive merit of supplying a systematic and conceptually simple but adequate

approach to understanding morality and moral reasoning. It claims to do this in a way that

has a powerful practical appeal and does not involve any obscure or controversial

presuppositions.

We have already indicated one of its key features, namely that it looks to states of affairs

as the locus of moral value. This is consequentialism, the view that the consequences or

the causal difference made by actions are what we look to in judging the rightness or

wrongness of actions. We have mentioned another of the theory’s key features, its claim

that what matters about states of affairs is whether they constitute an increase or

decrease in happiness or utility. This is hedonism, the view that pleasure is the good. It is

important to note right away that not all consequentialists are hedonists. Jeremy

Bentham, a leading figure in the development of utilitarian theory, famously wrote,

“nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” They, and

they alone have intrinsic value. That has been a central theme for most utilitarian thinkers

but it is not a logical requirement of the theory. While consequentialism is a view about

the structure of moral theory or about where moral value is found, hedonism is a theory

about what is morally valuable, about what is good. The most influential versions of

consequentialism are also hedonist theories but G. E. Moore, for example, was a

consequentialist but not a hedonist. Usually, when people speak of consequentialism they

mean hedonistic utilitarianism, and usually when people speak of utilitarianism they

mean its hedonistic version.

Utilitarianism is also a cognitivist moral theory, because it holds that moral judgements

are literally correct or mistaken (or we could say, “literally true or false”). Judgements are

based upon facts and do not merely express attitudes or feelings. Granted, the facts they

ae concerned with are facts about what promotes utility or what maximizes happiness,

but even though those are facts about the psychological states of subjects, they are (the

utilitarians claims) objective. it is a matter of fact that action A makes more people better

off than action B, and that is what makes action A the objectively right action. (There are

several different cognitivist moral theories and it is an illuminating exercise to compare

them and their conceptions of what makes for the objectivity of moral judgements.)

What motivated utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill to accept and endorse hedonism

was that it seemed to them that pleasure and pleasure alone is what people desire for its

own sake and what is desired for its own sake is the key to what has value. This was

another aspect of the demystification of morality. They thought (and contemporary

utilitarians often agree) that moral value can be explained in empirical, naturalistic terms.

If we analyse human action, they held, we always find that, in the final analysis, what

people aim at is pleasure. Imagine you are asked why you are leaving the meeting early

(“to get to my car”) and why you want to get to your car (“because I need to get to the

dentist and this is a time of day when traffic is heavy”) and why you are going to the

dentist (“to have this impacted tooth worked on”) and why you are having that work

done (“for my dental and overall health”) and why that maters to you (“because I will the

feel better – it contributes to, and is part of, living without pain and having a more

pleasurable existence”). It is not that you undertake each step of the overall action

because you find it pleasurable to do so. Perhaps you would like to remain at the meeting

as you dislike driving in traffic and having heavy dental work done. But the rationality of

the overall action-process is explained with reference to the pleasure of being in good

health. Think of an analogous structure of practical reasoning concerning what course of

study you choose to pursue or how you plan how to spend your time on holiday. Whether

short term or long term, the hedonistic utilitarian argues that the rationality of the action

is anchored in our desire for pleasure for its own sake. Other things are desired as means

to pleasure or because we find them pleasurable. (One pursues pleasure by pursuing this,

that, and the other thing that one finds pleasing.)

For the utilitarians this claim about pleasure is the core of the explanation of human

action and this, also, the core of an account of moral requirements. This is because, given

the significance of pleasure, rational action is action that promotes it and that minimizes

pain. Moreover, the early utilitarians thought that pleasure was measurable, at least to

the extent that we could make accurate empirical judgements about which, of the

available courses of action, would be best. The notion that pleasure or utility or happiness

(the notions often being used largely interchangeably) is measurable may seem quite

implausible. What would be the units of measure? How would we compare one person’s

pleasure to another’s? And so on. Still, in fairness to the utilitarians, it does seem that we

can make a great number of reliable judgements about whether say, there is more utility

in being honest than in being dishonest, in aiding people in distress than in abandoning

them, in educating young people with a breadth of experience rather than confining them

to highly routinized lives within narrow horizons; and the list could go on and on.

Hedonic calculator

INITIAL ACT

Intensity

The stronger, the better, meaning that those pleasures that give an acute and extremely potent rush of pleasure bring instant happiness.

Duration

The longer-lasting, the better, meaning that inevitably the enduring nature of the experience of happiness is a key factor in assessing the quality of the pleasure.

Certainty

The surer that pleasure will result, the better. This is a true 'calculation' of the implications of the pleasure being consistent and, in some cases, more reliable than an alternative. All things being equal, we should go for pleasures which are more certain than less certain.

occurrences of the same pleasure or pleasures, or, alternatively, subsequent and dependent sub-pleasures that may result.

Remoteness

The nearer the pleasure is to you, the better, meaning the present as opposed to those we are looking forward to in the distant future.

KNOCK ON EFFECTS

Fecundity

The more chance the pleasure will be repeated or will result in other pleasures, the better. This considers the additional

Purity

The least amount of pain it involves, the better. Some experiences may not be pure happiness. For Bentham, a consistent experience of pleasure that is far distanced from pain is superior.

Extent

The more people who experience it the better, as shared pleasures enhance the impact of happiness beyond oneself in true keeping with the happiness principle.

Evaluation of Bentham's utilitarianism

1. Pleasure as the only moral value

-Bentham argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and therefore the only requirement of moral action is to maximise pleasure.

>based on his view that human behaviour is motivated by the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

>since this is what humans seem to value the most in life, that our only moral obligation is to increase pleasure for all.

Eg Aristotle to Ayn Rand.

-since Bentham argues that only the amount of pleasure matters and not what the source of this pleasure is, he is able to take account of the subjective nature of pleasure.

>What is pleasurable to me might not be pleasurable to you. Bentham's system therefore does not insist that we impose particular ways of life on people or insist that they conform to some particular standard.

>People are free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. While some may gain pleasure from poetry and other intellectual pursuits, some may gain more pleasure from things like food or children's games.

BUT

-Bentham's failure to distinguish between different types of pleasures

>it therefore follows that the happiness of a person getting drunk and clubbing on a Thursday night is morally equal to that produced by a carer doing unpaid social work for the elderly

>Since Bentham makes no distinction between types of pleasure, he is unable to make a distinction between worthwhile or desirable pleasures and those that are not.

-Would a person in a perpetual state of drug-fuelled euphoria really be living a good life?

-Pleasures of malevolence

-Aristotle would argue that this is not true happiness or flourishing, which for him is rational activity in accordance with virtue.

2. Equal moral consideration

-everybody is to count for one, nobody for more than one, meaning that we must consider the pleasure and pain of all people affected by our actions equally.

>offer an advantage over some ethical theories, such as Ethical Egoism, which says we only have to consider our own interests.

fails to explain why my pleasure or interests are any more valuable than another person's.

By insisting that we consider the happiness of all people equally, utilitarianism can provide the basis for a fairer society, and may be said to lead to the more just treatment of others.

-Bentham's inclusion of animals into moral consideration marks a more consistent approach to ethics.

>Other theories may struggle to explain why animals should be excluded from moral consideration solely on the grounds of being animals.

BUT

-equal moral consideration can create huge and unrealistic demands on the individual.

>I would always be morally obligated to do something to improve the wellbeing of another person at any point that they are less fortunate than me.

eg I am obliged to give away all of my wealth until the point I am only marginally better off than those experiencing the most hardship and suffering.

This seems an unrealistic demand to set for people.

-We also have the issue of having to accurately account for what we think might improve the happiness of other people, but since what causes others to experience pleasure can be highly subjective, it seems impossible that we could reasonably consider all people equally.

3. Consequentialist approach

-argues that the morality of an action is to be judged by its outcomes.

When we think about actions that are right or wrong, we often frame it by the effect that it has on others. Typically, good actions are seen as those that help or benefit others, and bad actions are those that harm others.

-This approach is also sometimes considered to be a form of moral relativism.

