PHI-240 Chap. 5 & 6

What is a utilitarian POV?

when one thinks about issues from a perspective that takes the general happiness of everyone into account

Utilitarianism

form of consequentialism; focusing moral concern on creating good outcomes for as many people as possible; responsive to empirical conditions & “facts on the ground”; requires adjusting policies when circumstance change; part of empiricist tradition in philosophy; believes that what we know what is good only by observation/appeal to experience; actions are not evaluated by nature/motive of acts, but rather the result; open to experimentation & evidence to evaluate whether actions result in good/bad; considered universalistic bc actions affectct happiness of all

Classical Utilitarianism

pleasure or happiness theory; focused on happiness; similar to Aristotle’s ethics and hedonism; believes there is not difference btwn pleasure & happiness; both terms refer to a psychic state of satisfaction

Types of Pleasure

Mill claims there are a range of pleasures; ex. eating when hungry, completing a task, aesthetic pleasures (ex. watching beautiful sunset), intellectual pleasures (understanding smth); Mill’s theory claims there are higher pleasures; consider range of pleasures & aspects of pleasurable actions when deciding best course of action

Hedonism

aka Epicureanism; theory that holds pleasure as the highest good; named after Epicurus, who believed that a good life is a pleasant one that avoids distress

Utilitarianism & Cost-Benefit Analysis

utilitarianism encourages analysis of costs & benefits of diff choices; whichever choice has the greater net happiness is the best alternative; this approach assumes that risks & benefits of actions can be compared; idea is that actions are morally better/worse depending on whether they cause pleasure/pain, or how they affect human well-being & happiness; utilitarianism focuses on sum of individual pleasures & pains (unlike egoism, which is concerned with the self); counts each human’s interests equally when summing pleasure & pain; thus utilitarianism is against discriminatory ideas which hold interests of some people over those of others; Jeremy Bentham included animals in utilitarianism

How do utilitarianism & egoism differ?

utilitarianism is not an egoistic theory; both are forms of consequentialism; utilitarianism focuses on sum of individual pleasures & pains, while egoism is concerned with pleasures & pains of the self; utilitarianism focuses on consequences for all persons impacted by an action; versions of egoism that focus on self for good of all are versions of utilitarianism; utilitarianism also unlike altruism bc it also cares about the self

How do forms of utilitarianism differ?

can differ based on understanding of what consequences/interests matter (subjective feelings/objective metrics); complexities also arise in defining happiness, interest, and well-being; Peter Singer wanted to focus on interests, rather than pleasures/happiness, as not all pleasures are in one’s interest (ex. drug use); some forms focus on people preferences, which can also conflict w/interests; ppl disagree about whether pleasure is a good thing or whether happiness is just based on pleasure

What controversies arise w/utilitarianism?

questions arise about whether morality should be focused on complex & changing consequences or abstract & invariable moral principles not based in consequences; some uses of utilitarianism are controversial because they go against intuitions about right & wrong (ex. torture in terrorist interrogations)

What are some applications of utilitarianism?

large social engineering projects; China’s one-child policy limited reproductive rights for the good of future generations; speed limits; COVID lockdowns

How do utilitarians view policies?

do not see actions/policies as good or bad in themselves; goodness/badness is a function of its consequences, rather than inherent morality; ex. would support killing someone to prevent harm to larger number

From whom did utilitarianism originate from?

from the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873); Mill’s father was an associate of Bentham, so he became a devoted follower of his philosophy; Mill summarized basic ideas of utilitarian moral theory in his work Utilitarianism, where he dispelled misconception that morality had nothing to do with usefulness/utility or that morality was opposed to pleasure

Jeremy Bentham

1748-1832; originator of utilitarian moral theory; English law student; leader of radical social & legal reform movement based on utilitarian principles; main work was Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation that aimed it use principles that guide moral to guide formation & revision of law, as those principles guide social & personal morality; optimist; believed human wisdom & science would improve humanity

John Stuart Mill

1806-1873; originator of utilitarian moral theory; son of Jeremy Bentham’s associate; became devoted follower of Bentham; wrote Utilitarianism; strong supporter of personal liberty; interested in public policy; served in British Parliament from 1865-1868; optimist; believed human wisdom & science would improve humanity

