Ethics - Lecture 3 - deontology, utilitarianism and theory of justice - 10/01

what does deontology mean

• an ethical theory that uses duties to distinguish right form wrong

• doing the right think regardless of the consequence because it is inherently right

• immanuel kant

what does utalitrianism mean

• the consequence of an action determines whether it is good or bad

• achieving the greatest happiness / well being for the greatest number of people

• john stuart mill

what does virtue ethics mean

• you learn to be one by practicing it, living life, not rational contemplation, no application of rules and principles but doing what a good person would do.

• aristotle

explain the difference between idealist and realist

• idealist → we arrive at truth through access to ideas (Plato)

• realist → we arrive at truth through access to the world around dus

John Staurt Mill (1806-1873)

• utilitarianism

• innovations on Benthams ideas;

  • hierarchy of pleasure

  • he formulated the happines principel

    • you have to do whatever assures the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people

• good (pleasure) versus bad (pain)

• according to Mill morally irrelevant;

  • Who gets the goods (“greatest happiness for the greatest number” > the happiness principle);

  • Why one does what one does (only the outcomes matter, not the process or motivations behind it).

jeremy bentham

• good + evil = pleasure + pain

• maximize pleasure + minimize pain

• Our judgment and decisions are rationally defensible by calculating the trade-off between the consequences of our acts in terms of estimated increased/diminished pain and pleasure for the society.

• we have to obey this urge to run away from pain and towards pleasure

what does utalitarianist / consequentialist say

• → Consequentialism only argues the outcome

• → What you do or why you do it does not matter for the moral quality of the act.

• → All that matters is the act’s impact on the aggregate happiness in the world.

problem utilitarianism

• You cannot always foresee the outcome of an act

• example; You are offered a job in a bioweapons lab (weaponizing viruses). You are against the use of bioweapons: want to bring sense to your coworkers and ameliorate the situation. Your competitor for the job is a big promotor of bioweapons.

  • Act 1: you take the job, and collaborate on the development of bioweapons.

  • Outcome 1: the job does not go to someone actively advocating the widespread use of bioweapons.

  • Act 2: you do not take the job

  • Outcome 2: the job goes to a fierce advocate of the widespread use of bioweapons, who will now collaborate on the development of bioweapons. This will more likely result in the effective use of bioweapons to kill people.

  • For you personally: Act 1 is worse than Act 2, you have to work for a bioweapon company and contribute to this industry - you do not use your knowledge for good Outcome 1 is better than Outcome 2. “The end justifies the means.”

what does deontologist say

• Don’t immediately jump to the consequences of the act, but recognize that the moral quality of the act has to do with the action itself.

• At least consider the possibility that, irrespective of the outcomes, one act might be better than another.

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

• Kant’s three questions that answer “all the interest of my reason”:

  • 1) What can I know? (what is knowledge in the first place; categories and experiences)

  • 2) What must I do?

  • 3) What may I hope?

Kant’s deontological ethics;

• As rational beings, we all have to obey the moral law.

• Our actions are constrained by physical law.

• And yet, we are free! That is: free to act in accordance with the moral law.

• Humans have needs and inclinations (urges, passions = hedonism), and need commands to keep them on the straight moral path - hence: we need an imperative: a command - and one that always guides our actions. → categorical imperative

categorical imperative

• The categorical imperative is a central concept in the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It’s a method for determining moral duties and assessing the morality of actions

• “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

  • Intention: you will something - you have the intention to do something , and you choose to do so out of free will (autonomy).

  • Logic: you want to live in a world in which everyone wills that same action in similar situations - for you are rational, and so are those actions your concern.

  • Maxim = behavioral rule

Why is the moral law not for plants, animals, babies, or mentally disabled persons?

• They do not have critical reasoning skills. Therefore, they cannot make accountable moral decisions. They cannot act based on a moral reason.

hypothetical imperative

• Practical necessity may justify a specific action as a means to reach some other end that one wills to achieve (= necessary relationship to an end and the way to get there)

• This imperative has a conditional form, it only applies in restricted contexts

• if you want to pass this course, you want to study, seriously contribute to the group project and take the exam

• does not replace the categorical imperative but can be used as an exemption

problems about Kant’s deontology

• How to move from individuals to society?

• How to prioritize duties?

• What about duties towards non-rational beings?

• example → life-saving medicine so expensive that you cannot help other people, very disastrous because it is bad on the environment - do you use it or not?

John Rawls

• came up with theory of justice

  • Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory, however elegant and economical, must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions, no matter how efficient or well arranged, must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust

  • we want our societies to be just

• principle of justice is fairness