>recognises that there are no actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, but that the morality of the action is dependent upon the particular situation and the consequences

eg Immanuel Kant axe murderer

many of us would argue that following the rule is not the right thing to do in this situation.

By taking a relativist approach, Bentham's act utilitarianism allows us to assess whether following the rule in this situation would promote the greatest happiness, and if not, argue that the right course of action is to deceive the murderer.

BUT

-Bentham's relativism that there are no actions which are intrinsically wrong or right. It would allow us to steal, to kill, or even to rape if the consequences could be shown to be beneficial overall

>has the logical consequence of allowing what common sense might regard as evil as a good.

-have also raised concerns with Bentham's principle of utility, which proposes that we should aim to produce 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number', arguing that it can lead to injustice in society.

>Bentham's view of the maximisation of happiness could justify injustices like slavery, if the slaves were significantly in the minority and their enslavement would benefit the overall happiness of society.

BUT

-Bentham argued that typically, causing pain or unhappiness to a minority would not result in an equal amount of happiness being produced in the majority

"such is the nature of the receptacle, the quantity of unhappiness it is capable of containing during any given portion of time is greater than the quantity of happiness."

BUT This is the theme of Ursula Le Guin's short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', in which the utopian city's perpetual happiness and prosperity depends upon the torture of one young girl. Could a utilitarian possibly argue the happiness produced would not outweigh the pain?

4. The use of the hedonic calculus

-Bentham proposes act utilitarianism. This is the view that one should consider the consequences of each individual moral action or in each moral situation.

>Bentham gives clear guidance on how we can work out what we ought to do through the hedonic calculus.

intensity, duration, remoteness, and certainty of the pleasures and pains produced by the initial act, and the fecundity or purity of these pleasures and pains when thinking about the future consequences.

He also notes that we need to account for all people that might be affected by our action.

BUT

-the hedonic calculus could be seen as overly complex and time-consuming.

>This is a problem if we are faced with a situation where we need to make an immediate decision.

BUT

'It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment'.

>Experience can guide us.

One can use 'rules of thumb' to guide action, but these rules are overridable when abiding by them would conflict with the promotion of the good.

But it is precisely in novel situations where we may need to override our generalised judgements that we must rely on calculation, and therefore where utilitarianism may be of least help.

-The hedonic calculus also relies upon the subjective judgement of the individual to gauge the intensity, duration and remoteness of the pleasures and pains involved.

-we cannot always accurately predict the further consequences of our actions - the fecundity or purity, or even the extent of the pleasures and pains that will result.

> Dan Herzog has therefore proposed that we write off utilitarianism as 'incomprehensible', saying that 'for all its vaunted precision', utilitarianism 'fails to set out a procedure for making choices' and 'cannot tell us what to do'.

-Louis Pojman has called the problem of incommensurability. Bentham's principle of utility requires that we factor in two variables when making our calculations - the total happiness produced and the number of people affected.

>how we decide which of the variables to rank first when they seem to conflict? For example, should I be more concerned about total happiness (the greatest amount) or about highest average (spread

JS Mill Utilitarianism

-Often seen as an attempt to overcome Bentham’s system’s challenges:

• problems with all pleasure being equal> qualitiative approach

• Hedonic calculus flaws+issue of promoting injustice>rule util+harm principle

-Maintains principle of utility

-Argues pleasure as the only intrinsic good- the only desirable end of human behaviour, all others are desired as they contibute to it

-He claims people prefer happiness which employs their highest faculties and this is higher quality than mere content

• Claims higher quality ascertained by if most would chose it even at the risk of discontent

-Responds to Carlyle “a philosophy fit for swine” encouraging people to live like pigs pursuing pleasure by any means possible

• He differentiates happiness (more than base pleasure, Aristolean vibe happiness links to what it means to be human) and content better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied

• It is easier for the pig or the fool to be fully satisfied as their capacities for enjoyment are low, argues it is better to live a life where higher pleasures are accessible

-Differs from Bentham’s act utilitarianism with rule utilitarianism

BUT

-Abandons hedonism

-Makes pleasure harder to calculate

-Problems with qualitative utilitariansim

Evaluating JS Mill’s utilitarianism

Qualitative approach

-neuroscientific support, different pleasures effect brain differently

-Improvement of Bentham’s quantative, able to recognise some pleasures are more worth pursuing, contributing to fulfilment, and experiences of depth and complexity

BUT

Abandons Hedonism

-Claims to take a hedonistic approach (happiness=pleasure and is the only good thing)

BUT his pref for higher pleasures seems to prioritise what gives us less happiness

-Only way to justify this pref is employing things others than happiness: greater artisty or profundity eg Shakespearean tragedy

-Hedonism claims happiness is the only standard

>His theory is inconsistent and wrong

Hard to calculate

-Hedonic calculus was sufficiently complex, the addition of quality complicates it further

-Must now measure quality and quantity > they are incommensurable (cant be compared) how much of a lower pleasure will be able to overcome a small amount of the higher?

-Mill is unclear

Problems judging high and low

-Defines higher as that which most experts with experiance of competing pleasures would prefer even if it gave less pleasure

>team of people with superior and reliable taste

>only qualifications are having been indulged in flesh v art pleasure and prefering the latter

-Can anyone fully experiance all varieties (party constantly and visit museums)

-Mill admits that due to weakness of will or boredom they sometimes participate in lower

>the ‘experts’ are subject to changing their minds and cant be relied on

>unfalsifiable

-Hauskeller+Schaupp argue his distinction between high and low is unsuccessful failing to prove some pleasures are inherently preferable- most people wouldnt renounce low (sex, chocolate) for high (opera)

Rule utilitarianism

• An action is right if it conforms to a rule that tends to lead to the greatest happiness.

• The correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed.

• Following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.

• Can be seen as a deontological/teleological hybrid ethical theory:

  Deontological

  • Proposes that there are moral rules that should always be followed regardless of the situation. We have an obligation/duty to act according to these rules.

  Teleological

  • The rules that are proposed are those which tend to lead to the best outcomes if followed.

  • The correctness of the rules is their ability to promote the greatest happiness.

• Relates the principle or utility to rules rather than individual actions- an act is correct if it promotes general happiness

• Considering individual actions is impractical (compares rules to signposts, the rules merely help find greatest happiness)

• There are instances with conflicting duties/rules and only then should you have to revert back to the Greatest Happiness Principle (eg Kant’s murderer at the door)

  • In a moral situation, the actor should examine which rules (secondary principles) in the moral code of their society relate to the given situation.

  • If the secondary principles seem to propose conflicting duties, then and only then) should we invoke the primary principle- the principle of utility - to consider which rule we have a greater duty to follow in this situation: following which rule would lead to the greatest happiness?

• Mill supports rights on the principle of utility (generally happier)

Rule Utilitarianism summary

• Principle of utility used to the evaluate rules rather than individual actions/moral situations.

• Moral rules should be adopted if following them would typically lead to the maximisation of happiness.

• Correct behaviour is that which conforms to these rules.

• Rules that promote the general happiness should not be violated.

• Rules can be assessed periodically and can be modified or abandoned if they no longer promote the greatest happiness.

Hybrid theory

• Can be seen as a deontological/teleological hybrid ethical theory:

  Deontological

  • Proposes that there are moral rules that should always be followed regardless of the situation. We have an obligation/duty to act according to these rules.

  Teleological

  • The rules that are proposed are those which tend to lead to the best outcomes if followed.

  • The correctness of the rules is their ability to promote the greatest happiness.

Harm Principle

-Mill Rule utility

-We have the right to infringe on others in so far as they are causing harm

-Argues people are happier when they can pursue their own happiness UNLESS they are causing harm to others (generally physical)

>Bentham had the issue of justifying anything

Principles in rule utilitarianism

• The primary principle is There are instances with conflicting duties/rules and only then should you have to revert back to the Greatest Happiness Principle (eg Kant’s murderer at the door)

  • In a moral situation, the actor should examine which rules (secondary principles) in the moral code of their society relate to the given situation.

  • If the secondary principles seem to propose conflicting duties, then and only then) should we invoke the primary principle- the principle of utility - to consider which rule we have a greater duty to follow in this situation: following which rule would lead to the greatest happiness?