What were John Stuart Mill’s views on personal liberty?

strong supporter; argued in pamphlet On Liberty that the only reason for society to interfere w/one’s life was to prevent them from harming others; believed in letting ppl make bad choices w/govt interfering; supported free speech; did not share views on whether liberty should be restricted to promote general good (ex. speed limits)

What were the views of the original utlitarians?

liberal, progressive, empiricist, optimistic; wanted social policy to serve everyone rather than just the upper class; believed in solving conflicts in interests by choosing option that promotes interest of greater number; questioned the status quo; supported changing punishment systems that did not work well; judged social programs from utilitarian view using obersvation

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s Views on Race & Women

had some problematic views; had egalitarian worldview; both critical of slavery; Mill wanted improved relations btwn genders & criticized treatment of women bc they were not allowed to develop talents & contribute to society; supported women voting; Mill worked for British East India Company & defended British imperialism using utilitarianism; claimed that colonization would civilize colonized people (white man’s burden); described as tolerant imperialist

Principle of Utility

aka greatest happiness principle; basic moral principles of utilitarianism; idea that what matters is pleasure produced by an action, especially pleasure produced for greatest # of ppl; supports working to achieve greatest happiness for greatest number; believes that actions are right when the promote happiness, and wrong when they prevent happiness; practices are assessed by likely/actual consequences of alternatives; use cost-benefit analysis to find best solution

Utilitarian Views on Pleasure

believe it is a good to be produced; things (fame, fortune, education, freedom) are good only to the extent they produce pleasure/happiness; these things are instrumental goods; happiness & pleasure are the only intrinsic goods

What are the five elements used to calculate the greatest amount of happiness?

net amount of pleasure/happiness, its intensity, its duration, its fruitfulness, and the likelihood of any act to produce it

Net Amount of Happiness

element in calculating greatest amt of happiness; pleasure - pain; nearly every alternative produces both pleasure & pain; pain is intrinsically bad, while pleasure is intrinsically good; something that causes pain is accepted only if it produces more pleasure overall; units of pleasure/pain are usually happy persons/days

Intensity of Happiness

element in calculating greatest amt of happiness; some moments of pleasure are more intense than others; more intense pleasure = better; pleasure often rated from 1-10 (least to most) and multiplied by net happiness

Duration of Happiness

element in calculating greatest amt of happiness; longer lasting pleasure = better when everything else is equal

Fruitfulness of Happiness

element in calculating greatest amt of happiness; whether pleasure makes us more capable of experiencing other pleasures; depends on immediate

Likelihood of Happiness

element in calculating greatest amt of happiness; likelihood of producing happiness

How did Bentham and Mill’s views on pleasure differ?

agreed that more happiness = better; Bentham only considered quantity (how much pleasure, how many ppl, intensity, duration, fruitfulness, likelihood); considered pleasurable acts to be equal regardless of quality; Mill considered quality of pleasure; did this after having crisis about not caring about aesthetic experiences; believed that some pleasures are intrinsically better (ex. intellectual pleasures > sensual pleasures); did not specify how valuable each type of pleasure is, but factored quality into happiness calculation

How does Mill attempt to prove that intellectual pleasures are better than sensual ones?

asks if ppl would rather live life of a dissatisfied human or a satisfied animal; believed that ppl would choose the former bc we value something other than amount of pleasure, we value quality of pleasure; Mill’s view raises question of if happiness is objective or subjective

What frustrates students when calculating greatest amount of happiness?

complexity of considering all variables, including quality of happiness; shows that no one can consider all variables of utilitarianism; also requires us to have common unit for measuring pleasure, which is difficult (hedons have been considered as unit); no moral theory has simple application; however, only have consider a few variables depending on moral question; another complexity is that in some cases, one cannot both maximize happiness & make greatest # of people happy; Mill supports maximizing happiness over maximizing happy people

What is a criticism people have of utilitarianism’s universalist & maximizing agenda?

utilitarianism argues that we should always maximize overall happiness; should not put our or our loved one’s happiness over other people’s; some argue that this is contrary to common sense; some utilitarian argue that we should value our and our loved one’s happiness more bc it will likely have better overall results due to being motivated; some say utilitarianism goes against our perosnal integrity, as it may require us to deprioritize ourselves; utilitarians argue that we shoudl regard oneself bc it will benefit society overall