Act v Rule utilitarianism

-The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism was introduced by Richard Brandt 1950s

-They thus dont fit neatly into the category

-Both are concerned by maximising utility+argue this is how to assess good actions but apply the principle differently (differ on how it is achieved)

Intrinsically good

-Good in and of itself

-Not good because of something else it leads to

-To be pursued for its own sake

Mill’s proof of utility

-His proof of utility claims that just as an object can only be proved as visible if it is seen, or a sound may only be proved as audible if heard

the only evidence for something being desirable is that it is desired and general happiness is desirable as it is desired.

-If individual happiness is good it follows that general happiness is good to the aggregates of all + is desired by all

-Believes the only thing we desire for its own sake is happiness- we desire other things to bring happiness, eg money

BUT

GE Moore JS Mill falls into the fallacy of equivocation

key term or phrase used ambiguously with one meaning in one portion of the argument and another later

>desirable moves from meaning ‘capable of desire’ (audible- capable of being heard) to ‘worthy of being desired’ (thus anything desired is good)

GE Moore on naturalistic fallacy

(Where non-natural terms eg ‘good’ are defined in terms of natural properties eg ‘pleasure’)

-attempts to define goodness in terms of happiness or pleasure fall into this

>no issue in saying “pleasure is good” but the meaning of pleasure and good are not synonymous

GE Moore on fallacy of equivocation

-fallacy of equivocation is to use a key term or phrase in an ambiguous manner

-GE Moore criticises Mill’s use of ‘desirable’ as it is intended to mean ‘worthy of being desired’ but by comparing it to visible which means ‘able to be seen’ it comes to mean ‘able to be desired’- it does not mean that what we desire should be desired

-eg Bentham made space for pleasure from malevolence

-Aquinas + apparent goods, just as we desire it doesn’t mean it is a true good eg desire promiscuity, doesn’t mean its good

Fallacy of composition principle of utility

the fallacy of composition is assuming a subject shares the qualities of it parts

just because happiness is desirable for an individual it does not mean we all desire happiness for all

Have a collection of individuals desiring their only happiness, doesn’t mean individual desires happiness for all

Experience machine

-Nozick’s experience machine explains a scenario in which it was possible for a machine to give you the feeling of any experience and questions whether you would choose to do this for the rest of your life to challenge the idea that happiness is not the only important factor in life

-it shows pleasure is not the only intrinsic pleasure as it is not the case all people would be happy to sacrifice everything for happiness

Pleasure is the sole intrinsic good

IS PLEASURE GOOD:

Bentham+Mill take a hedonistic approach

“There’s two sovreign masters: pleasure and pain”

BUT Naturalistic fallacy

IS ALL PLEASURE GOOD/DESIRED

Proof of utility

Proof of Utility Mill- we know we desire things because we desire them

BUT GE Moore fallacy of equivicotation, Aquinas+ Apparent goods, Bentham pleasure of malevolence

Are there other goods

Mill only desire other things instrumentally

BUT Nozick Experience machine

Justice

-Typically understood as equity+fair treatment

-Giving people what they deserve of are owed

-Respecting individual rights

Eg paying someone more for better work

-For utilitarianism justice might be said to be maximising utility

Does Util justify sacrificing others

-Unlike Egoism it forced you to consider others

-Mill defends rights on the basis of utility

BUT hypothetically if i can argue not having rights would promote utility then I could justify it as they are not natural rights, only justified

BUT could justify to sacrifice the well being of one for the good of the many

Does Utilitarianism promote Justice

Equal moral considerations

• Bentham suggests that everybody's interests must be considered equally: 'Each to count for one and none for more than one.

• We must weigh up the interests of all people that will be effected by our actions and give them equal consideration.

• We cannot prioritise our own wellbeing/happiness over that of others (or at their expense).

• This can encourage people to tackle perceived injustices e.g.
  Peter Singer says that we must consider the condition of the global poor and help them if we are living in relative luxury.
  Why should the happiness we gain from buying new products count more than the pain of those dying of easily preventable causes?

BUT

• equal consideration of interests can sometimes lead to absurd conclusions and unjust demands e.g. every time I have a spare £10, I would not be able to spend this enjoying myself but would be obliged to give it to someone worse off as their pain would need to be given equal importance to my enjoyment.

• Singer's views on global poverty, we would be obliged to keep giving until we have very little left.

• But it does not seem just that we cannot enjoy the fruits of our labour. It also seems to imply that that the global poor in some way have a claim to my money or possessions, but this does not seem fair.

• If I earned it, I should be able to use it as I want.

The Greatest Happiness Principle

• The greatest happiness principle (though typically obliging us to act justly towards others) can sometimes permit or require that we cause pain/harm to an individual or a minority to increase the happiness of the majority.

• It could be seen to permit unjust acts like gang rape or throwing
  Christians to lions to entertain Roman crowds (especially since Bentham accounts for pleasures of malevolence).

• Bentham attempted to address this by noting that our capacity for pain outweighs our capacity for pleasure. He gives the example that if 1001 people caused pain to 1000 to increase their own pleasure, this would not result in maximisation of happiness.

  BUT

• if pleasure is quantifiable then it would be possible at some point to justify causing some pain to an individual or small enough minority to benefit a majority (e.g. 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas' - torturing the one girl for the prosperity of a entire city).

Rule utilitarianism + Justice

• This problem (worrying that at any moment your pain can be justified) can be overcome by rule utilitarianism.

• Though in some cases utility may be best served by sacrificing the wellbeing of the one for the many, generally society is better off if we do not do this.

• Rule utilitarianism could therefore promote justice by telling us that we ought to follow rules that promote the greatest happiness e.g. do not kill, do not steal etc. this would be more likely to achieve justice/just society.

BUT

• it still may be possible to formulate rules to govern a society which could be said to maximise utility but which we would consider unjust e.g. the British economy and the economic wellbeing of its population in the 18th/19th century depended upon the permissibility of slavery and the slave trade in the empire, so this could be justified by even rule utilitarianism.

SO

-Mill's introduction of the 'harm principle' could be said to promote justice.

• The only reason we would be permitted in violating the basic rights and freedoms of others would be to prevent harm to someone else.

• Defends the concept of rights on the basis of utility - generally a society that respects the rights of its citizens is a happier one.

BUT

• the defence of rights on utilitarian is a problem as it could justify removing rights whenever they are deemed not to maximise happiness.

Deont v teleo v virtue ethics

Deontological ethics would claim the consequences dont matter, intentions matter

• The act itself e.g. some actions are always inherently wrong.

• The intention affects the morality of an action - you can do the 'right' thing for the wrong reasons.

• Kant argues the only reason to act is out of duty (your duty not to lie, their duty not to kill)

• Natural law the intention and action must align

Teleological, nothing is right or wrong inherently, consequences are all that matter

• Actions are not inherently right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent upon the consequences that it has.

• The intention does not make a difference to the morality of the action.

Virtue ethics is cultivating character- can do good but be bad, need to act to cultivate virtue

• Morality is about becoming a good person e.g. developing a virtuous character from which good actions spontaneously flow.

Whether Utilitarianism works in contempary society

-Will they help us live well/ good actions

BUT Util can allow injustice

BUT Bentham capacity for pain always greater + Mill harm principle

-Are they convenient to accept/ does not undermine social order

Rule Util has rules

BUT Act Util cant be trusted, at any second harming someone will be the best option (never know if the doctor will harvest your organs)

-Can they be usable in practice

ACT Hedonic calculus

BUT Complicated, involves fortune telling, hard to quantify

RULE follow rules which history and experience recommend

BUT doesn’t always

-Adaptable to new situations

AFFECTED NOW BY

-Historical + scientific events- perhaps our perspective has shifted

-Globalisation- increasingly complex social relations

everyone’s to count for one and none for more than one- the interests of all, even minorities, must be considered- Util may help us navigate

BUT can justify persecution as long as the pain leads to greater benefit

harm principle (do wtv you want as long as others are not infringed) eg FGM can be intervened, able to draw distinction between valid culturally practices and those which are not

BUT now must consider the impacts to all globally and those with other perspectives eg the way we purchase goods (sweat shops should be supported but if not they’ll be fired- what to do is complex)

-Pluralism+multiculturalism- do we all share the same values

Not all people necessarily share the view of pleasure as good- eg in religion pleasure wouldn’t appear intrinsically good, wouldn’t accept the pleasure of promiscuity

Religious people could differ the lower pleasures for the higher pleasures

Generally seek happiness

-New issues- nuclear weapons

Does Util provide a practical basis for decision making (for both religious believers and non-believers)

YES

-Happiness is considered the sole intrinsic good. >As observed by Bentham, 'mankind has been placed under two sovereign masters'. >All people value happiness for themselves and others, so religious believers can accept the foundational principle of utilitarianism. -The principle of utility is founded upon an observation of the natural world. >It therefore has evidence to support it which can be seen by all that examine it. >It can be observed for example that humans are motivated by pleasure and pain.

No

Utilitarianism falls into the is/ought problem - just because our behaviour is motivated by pleasure does not mean that it should be motivated by pleasure. >Some forms of pleasure are believed by Christians to be sinful e.g. lustful desires, pleasures of malevolence and so on. -Utilitarianism cannot provide a basis for decision-making for religious believers if it makes no distinction between good and bad pleasures. (BUT It could be argued Mill somewhat overcomes this.) -Utilitarianism tries to root moral value in the natural world rather than in God. >For Christians, God must be the source of moral value in order to provide it with some kind of metaphysical foundation. >Divine Command theorist argue that moral principles can only have the weight of moral obligation if they are given as commands by a lawgiver (God). >Simply observing that we like happiness is not enough to make maximising pleasure a moral obligation. (BUT God created the natural world)

Cognitivist theory

• proposes that there are such things as moral truths.

• Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• 

Does Rule Utilitarianism provide a better basis for making moral decisions than Act Utilitarianism?

ACT

It helps us to maximise utility with each decision

-If happiness is the sole intrinsic good then the aim of all of our actions should be to maximise happiness.

-Since act utilitarianism asks us to assess that we bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number with by considering the impact of each moral action we can ensure that we are always acting in a way that will maximise utility.

>Since Bentham has given us a way to work out what actions will lead to the greatest happiness through his hedonic calculus, we can always know which actions are right and which are wrong.

It accounts for situations where following rules does not lead to the best outcome

-There are some circumstances where following a rule or absolute moral principle does not lead to the best consequences i.e. it does not maximise happiness.

> Kant's murderer at the door situation.

While typically being honest might be said to have the most benefit, in this situation it would lead to more pain than pleasure to tell the truth, since it would result in the death of the young boy.

-Absolutist ethical approaches do not help us in these kinds of situations.

>Act utilitarianism accounts for these unique circumstances though act utilitarians like Bentham thought there was nothing wrong with using moral rules as a guideline

>these should be seen as rules of thumb', and when a person can do more good by violating the rule than obeying it, they should violate the rule.

> Many people agree that the situation makes a difference to the morality of the action and act utilitarianism allows us to take this into account.

BUT

Appears to permit (or require) immoral actions

-Act utilitarianism can permit or even require actions that everyone knows are morally wrong.

Eg act utilitarianism would allow a doctor to kill one healthy patient and harvest their organs to save five sick patients waiting for transplants.

but many people would argue that killing is always inherently wrong irrespective of the consequences.

>Aquinas would argue that killing an innocent person can never be right even if done to benefit others because it violates a primary precept of the natural law.

It undermines trust in others

-It can be argued that permitting people to violate widely held moral principles undermines general utility.

>While act utilitarians may criticise rule-based approaches for being too rigid, others may argue that the rigidity of rules is the basis of trust between people within a society.

>if people are always committed in every action to doing whatever brings about the greatest happiness, then we never know if our wellbeing will be sacrificed for the benefit of another.

Eg if we thought that every time we went to the doctor that we could potentially be killed and our organs harvested to help other patients, we would never go to the doctor at all.

>Society can only function if we feel we can depend upon other people to follow basic moral rules on how to treat others, but in an act utilitarian's society this would not be the case.

>Rule utilitarian Richard Brandt a society that sanctioned things like murder of healthy patients would not maximise utility, and this is best ensured by instituting an ideal moral code made up of rules that if followed tend to promote the greatest happiness.

Difficulty with judging the outcomes of individual actions

-Act utilitarianism tells us that we ought to try to bring about the greatest happiness from each of our actions, it might not always be possible to tell or to predict what the outcomes of our actions might be.

>Although it may seem to us at the time that the greatest happiness might be brought about by violating a rule like do not kill or do not steal, we cannot be sure.

>Bentham's hedonic calculus, we would have to be able to predict whether the pleasure we caused was likely to be followed by more pleasure (fecundity) or tainted by future pain (purity), and how many people would be affected.

>it is never possible to have full knowledge of the situation. It is therefore safer and more reliable to stick to well-tested rules.

RULE

It helps us to maximise the utility through general rules

-Rule utilitarianism argues that we can best maximise the general happiness by following rules than by thinking about making our individual actions as beneficial as possible.

Eg If we were trying to maximise road safety, it would be better overall to have specific rules that govern the behaviour of drivers, such as always stop at red lights, do not drive when drunk etc. than a general principle that says 'always drive safely', which would permit people to pass red lights when they thought it was safe.

>Rigid rule-based systems of morality can therefore lead to more overall utility as it will encourage people to act on rules that we know tend to lead to better outcomes if followed, rather than leaving it to the individual judgement of people about how to act in each situation.

Avoids justifying immoral acts

-Once rules are introduced that if followed tend to promote the greatest happiness, these should not be broken.

>This means that even when killing an innocent person would promote the best consequences in a particular situation, it should not be done, because the greatest happiness of society is generally found when we do not permit killing of innocent people at all.

>This can also help to stop injustices occurring, such as the enslavement of a minority for the benefit of a majority.

J.S. Mill introduced the 'harm principle', which suggests the only reason we would be permitted in violating the basic rights and freedoms of others would be to prevent harm to someone else. "To have a right, then, is... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility."

More practical to use

-Instead of having to calculate each individual action in terms of the hedonic calculus, we can just defer to rules that tend to produce the best outcomes.

>This avoids issues of having to try and predict the specific consequences of each act, which may be unknowable, and also saves time having to work through the hedonic calculus.

>Mill notes the benefit of rules to achieving the maximisation of utility when he says: "The proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another."

BUT

Leads to 'rule worship'

-If the point of utilitarianism is to maximise happiness amongst the most people, then it seems contradictory to say that we ought to follow rules rigidly even when we know that more good could be brought about by violating that rule.

>The act utilitarian J.J. C. Smart called this 'superstitious rule worship' because he sees it as an irrational deference to rules which has no basis in utilitarian thinking.

This is because utilitarianism is supposed to be a consequentialist approach but the deference to rules can be seen to turn it into more of a deontological approach.

-Act utilitarians recognise that rules can be useful guidelines, but we must be prepared to abandon the rule when better consequences would result.

Collapses into act utilitarianism

-Rule utilitarianism can avoid the problem of rigidity by presenting rules with exceptions rather than absolute rules.

Eg a rule might be do not lie except in special circumstances that justify lying'.

This would allow us to take account of situations like Kant's murderer at the door scenario.

-we must ask what would count as a special circumstance that would permit lying.

>David Lyons claims that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism when we start to ask this question. Stating that there may be exceptions to the rule is equivalent to saying 'follow this rule except when not following it maximises utility, but this is exactly the same as what act utilitarianism instructs us to do. For rule utilitarianism to be more successful than act utilitarianism we have to be able to demonstrate what makes them distinct moral theories.

Can still lead to unjust rules

-It still may be possible to formulate rules to govern a society which could be said to maximise utility but which we would consider unjust.

>What makes people happy or unhappy can vary according to culture and time period.