Why do ppl criticize utilitarianism’s consequentialism?

utilitarianism claims that the consequences of actions determine whether the means are justified; can go against commonsense morality; some utilitarians argue that doing immoral things can have bad long term effects, and reduce any positive effects

The Trolley Problem

common problem with utilitarianism; speeding trolley about to hit 5 workers; can pull switch to hit only 1 worker; utilitarianism argues that you must pull the switch to save the most lives bc only end result matters; can go against intuition in some scenarios; trolley problem is used by psychologists to examine human decision-making; research examines psychological sources of decisions, and impact of emotions, logic, and moral rules on decisions; research showed conflict in how we do react and how we should react; some research shows the utiliarian calculations are cold and associated w/psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and life meaninglessness

How do utilitarians respond to criticism that utilitarianism justifies poor behavior in the name of good consequences?

contemporary utilitarians focus on general rules than individual acts (rule utilitarianism)

Rule Utilitarianism

type of utilitarianism; requires one to produce greatest amount of happiness for greatest number of ppl; states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed as a general practice; asks “what if everyone did that”; considers consequences of some practice/rule of behavior; claims that acts are similar to one another and can be thought of as practices; should follow rule that produces best results when ppl follow them; some utilitarians expand thinking from single rules to sets of general rules/practices; rules form a system in which there are rules for priority & stringency that tell is which practices are more important and compares importance of rules; do what the best system of rules dictates in terms of maximizing happiness

Act Utilitarianism

type of utilitarianism; requires one to produce greatest amount of happiness for greatest number of ppl; states that we ought to consider the consequences of each act separately; claims that we should only consider what will or is likely to happen with an act, not what could happen but will not

Justification of Utilitarianism

utilitarianism is an empiricist theory, and therefore must draw its evidence from experience; Mill argues that because we desire happiness, that is proof that happines is desirable/good; claims that happiness is only intrinsically desirable thing, so we only desire things bc they will lead to happiness; therefore, happiness is the only intrinsic good

What is an issue with Mill’s justification of utilitarianism?

argument defines good in terms of what ppl desired; claims that happiness is the only intrisic good; claim that Mill’s analogy about desirablility does not hold up bc does not prove that happiness is worth beign desired; just bc we desire smth doesn’t mean we ought to desire something (naturalistic fallacy); Mill responds by claiming that desire for happiness is universal and we can only desire things that bring us happiness

Deontology

theory of duty; Greek word “deon” means “duty”;

Deontological Ethics/Thoery

approach to ethics that emphasizes duty; focused on duties, obligations, and rights rather than consequences; believes we should fulfill duties & obligations regardless of consequences; described as “the right over the good”; focused on right actions & intentions, while downplaying importance of goods/benefits of actions; focused on what makes us worthy of happiness; more concerned about motives of acts and logic & principles guiding act than outcomes; lack of clarity on moral complexity of duties creates need for deontological ethics to be supplemented w/broader idea of “the good”, which tells us how the theory of duty should apply to personal, social, and political affairs

How are deontological ethics related to Kant and the Stoics?

they emphasized duty, like deontological ethics does; Kant believed we should focus on what makes us think we deserve happiness rather than what makes us happy; believed in obeying moral law and doing our duty

How did Immanuel Kant view morality?

morality was not the doctrine of how we make ourselves happy, but how we become worthy of happiness; morality was not a doctrine of happiness or set of instructions on how to become happy; morality is the rational condition of happiness; Kant believed there are things we should not do, even if they produce the most happiness for the most ppl; said that morality should be focused on respecting people’s dignity and work;

How has the idea of deontology changed over time?

term coined by Jeremy Bentham, who called it “knowledge of what is right/proper”; he originally meant for theory to go with principle of utility; contemporary philosophers use term deontological to indicate contrast w/utilitarian focus on consequences;

What are some forms of deontological theories?

divine command ethics, stoicism

Divine Command Ethics

obedience to God’s command is a duty that must be followed regardless of consequences; ex. biblical story of Abraham & Isaac; problem is ; we do not know for sure that God has commanded a duty; could be commanded by selfish motives or mental illness; some of God’s commands are not included in commands of ethics; Soren Kierkegaard suggested that some religious duties transcend duties of ethics’ Kant rejected claim bc moral duties are universal & absolute; said we should use knowledge of morality to criticize & interpret religious stories & ideas