Eg the British economy was at one time heavily reliant on the slave trade - raw produce such as sugar, tobacco, tea, coffee and cotton all came from slave plantations, and many people not only consumed these products but also relied for their livelihood on their importation and processing.

>It would seem that the maximisation of utility in 18** and 19** century Britain depended on permitting the use of slaves and the slave trade as a rule. But just because such a rule would have maximised utility does not make it right

Whether utilitarianism leads to moral judgements that are consistent with religious values.

YES

-Utilitarianism is just another way of stating core Christian principles

>situation ethics

>Mill argues it is consistent with the golden rule

-Bentham's maxim that 'each is to count for one and none for more than one like commandment to love our neighbour, everyone's interests and wellbeing must be considered equally.

-Utilitarianism often leads us to judgements that are consistent with what Christians feel are their moral duties

e.g. Singer's claim that we are morally obligated to help those living in poverty if we have the means to do so.

-Situation Ethics could be said to follow the ethical reasoning of utilitarianism but applied in a Christian context (maximising love rather than happiness/pleasure).

NO

-Much of Christian ethics could be said to be Deontological/absolutist

>eg never break God given commandments (moral obligations)

>St Paul writes that Christians should not perform evil actions even if good may result.

>Christian ethics seems to judge the action itself as write or wrong, not just the consequences.

-Utilitarianism does not consider the intention of the action, but for many Christians this makes a difference to the morality of the action.

Eg For Mill, it doesnt matter why we save a drowning person as long as we do, but many Christians would argue that performing such an action for a selfish reason like a reward would not make the action moral (e.g. the focus on the interior act in Natural Law).

-Utilitarianism can sometimes lead us to justify actions that Christians would say are morally abhorrent

e.g. Singer's claims that infanticide can sometimes be morally justifiable.

>Utilitarianism does not hold to absolute principles that are often the underpinning of Christian ethics, such as the sanctity of life.

-Utilitarianism can often bee seen as cold and calculating which tries to quantify pleasure and pain and sees people in numerical terms.

>Christianity by contrast holds compassion as a central part of moral-decision making.

Cab driver

“There are times when a man has to push principles aside and do the right thing” Fletcher

>annecdote from a cab driver who despite republican affiliations wouldn’t vote for them

Legalism

Strict rules that must always be followed regardless of situations

Antinomianism

Having no moral rules at all

Importance of agape

-drawn from Jesus saying that the ‘greatest commandment’ is to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’.

>interprets that as suggesting all other religious rules, principles and commandments only have value insofar as they enable Agape.

eg the 10 commandments clearly state that murder is wrong

BUT Fletcher gives the example of a family hiding from bandits when their baby started crying, which would reveal their hiding place

Four working principles sumamry

Relativism gives us the context, that values come from culture and situations, pragmatism the method, the case by case approach (“casuistry” is Fletcher’s word for this case by case feature), and positivism explains how we arrive at the end or TELOS of agape love

Four working principles

THE FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES

-aka four presupposition

>presuppositions- assumed, implied, taken for granted- foundational elements/starting positions, must be accepted for the theory to be viable

>Fletcher makes to establish situationism as an outline of a good ethical theory

>cannot be proven but must be accepted (if you disagree with them you’ll disagree with the theory)

1. Pragmatism- the rightness depends on this because it depends on success

>the good “like the true is whatever works” (fletcher)

>William James “pragmatism turns its back on bad a priori reasons, fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes... towards facts and actions and power” 

>actions are judged as successful in terms of love

>”the good is… whatever works” Teleological focus on ends

2. (Contextual) Relativism- describes his theory as ‘principled relativism’ (relativistic but has the absolute of love)

>we are relativistic because of cultural standards (1960s)

>our ends/desires are altered by culture

-discusses relativism of application, everything is evaluated against love (if everything was relative including the greater good (summum bonum) wed fall into antinomian anarchy)

>acknowledges Brunner and Niebuhr as influences 

>how to use the divine command “depends on our own responsible estimate of the situation” eg Good Samaritan shows the response to “who’s my neighbour and how do I love him”

>Isiah “my ways are not your ways, says the lord” to pretend we could ever fix the meaning of good is to misunderstand the relativism of truth and the unknowability of God

“Relativises the absolute, it does not absolutise the relative” It isn’t antinomian it isn’t anything goes

Love is absolute but the form it takes depends on the situation (contextual relativism)

JC was critical of the Pharisees and Paul emphasises freedom and grace

3. (Theological) Positivism- explains how we arrive at agape’s telos

>contrasts the greatest good of situation ethics with the telos of natural law (naturalistic method of achieving an end, defined by our rational natural purposes, fixed and designed by God)

>with ‘theological positivism’ these truths are affirmed by faith not reason (can’t prove God is love, only assume, love as ‘the highest good’ is the definition but can’t be empirically proven)

>argues values are like beauty “based on choice and decision” (make leaps of faith “love is good” “this painting is good”) existentialist ethics style

-Situation ethics is especially Christian relativism as the commitment is to God who we believe is love

BUT his view of faith values is contested by naturalists d eg utilitarians, or MacIntyre a virtue ethicist

>to say we can’t prove love is good implies we can’t evaluate the good consequences of love

>positivistic stance not nec

ethical value is dependent upon faith

4. Personalism- “situation ethics puts people at the centre of concern, not things”

>personalistic not legalistic 

>Brunner any values beyond people is “phantasmagoria”, actions are good because they are good for someone

-Against Kant’s absolutism but in favour of his idea that ethics is about practical reason (in a personal way using our minds) and of the second maxim: always treat people not just as means but always as an end (implication of personalism)

>he contradicts this, if you act teleologically it may involve using someone as a means to an end (it doesn’t work)

“Love is only extrinsically, never intrinsically valuable. Love is of people, by people, and for people” the central q is who is to be helped

Holds to Kant’s maxim in theory

Female patient eg

SCENARIO

-female patient in a mental institute is raped but denied abortion as it is only allowed on “therapeutic” grounds, Fletcher supports her father procuring an abortion

PERSONALISM- the women is not in a state to deal with pregnancy, likely to worsen mental state, not the best circumstances for the child

RELATIVISM- not always the case that we should abort a child when the person isn’t in a position to consent, but in this particular circumstance bypassing the law is right

PRAGMATISM- can maximise happiness

Legalism and Antinomianism

-Fletcher rejects both Legalism and Antinomianism

Legalism

>Judaism based on a legal code of 613 precepts, uses a complex process (pilpul developed by rabbis) of interpretation to provide exceptions

Fletcher this led them to lose sight of the prophetic trad which sensitively sought an understanding of the situation

>Catholicism own code of Natural Law (the Catholic Church cause secondary principles to become absolute)

what matters is not what is legal but what is up building and there is doubt about the primary precepts so there are no universal laws

(AQUINAS has some consideration of scenarios eg paying debts)

Fletcher No universal laws but a universal principle, love

>or DCT strict adherence to commandments eg homophobia in Protestantism

BUT

>Legalism is dangerous because those who rely on the word of God breed unloving condemnation (stick to the letter but not the spirit)

eg homophobia

>creates a distorted sense of reality

Russell an adulterer is more wicked than a politician who takes bribes

>no rule that applies at all times and all places (impractical, all situations are unique)

Antinomianism

>implies no rules at all, one must rely on the unique situations

>Christian example Paul claiming Gnostic anarchy in Corinthians threatened Christianity

(argued against spirit led knowledge where prophets reign unchecked and moral behaviour evaporated, believed the spirit had freed them from laws as they were saved by inside knowledge to HS) Paul notes drunkenness, orgies, incest

Being freed from laws leads to immorality

>Atheistic examples Sartre (existentialism he applauds and denies) who says we impose bad faith on reality and we are unshackled by law

No basis by which to guide your life

-Situation ethics is thus a middle way

BUT

>there is a moral absolute, love (but its form differs situationally- contextual relativism)

-Christian cloak and dagger (be a spy and seduce the enemy to end a war) Sacrificial adultery (prisoner of war, can only escape if pregnant to be reunited with husband and child)

Fletcher on conscience

-Situation ethics is interested in moral consciousness as a function

>reject theories that it is

1. innate

2. inspired by smth external (eg HS)

3. ‘introjected’, a reflection of internalised values (Freud)

4. reason making moral judgements (Aquinas)

>situationism accepts no ontology

-View our conscious as a verb (not a noun circa Daly) and are less fixed in their view than law ethics

NATURALISTS

See goodness as a natural, empirical feature of the world eg utilitarians, or MacIntyre a virtue ethicist

THE SIX FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES SUMMARY

Outline the values of situationism

1. Only love is intrinsically good

1. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.

1. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.

1. Love wills the neighbour’s good, whether we like him or not.

1. Only the end justifies the mean, nothing else.

1. Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

THE SIX FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES DETAILED

Outline the values of situationism

>focused on how we apply situation ethics

1. Only love is intrinsically good

>circumstances determine what is the most loving thing- no action or thing has value in and of itself, only if it helps or hurts someone

>even apparently self evident principles eg helping someone in distress could be wrong in different situations

-Love is not a property (no ethical, natural or nonnatural, properties a thing could have to make it goof)

>Love is a thing we do and we must follow JC’s example

-Nothing is absolute (long accepted ethical truths are relative eg lying may or may not be loving V KANT land of ends)

(Based on theological positivism which pins down the nature of value)

2. Love is the only norm/rule

>love overrides any other rules (boss principle, not always in conflict with rules and rules should be considered, but must be prepared to “put aside his principles and do the right thing”)

>Christian situation ethics dispenses rigid ethical systems replacing it with the law of love

>emulates JC who ignored sabbath rules in order to heal the sick 

>not a blanket rejection of religious laws, should be followed if they max love

-many 10 commandments seem fundamental to a civilised society, but are relative

3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.

>justice is giving our neighbours their due> what is due to them is love> love is justice + justice is love

>Christian love must be applied to each situation so that it becomes justice (which he redefines)

>christians must think in terms of neighbours as to avoid reducing agape to 

-Christian theologians too often make love and justice alternatives eg Niebuhr love as transcendent and justice as relative ad attainable

>love as ideal and justice as actual WRONG love as max justice and justice optimum love RIGHT

>the neighbour has a right to what’s loving (rights eg religious freedom are relative but validated by love)> love and justice are the same

-Follows Utilitarianism’s example, replaces the pleasure principle with agape, hedonistic calculus with the agape one, aim of promoting the greatest amount of neighbour welfare for the largest number if neighbours

>accepts theory is teleological but can be understood within a deontological or duty based framework

(Describes the nature of love, equated with justice)

4. Agape love is benevolence (compassion)

>unlike ordinary love which involves emotion or affection agape love is a matter of will (can be commanded)

>while the opposite of love is hate the opposite of agape is indifference (so it can be defined as benevolence or active goodwill which reaches our neigh ours for the sake of God

-Anyone and everyone is our neighbour

>as it doesn’t expect reciprocation it can extend to strangers or enemies 

>This is what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount (concerned with well being whether we like them or not because everyone is owed love), when he urges his listeners to be perfect as their heavenly Father is: not ‘perfect’ in the sense of their love having the completeness of God’s, but being all-inclusive

-There is nothing inherently wrong with being self-rewarding as long as it does maximise loge for others eg doctor in a train accident, care for self first so he can save more 

>(wrong to love ourselves for our own sake)

-successful moral choices involve applying the principle of love effectively which involves an intelligent assessment (sentimental to think calculation is cruel)

>contrary to what some Christian ethicists contend, it is not the case that the end does not justify the mean

(Describes nature of love, not about sentimentality, links to personalism)

5. Only the end justifies the mean, nothing else.

>unless we have an end to direct our actions towards they are meaningless

>prime concerns the end of max love, the means are secondary but they must be appropriate to our end (not neutral tools)

-nothing is intrinsically wrong eg lying to prevent suicide

>moral absolutists can refuse small evils for the sake of the greater good

>the proportions of goof to evil matter

-4 factors must be taken into account (what is the end, how is it achieved, what is the motive, what are the foreseeable consequences(

>a defect of traditional ethics, which holds that to be wrong an action needs to fail only one of these tests, but to be right must pass all four. The situationist on the other hand, considers all; ends and means to be interrelated, so that nothing is intrinsically good except the highest good: love. An action may fail one or more of the tests, but still be the most loving in the circumstances and therefore the right one.

(Marks it as a teleological approach)

6. Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

>people do not want the freedom and responsibility (Satre style) rules are more comfortable BUT a situationist delights in the liberation 

>it is a mistake to believe that a list of ethical rules can offer relief from the burden of responsible moral decision-making

-Truer of 50s+60s he deplores hypocrisy masquerading as moral consensus s developing his ethical theory, Fletcher deplores the hypocrisy, masquerading as moral consensus, which pays lip-service to the so-called ‘ethical laws’, which are then continually broken in practice because they are too petty or rigid to fit the facts of life.

-Christians must appreciate JC’s is a situation ethicist eg doesn’t speak on sexual ethics beyond condemning adultery+divorce

>so whether any particular form of sexual relationship, such as homosexuality, is right or wrong must be judged on the basis of his teaching that love is the only thing that matters. Thus extra-marital relations are not wrong unless they involve people hurting themselves, their partners or others.

(Based on contextual relativism)

-Good Smaritan

>love extends to all (Samaritan enemies), selfless, doesn’t expect anything in return

-Roman translation of love is charity, Paul has this in mind

Applying agape love

Much like utilitarianism has a hedonic calculus, we can say that Situation Ethics has an agapeic calculus.

• The good act is that which serves love most so you must choose the most loving act.

• 'We choose what is most "useful" for the most people' (Fletcher, SE, p.115)

• Agapeic calculus: choose that act which leads to the greatest amount of neighbourly love for the greatest number of neighbours possible

Does situation ethics grant too much freedom

-SE is designed for modern society

>influenced by Bonhoeffer humanity has ‘come of age’, more mature

>in medieval and ancient time people were less educated, less self controlling, needed fixed rule as they couldnt understand nuances to a rule

>people are more civilised, can be trusted to use autonomy to increase love without risking stability of society

BUT Barclay disagrees

>gives moral agents a dangerous amount of freedom

>it demands perfect love or else freedom becomes selfish

>mankind requires the crutch of law

Strengths and weaknesses of Situation ethics

-Flexible approach. Accounts for unique situations and recognises that there are no rules that apply at all times.

Avoids issues of blind rule worship.

-Recognises that ethics is about doing what is good for others. It prioritises people over rules.

-Still has a strong guiding principle (love) that avoids it becoming antinomian.

-From a Christian perspective, it seems in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and his emphasis on agape love.

-Guided by biblical teachings, Fletcher is able to give clear guidance on what love is, minimising issues of subjectivity.

-Seen as an ethical system for the modern day.

Fletcher and Robinson argue that humanity has 'come of age', meaning become more mature.

They can therefore be trusted to understand the complexities in how a rule could justifiably be bent or broken if the situation called for it.

BUT Barclay

• It presents a 'terrifying degree of freedom'. Situation Ethics only works if we have perfect love. Without perfect love, the freedom it offers can be licence to do selfish and cruel things (FALL LINK)

>would agree it is good but many struggle to be perfectly loving

• Views the situations presented as extraordinary

• Situation ethics seems to suggest that there are no actions that are intrinsically wrong - all depends on the situation. But there are some actions that can never be right in any circumstances (eg getting a young person addicted to drugs or breaking up a relationship).

>suggests the only intrinsic wrong is not loving but there are clearly others

• Situation ethics seems to want to do away with the idea of law, but it is still useful:

  >It is a summary of what experience has shown to be beneficial and harmful

  >It defines that which at any time society forbids, and deters people from doing it (freedom can become license for cruelty)

  >It puts controls on those that would otherwise harm society

>Agape shouldn’t replace rules

SE Strengths

-Flexible approach.

>Accounts for unique situations and recognises that there are no rules that apply at all times.

>Avoids issues of blind rule worship.

-Recognises that ethics is about doing what is good for others.

>It prioritises people over rules (personalism)

-Still has a strong guiding principle (love) that avoids it becoming antinomian.