Stoicism

found in ancient Greek & Roman philosophy; Stoics emphasized doing one’s duty and playing one’s part as determined by the natural order of things; obedience to natural law & duty is essential, despite pain; claimed that key to morality & happiness is internal, relying on how we orient our will & intentions, rather than a struggle against external circumstances; cannot control consequences & external circumstances, but can control intentions & actions; believes duty is its own reward; should fulfill moral duty by doing what you know is right, even if external world makes it difficult; Kant admired Stoic emphasis on “strength of the soul”, but believed they underestimated difficulty of being moral

Why are some confused about moral duty?

it is confused with other, more practical concerns (ex. concerns of happiness); Kant clarified confusion by focusing on logical & rational structure of duty itself, separate from considerations of happiness, prudence, or natural order of things

What image does the typical Stoic evoke?

image is of a sternly disciplined, courageous, and emotionally composed individual; acts for the sake of duty; commitment to obedience & duty infuses every part of life; Stoic ethics has selfless obedience to duty typical of soldiers; image of military service & duty embodied in Roman Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius

Human Rights

more modern deontological approach to ethics; respecting human rights helps to define our duties; ex. respecting right to free speech creates duty to respect the right; human rights is connected w/idea of natural law; Kantian ethics is similar to natural law theory; Kant’s focus on autonomy & respect for persons can help us understand idea of human rights

Immanuel Kant

1724-1804; German philosopher; central figure in history of modern philosophy (modern philosophy is dividided into pre-Kantian & post-Kantian periods); also wrote about science, geography, beauty, war, and peace; firm believer in Enlightenment ideas, especially reason & freedom; supporter of American Revolution; not a relativist; believed there is a right & wrong thing to do

What did Kant believe gave acts moral worth and why?

believed only the motive to do what is right (aka good will), not the consequences give an act moral worth; act must be motivated by moral law; must also do the right thing in addition to having good mtoive; if we value consequences, human being may get used; humans would have a use value that violates the categorical imperative

What two questions did Kant believe philosophy should address

what can I know? and what ought I do?;

Why did Kant object to basing morality on consequences?

believed we should not be blamed/praised for what is out of our control; consequences are not always in our control, but motives are; we are responsible for good/bad intentions so should be held morally accountable for them; believed basing morality on consequences would lead to people only being valued for their ability to bring ahppiness; this is wrong bc humans are rational beings (persons) w/intrinsic value, not instrumental value; Kant believed that people ought not to be used, but ought to be regarded as having the highest intrinsic value

What are some criticisms of Kant’s basic structure of moral principles?

basic structure is important feature of Kant’s deotological theory; critics argue that focus on abstraction caused him to fail to critically interrogate racist & sexist assumptions of time; John Stuart Mill also criticized abstraction of theory for making it difficult to rule out immoral actions; scholars debate what Kant mean by “humanity” & “person” and if he considered POC & women to be included among those worthy of respect; first form of categorical imperative includes universal things that are not inherently moral as moral obligations (Kantians may argue this is a hypothetical imperative instead); this makes the categorical imperative a negative test, as it tests what we should not do; first form of cat. imperative requires us to consider consequences of actions although they do not contribute to moral worth; w/2nd cat. imperative, it is difficult to determine if someone is being used as a means to an end

How can one critically assess deontological ethics?

ask who counts as a person worthy of respect; consider how deontological principels can be applied to concrete modern issues (ex. racism, sexism)

What is the right motive according to Kant?

one that has good will; the only thing that is intrinsically & unconditionally good is good will; everything needs good will to make it good; without good will, good things (ex. intelligence) could be used for evil purposes; having right intention means doing what is right bc it is right; ask: “is the reasoning behind the action consistent w/good will?”

How does one know if a motive is pure?

do not always know whether acts are motivated by self interest, inclination or pure respect for morality; ppl often act from mixed motives; can be more certain that a motive is pure when we do what is right even when it is not in our best interest; motivated to do right thing bc other motives are missing; according to Kant, ability to act for moral reasons while resisting other inclinations gives humans unique value & dignity

Imperative

imperative is a form of a statement that tells us something/gives a command (ex. “Close the door”); some imperatives are moral imperatives

The Hypothetical Imperative

a hypothetical imperative is an “ought” that is dependent on a want or desire (ex. you ought to donate to charity because you want to feel good about yourself); “If I want X, then I ought to do Y”; “ought" is avoidable (aka contingent); oughts are often indvidualized, and serve one individual’s goals/plans

Categorial Imperative

aka moral obligation; categorical = universal; imperative = duty/rule; Kant’s basic idea of moral law; one of his most lasting ideas; Kant gives clear idea of what morality requires; two formulations in this chap: act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law, and always treat humanity (yourself and others) never just as the means but also as an end; must use both formulations when applying Kant’s theory to situation; more formulations

What are some other formulations of Kant’s categorical imperatives?

nature is a system of everything we experience bc it is organized according to laws; determine if action could be come a unviersal law of nature to evaluate morality; this version emphasizes morality as universal & rational bc nature operates according to coherent laws; other formulations stress autonomy; persons ask whether we could consider ourselves as the author of the moral practice we will accept; ppl are subject to both moral law and its author bc it flows from our own nature as a rational being; another formulation amplifies 2nd term of categorical imperative; says rationality makes us alike as persons, and we together form a community of persons called a “kingdom of ends”; kingdom of ends is a kingdom where all persons are both authors & subjects or moral law; must ask whether actions are fitting for & promote such a community

First Form of the Categorical Imperative

aka universal law formation; act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law; codifies Kant’s idea of universalizability; act is morally correct if it follows a moral principle that the actor can will as universal law; what you do must be something you will or accept that all others do; right actions are done on principles that (1) could be acted on by everyone, and (2) the agent would be willing to have everyone act on; can determine if something is a morally permissible action by asking if one can will the universal maxim; rational beings can only will what is noncontradictory; “Could everyone do what I want to do and have that actions still be possible?”; “Is the action something that a majority of ppl would want to do?; if something fails the test of the categorical imperative, it is morally impermissible; principle of fairness; unfair to treat self as exception to moral rules; ex. cannot create moral imperative of not keeping promises, as people would eventually grow to not believe any promises; not the golden rule, but similar

Universalizability

the maxim of an act is universalizable if (1) everyone could act on the maxim & (2) the agent would be willing to have everyone act on the maxim; if (1) fails, it is a “contradiction in conception”; if (2) fails, it is a “contradiction in will”

Maxim

description of the action/policy that will be put to the test; expressed in the form of a rule/principle that the agent of an act is acting on when they perform the act; has the form: “When in X situation, I will perform Y action”

Second Form of the Categorical Imperative

aka humanitarian formulation, practical imperative; consideres proper treatment of persons; always treat humanity (yourself and others) never just as the means but also as an end; principle requires respect for humanity that is not primarily concerned w/consequences; treat persons as having intrinsic value rather than instrumental value; everyone is valuable, regardless of whether they are valued by others; we don’t respect people bc it is useful, but bc it is right; ok to treat someone as a means, as long as you treat them w/dignity; people are autonomous (self-ruled); people are free to choose their own life path; we can never use people for ends bc they are free; people are not things

What does “ends in themselves” mean?

every person ahs moral worth & deserves to be treated as such; when you use someone ONLY as a way to get what you want, you are using that person as a means to an end: Kant wants us to treat everyone as an end even when we treat them as a means

How are the 2 forms of the categorical imperatives related?

can use second form of categorical imperative to evaluate concrete examples for first form; moral conclusions should be the same for both forms; an cation is only morally correct when it passes both forms

How do persons differ from things?

persons can make own choices, things cannot; persons can decide how things shall be used; persons can impose goals on things; appropriate to use things for our ends, but not appropriate to use persons as means to an end

Moral Obligation

aka categorical imperative; real & strictly binding; if there is anything we morally ought to do, we simply must do it regardless of if it serves goals, desires, self-interests, or public opinion; unconditional & necessary; obligation is not based on personal goals; stems from ways humans are alike, as only persons are subject to morality due to being rational beings; moral oughts are universal bc they apply to all persons;