-From a Christian perspective, it seems in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and his emphasis on agape love.

>sermon on the mount, golden rule, good samaritan

-Guided by biblical teachings, Fletcher is able to give clear guidance on what love is, minimising issues of subjectivity.

-Seen as an ethical system for the modern day. 

>Fletcher and Robinson argue that humanity has ‘come of age’, meaning become more mature.

>They can therefore be trusted to understand the complexities in how a rule could justifiably be bent or broken if the situation called for it.

Barclay SE criticisms

-It presents a ‘terrifying degree of freedom’.

>Situation Ethics only works if we have perfect love.

>Without perfect love, the freedom it offers can be licence to do selfish and cruel things.

-Situation ethics seems to suggest that there are no actions that are intrinsically wrong – all depends on the situation.

>But there are some actions that can never be right in any circumstances.

>eg getting a child hooked on drugs

-Situation ethics seems to want to do away with the idea of law, but it is still useful:

•It is a summary of what experience has shown to be beneficial and harmful

•It defines that which at any time society forbids, and deters people from doing it

•It puts controls on those that would otherwise harm society

agape

-agape love is an unconditional, unselfish form of love encouraged by the church.

>It is preached by Jesus in his golden rule and throughout his teachings and by Fletcher to be the only intrinsic good.

-as an intrinsic good it in and of itself, independent on context (not good because of what it does , love and good are synonymous

-Contrasts with an extrinsic good which is good because of its relation to something else

Is agape love the only intrinsic good?

-Theological positivism as justification for agape.

>The basic principle of situation ethics is accepted as a matter of faith rather than proven through reason.

>Love as the moral value is based on the faith assertion that God is love. It can’t be proven, it is a choice.

>Love is axiomatic – a primary, not definable in terms of other things.

 BUT May not be accepted by non-Christians if faith is basis of this judgement.

>Can provide no logical reasons for why agape should be accepted.

> May make as much sense for someone to accept pleasure/happiness as sole goodness e.g. Jeremy Bentham observes that nature has placed us under ‘two sovereign masters’ (pleasure and pain).

-Could be accepted if non-Christian accept Fletcher’s description of love as ‘good for somebody’ (e.g. personalism).

>Seems to be equated with concern for wellbeing of others and therefore may be compatible with secular judgements about what is morally good.

-Within Christianity could be said that there are other qualities besides love which are intrinsically good

e.g. the Beatitudes lists eight virtues which Jesus says are ‘blessed’ or the cardinal/theological virtues

BUT Fletcher may argue in response these virtues are practices that exemplify agape.

>They are therefore extrinsic goods.

>Even though other virtues are valued, love takes priority e.g. St Paul: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

BUT Some philosophers have argued that there is a much longer list of intrinsic goods

e.g. William Frankena who includes life, consciousness, health, pleasure, truth, knowledge, beauty, morally good dispositions or virtues, love, friendship, self-expression, freedom, amongst others as examples of intrinsic goods.

-Fletcher gives some characterisation e.g. in his six fundamental principles he says that:

-        love and justice are the same

-        love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like them or not – not about sentimentality

“Love is not something we have or are, it is something we do.” (Fletcher)

-draw upon biblical characterisations to help us understand what agape is e.g.

-        Good Samaritan – illustrates that love is about concern for neighbour’s wellbeing, whether we like them or not

-        St Paul’s letter to Corinthians – ‘love is patient, love is kind…’

BUT In order to say that agape is the only intrinsic good, we have to know what we are talking about. ,

>it is unclear, sometimes an ‘attitude’ sometimes what we ought to bring about as an end point. Which is it?

To illustrate the problems:

·       Suppose we acted with loving attitude but our actions bring about horrendously dire consequences. According to Fletcher have we done right or wrong? It is not clear.

·       Suppose our actions brought about a vast amount of love, but these consequences were unintended and we in fact tried to bring about malice and hatred. According to Fletcher have we done right or wrong? Again, it is not clear.

 

Can be a very subjective term how do we know that same understanding of what is loving?

-Preferable to legalistic approaches that argue specific actions/rules are intrinsically good. >Fletcher says there can be ‘no laws that apply to all men at all times’.

>Rigidly sticking to such rules can produce what someone called ‘the immorality of morality’. >More important to prioritise agape love to deal with the complexities of moral situations.  

 BUT Implication that if love is the only intrinsic good, then the only intrinsic evil is a lack of love.

>John Robinson said “Nothing can of itself always be labelled as ‘wrong’… the only intrinsic evil is lack of love.”

>But there may be some actions that are always wrong regardless of the situation, or whether it leads to ‘loving’ consequences or is performed from a ‘loving’ attitude. Love can never make these actions good.

-Agape love is an absolute principle that can be made relative to the situation – Situation Ethics ‘relativises the absolute’.

>Love has the ability to change the morality of an action depending on the situation, showing that this is the only intrinsic moral quality e.g. killing out of hatred is wrong, but helping a loved one who is pain to die could be considered a good thing.

BUT William Barclay wrote ‘I think that there are things which can in no circumstances be right.

eg to start a young person in the name of experience on the experiments which can lead to drug addiction can never be right.

eg To break up a family relationship in the name of so-called love can never be right. The right and the wrong are not so easily eliminated.’

 

Fletcher vs sola scriptura

-SE is founded on a liberal approach

>argued against legalism and literalism (impossible to know which interpretation is right without implanting your own view)

>although the Bible states that many things (e.g. killing, homosexuality and adultery) are wrong, Fletcher doesn’t think a Christian should view those as unbreakable rules

>wtv maximises happiness is allowed

BUT

-although love is central it isnt the only element of Biblical ethics

>he is criticised as not properly Christian for ignoring most teachings

>Martin Luther’s theory of ‘sola scriptura’ argues that the ‘Bible alone’ is the source of moral authority, not the autonomous individual deciding the demands of agape in their situation. Sola scriptura protestant W. L. Craig argues that the Bible shows that God’s Justice is just as important as his love.

>Fletcher has diluted Christian ethics

Does SE truly represent JCs ethics

-It fits with JC’s approach to ethics

>JC overturned rules (eg Moses eye for eye) and allowed rules to be broken (eg sabbath) and positioned the golden rule as the greatest commandment

>If one command is greater than another, then it seems like that means it takes priority and thus the lesser rule should be broken if it’s the loving thing to do.

>Fletcher’s situation ethics is a reasonable interpretation of what Jesus said.

>It’s hard to see what Jesus could have meant by agape being the greatest commandment except that it was greater than the others which seem to imply taking precedence over them.

BUT Mouw it makes no sense to reduce Christian ethics to only one of JC’s commandments

>he is either the soul source of moral authority of he isnt (POPE PIUS XII)

The subjectivity issue

-Love seems like a strong basis for ethics

>doesnt simply mean acting based on love it is without the weakness of unreliable emotion + is selfless

eg The Auschwitz guard might think they are doing a loving thing BUT the Nazi does not love their neighbour (jews) the same way as they love themselves.

>Fletcher’s theory can’t be said to justify their action. A Nazi might think they act out of love, but it is not Christian self-less love of the neighbour.

BUT it is subjective as it is defined as loving your neighbour as yourself (it requires symetry)

>Hitchens it is only as good as however much you love yourself

> people may not want to be loved in that way

eg Two Nazis might say to each other that they hope the other would kill them if it were discovered they were Jewish, because they would rather be dead than Jewish so that is genuinely what they view as loving themselves. In that case, loving your neighbour as yourself for a Nazi would involve killing your neighbour if they were Jewish.

Does situation ethics lead to antinomianism

-Perpetually relevant due to its flexibility

>his approach to conscious facilitates this

>can adapt to new ethical situations

BUT Natural Law relativism leads to antinomianism

>Catholics believe in ethical absolutes eg sanctity of life, no matter how pragmatic it cannot be relativised

>society’s stability is threatened

BUT

-Europe is largely atheist and the quality of life is considered over sanctity

SE application to homosexuality

-Homosexuality refers to any romantic or sexual relationship or act conducted between two people of the same sex.

TRAD CHRISTIAN VIEWS

-A number of biblical passages explicitly forbid homosexuality (at least between men):

If a man lies with another man as he does with a woman then it is detestable and a sin Leviticus 20:13

'Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.' 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

>Natural law has been used to argue against homosexuality (Primary precept to reproduce, as a secondary precept, sexual acts should only be used with the intention of procreation. Since homosexual acts cannot result in procreation they go against the intended telos of sex and are therefore wrong)

-Fletcher rejects both of these approaches as legalistic

>There are no rules that apply at all times and in all places

>Legalism leads to a distorted sense of morality (causes us to lose touch with the 'headaches and heartbreaks' of everyday life- especially important when dealing with sexual ethics)

»as legalistic approaches to homosexuality have led to prejudice, discrimination and the denial of the ability to express love and happiness amongst homosexuals.

FLETCHER’s VIEW

• JC says very little about the ethics of sex and certainly makes no mention of homosexual relationships.

• Argues that sexual ethics need an overhaul within the Christian Church (and general society).

• Fletcher argues that sexual practices are only wrong if they hurt themselves, their partners, or others - takes a situational approach.

Explicitly refer to the four working principles and six fundamental principles and show how these apply to the issue. It is not necessary to refer to all of them, just those that apply.

1. Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all.

2. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.

• Love (the 'boss' principle) is the sole determining factor on matters of ethics. Therefore we must be prepared to put aside struct biblical rules if love demands it.

• Fletcher sees no reason, from the perspective of love, why homosexuality should be illegal or immoral, if participants are consenting, respectful and not harming others, but of course it would depend on the specific circumstances of the individual relationship.

3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.

   • The criminalisation of homosexuality was unjust, as it meant that people could not openly express their love and sexuality for others in the way that heterosexual couples could.

   • There was no just reason for a ban since there is no evidence that homosexuality harms those involved or that it harms society by allowing it.

   • It led to the unjust treatment of homosexuals e.g. loss of jobs, prison sentences, and even chemical castration (in the case of Alan Turing, for example).

4. Love wills the neighbour's good, whether we like him or not.

Many people that are against homosexuality consider it to be unnatural or disgusting in some way, but Fletcher's point is that this is irrelevant when making moral decisions.

• It is not about our personal feelings towards the issue but whether our actions will the neighbour's good.

• As previously discussed, the criminalisation of homosexuality caused harm to a large number of people.

5. Only the end justifies the mean, nothing else.

• Teleological rather than rule-based approach to ethics. The outcome of the actions is what is important, not the actions themselves.

• How is love to be best served and how can it be distributed amongst the most number of neighbours possible? Typically this will involve removing criminalisation of most homosexual relationships.

6. Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.

SO

Despite generally agreeing with the legalisation of homosexuality, this does not mean that all homosexual relationships would automatically be morally correct.

• As with heterosexual relationships, one needs to consider the unique circumstances of the situation.

• Sexual relationships are acceptable where they do not cause harm to others, and they are consenting.

• Linked to personalism - an action is right if it is good for someone. Where relationships are not good for the people involved then they are not right.

SE’s application to polyamory

-refers to the practice of having multiple romantic relationships at the same time, has several forms

• people who don't have primary partnerships but date multiple people.

• a group of three or more people who have a committed relationship with each other and do not date outside of the group.

• Hierarchical polyamory where people have primary partnerships to which they devote the most time and attention, and secondary and tertiary partnerships that receive less time and attention.

• Relationship annarchy where each partner may receive equal time and attention.

those with a primary partnership may find that it is more difficult to navigate issues of jealousy, or others feeling neglected etc.]

TRAD VIEWS

-Though polygamy (more than one marriage partner - specifically men having more than one wife) has been practised by figures in the Bible, it is generally accepted within Christianity that people should practise monogamy - one marriage partner:

'Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.' (1 Corinthians 7:2)

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24) -aetiological story

To have a sexual relationship with someone other than this one marriage partner is considered adultery:

>'Do not commit adultery'. Exodus 20:13

BUT Fletcher rejects both of these approaches as legalistic. His general rejection of legalism is because:

• There are no rules that apply at all times and in all places

• Legalism leads to a distorted sense of morality

FLETCHER

Fletcher points out that Jesus says very little about the ethics of sex and certainly makes no mention of polyamorous relationships.

• Argues that sexual ethics need an overhaul within the Christian Church (and general society).

• Fletcher argues that sexual practices are only wrong if they hurt themselves, their partners, or others - takes a situational approach. Each polyamorous relationship needs to be judged on its own merits in the same way that a monogamous relationship would be.

Application to polyamory

Explicitly refer to the four working principles and six fundamental principles and show how these apply to the issue. It is not necessary to refer to all of them, just those that apply.

1. Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all.

2. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.

• Fletcher rejects the legalistic approach to ethics of traditional Christianity.

• Love (the 'boss' principle) is the sole determining factor on matters of ethics. Therefore, we must be prepared to put aside strict biblical rules if love demands it.

Fletcher sees no reason, from the perspective of love, why polyamory should not be allowed, if participants are consenting, respectful and not harming others.

3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.

• We need to weigh up the interests of all people involved in the situation and use the agapeic calculus to ensure that love is being maximised amongst the most number of neighbours possible.

• Since polyamory is usually based on consent, trust and discussion with all partners involved, all people affected are being involved in the decision making, ensuring that everybody's interests and well-being are being accounted for.

• However, relationships that did not have this basis e.g. where one partner decided to pursue another relationship against the wishes of the partner or in secret could not be justified.

4. Love wills the neighbour's good, whether we like them or not.

Many people that are against polyamory may consider it to be unnatural, disgusting, unethical or weird, but Fletcher's point is that this is irrelevant when making moral decisions.

• It is not about our personal feelings towards the issue but whether our actions will the neighbour's good.

• As long as the relationships are consensual, take everyone's feelings into account and do not harm those involved, we have no reason to reject polyamory outright.

5. Only the end justifies the mean, nothing else.

Teleological rather than rule-based approach to ethics. The outcome of the actions is what is important, not the actions themselves.

• How is love to be best served and how can it be distributed amongst the most number of neighbours possible?

• If everybody's needs (social, romantic, sexual, intimate, support etc.) are best being met by a polyamorous relationship then it is justified and acceptable.

• The potential for harm needs to be considered, which is why trust and conversation are

Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. [This can also be linked to his principle of relativism.]

•

As with monogamous relationships, one needs to consider the unique circumstances of the situation.

• Sexual relationships are acceptable where they do not cause harm to others, and they are consenting.

• Fletcher however would argue that relationships which involve coercion, are dangerous or have the potential to cause harm to others (multiple partners without thinking about the risks of spreading STis, issues of unresolved jealousy, using somebody without thinking about their feelings etc.) would be wrong.

• Some may be concerned about the effect of polyamory on children within a family - there is no solid research on whether or not polyamory has negative affects for children, but where there is potential to harm them emotionally, this needs to be considered and it may not be right.

• This can be linked to his principle of personalism - an action is right if it is good for someone. Where relationships are not good for the people involved then they are not right.

How do different ethical approaches define immorality

Absolutist morality- legalistic, universal, independent of circumstance, following the rules

>anything that varies from rules is immoral

Relativist morality- (contextual relativism) focuses on situation no absolutes, (absolute relativism) or rejects the idea of inherent right or wrong (may be relative to interpretation or culture)

>if the situation isn’t considered its wrong

>that which goes against what is commonly understood in cultural

>nothing is immoral

Deontology- intentions, duty to do the right thing according usually to rules

>goes against rules or doesnt fulfill duty or has the wrong intention (eg AQUINAS align)

Consequentialist- (or teleological) they assess the rightness or wrongness on the outcomes

>if you fail to act in a way to bring out the best consequences

Intro- define morality and justice

Justice

Fairness, giving people what they are due, treating people with equal consideration

For Fletcher it is love (Justice is giving people what they’re due, love is what they are due)6r

What does effective mean in relation to ethical theories

>it gives clear guidance

>helps us make the right decision

>would lead to the best outcome

>not open to abuse