Application of the Categorical Imperative

universalizability does not mean an act is moral; (ex. everyone writes their name on test papers; is universalizable, but not moral); difficult to asses when one is using a person; basic moral principle of moral obligations do not include reference to any particular good

Duty

Kant’s moral terms seem harsh to us today (ex. duty, law, obligation); Kant did not advocate for a particular moral code/set of duties; for Kant, duty is what reason tells us is the right thing to do; there is a strong sense of absolutism in Kant’s work; according to Kant, commands of ethics are clear, certain, and without exception; Kant’s moral theory only has one exceptionless rule: do not do what you cannot will as a universal law or what violates requirement to treat persons as ends in themselves; rule can be unclear, and may not be helpful in making moral decisions when they produce contradictory duties

Absolutism

morality consists of a set of exceptionless rules

Moral Equality

Kant emphasized moral equality of all persons; moral obligation is universally binding; there are no moral exceptions for ourselves: do only what you can will for all; all persons are rational and autonomous; Kant emphasized sameness through personhood, rather than individual differences; creates argument for moral equality & equal moral rights bc hypocritical to not have same rules apply to all;

Moral Impartiality

impartiality is being able to will a moral action for every single person, including oneself; Kant’s theory emphasizes impartiality; impartiality can be complex bc ppl differ in gender, race, age, and talents; difficult to determine if people require different treatment due to differences

Why do some criticize Kant’s view of persons as rational beings?

humans are not best conceived as rational autonomous beings; our emotions & dependency on relationships impact oru choices; Kant may agure that we have no control over feelings, therefore feelings should not impact moral actions; may alsoa gure that common aspects of humans, rather than differences, give us dignity & basis for moral equality; even if we are not fully autonomous & rational, we should consider ourselves as such & treat others as such, as that is source of human dignity

What were Kant’s views on race & women?

Kant held objectionable views about women & non-White people; like many of his time, he viewed the world in a hierarchical fashion; rationality, to Kant, was a rare achievement of European men; believed that women were incapable of attaining high moral development; claimed that non-white people were inferior; these views were influenced by David Hume; Kant’s thinking about race & gender seems to have evolved; created incipient arguments against slavery

How did Charles Mills approach Kant’s views on race?

helped develop a critique of racism & sexism grounded in Kantian deontology; suggested it is possible to use a “deracialized” Kantian theory of morailty to articulate an anti-racist social & moral theory; argues that universality of humanity includes all races & genders; argues oppression goes against first form of categorical imperative

Perfect Duties

absolute; must be done/avoided no matter what; ex. keeping promises; the categorical imperative is a perfect duty; perfect duties take precedence over imperfect ones; cannot help some by violating rights of others

Imperfect Duties

more flexible type of duty; not musts; meritorious duties; ex. doctor must heal ppl, as that is their duty, but do not have to feel compassion, avoiding egoism

What are some variations of Kantian & deontological moral theory?

W. D. Ross’s & John Rawl’s theories

W. D. Ross

believed that we have primary facie duties (aka conditional duties); there are things we should/should not do regardless of consequences; duties include beneficnece, keeping promises, paying debts, being good to others; we must perform our duties, like what Kant said; unlike Kant in that Ross beleived that we can know through moral intuition what we ought to do; argues that when duties are in conflict, must go with stronger duty; choosing one duty of the the other does not negate other duty; issue is that it is difficult to dtermine rightness & wrongess of actions, and ppl have different intuitions on right/wrong

What were Kant’s views on the law?

believed one should obey the law regardless of disagreements/morality

John Rawls

applied Kant’s principles to social justice issues in A Theory of Justice; agrees w/Kant that we have natural duties and that persons are rational beings; unlike Kant, suggests there may be conflicts of duty btwn obedience to the law & the natural duty of not invoking injustice on others; contributed idea of justice as fairness to ethics & politics; to know what is fair, we must put ourselves in position of a group of free & equal rational beings who choose principles of justice for society; have principles of justice one should accept regardless of societal position

What is the connection between motive & act in deontological ethics?

both motive & act must be good; action with good results has no moral worth w/out right motive; must not act only “out of duty” (have the right motive) but also “according to duty” or “as duty requires” (do what is right; must know what the right thing to do is before we can do it bc it is right