Moral Foundations Midtrm 2

Virtue ethics

“What is my character”

Natural Law

“What is my place in God’s plan”

Pre-modern theories

“Who am I?” determines “what do I do?”

Modern

“What do I do"?” determines “Who am I?”

State of Nature Theorists

• Thomas Hobbes

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Utilitarianism theorists

• Jeremy Bentham

• John Stuart Mill

Deontology theorists

• Immanuel Kant

Modern Moral Philosophy Beliefs

• less defined by the roles he or she is born into — family, occupation, etc. — and more by the choices he or she makes

• Historical conditions contribute to the change in perspective

  • Discovery of the Americas

  • Scientific Revolution

  • Rise of Capitalism

The New World

• the discovery of the Americas forces Europeans to confront many of their assumptions about the world

• Complex indigenous societies which developed completely independently of Christianity (i.e., natural law alone)

• Indigenous societies were far freer than European ones — most had no hereditary mobility or absolute monarchs 

The New World

• the modern area marks the beginning of humanity as a global species — new forms of cultural exchange

• leads to speculations about the relationship between human society and nature

  • Is it right to compel people against their will?

  • What is the natural state of human beings?

  • Are human beings naturally peaceful or violent?

Copernican Revolution

• the rejection of the geocentric Ptolemaic model of the solar system in favor of a heliocentric model

• Shifts the Earth from the center of the universe to being one planet among many others 

• nature is not ordered with human beings at the center 

• Nicolaus Copernicus (and other astronomers) 

Scientific Revolution

• development of mathematical laws of nature

• nature is understood as a perfect machine which follows mechanical laws

• by understanding these laws of nature, human beings can manipulate and master nature

• nature is no longer fixed and static, but malleable and dynamic

Feudalism to Capitalism

• the early modern period sees the rise of a literate and educated class which is outside of the traditional feudal system (nobility, church)

• While at times wealthy, these people were barred from holding political power and not entitled to the same social privileges as those of noble birth

• Desire to be judged on merit rather than by birth

Capitalism and Moral Philosophy 

• merchants and financiers viewed human interactions through voluntary contracts, trade and exchange, and free association

• contrast with the feudal emphasis on natural hierarchy, oaths, and personal loyalty

• question of political legitimacy: what justifies power over other human beings? 

These events had many impacts on how people thought about human nature, society, and morality

• social hierarchy had to be explained and justified (vs assumed to be natural and unchanging)

• if nature is malleable, human nature can be changed as well

• development of the modern nation-state

• people are defined by their actions rather than their roles

The State of Nature

• not a literal, historical state which existed — an idealized condition of humanity prior to the state or complex society

• it is not enough to say that humans are social animals — institutions are not given to us by nature

Robinson Crusoe (1719)

• literary example of the idea of the state of nature: gives an account of the origin of society from a single individual in isolation

• self-sufficient in terms of food, water, and shelter, but desires companionship with Friday

• human society merges out of the free association of equals 

Hobbes and Rousseau

• what is humanity like in the state of nature?

• what is the purpose of society and the government?

• what moral principles govern people’s interactions with each other?

Thomas Hobbes

• living in the context of the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) Hobbes wanted to discover principles for a form of government that would not be subject to destruction from within.

• conflict and war were to be avoided at all costs, so the best kind of state was one which protected its citizens and ensured stability

• Because of this, even bad governments are preferable to no government

• to justify his view of government, Hobbes appeals to the “conditions of mere nature”

• describes the state of nature as “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

• the state of nature is violent — “a war of all against all.”

How does Hobbes come to the state of nature?

• people are all basically equal, so nature doesn’t sort humans into a clear hierarchy

• people by nature have a right to preserve themselves, but virtually anything might be seen as necessary for one’s preservation

• resources are limited and people will generally act in their own self-interest 

• without a government there is no agency with authority to arbitrate disputes and power to enforce its decisions

• so, this leads to a condition of frequent conflict where disputes can only be resolved through violence 

Hobbes on government

• it is in people’s self-interest to have government — peace and stability as the basic conditions for humans flourishing

• Hobbes call this a “law of nature” and argues that reason tells us to seek peace with by giving up our “right to all things” - instead, we agree to submit to the authority of a sovereign

• Political legitimacy does not depend on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protect those who have agreed to obey it - political obligation ends when protection ceases

• government power must be absolute — its powers must be neither divided nor limited — otherwise it would risk devolving into civil war

• to avoid the horrible prospect of government collapse and return to the state of nature, people should treat their sovereign as having absolute authority

• at the level of international politics, the various nation-states are all in a state of nature in regards to each other - states ultimately only act in their own interest

• we have certain rights by nature — in nature, everyone decides how to act for themselves and preserve themselves

• when we are part of a society ruled by the government, we give up our unlimited rights given to us by nature in exchange for a sovereign to preserve us

• in nature our individual appetites/desire that determine “good” and “bad,” but with government a set of common rules, obligations, and laws determine “good” and bad”

• as part of society, we may have to do things we consider “bad” because it is required of us by the sovereign

Hobbes: a complicated legacy

• government get its right to rule from the people; the state exists to protect its constituents from conflict

  • power comes from the consent of the governed, not nature or diving right

  • the state exists to mediate disputes, establish common social norms, and defend against external threats

  • people by nature are free and give up certain freedoms when they agree to have an external power (the state) be the mediator of disputes

  • subjects retain a right of self-defense against the sovereign power, giving them the right to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

• claims that a single idea is at the center of his world view: human beings are good by nature but are made corrupt by society

Rousseau’s moral psychology

• all creatures have an instinctual drive for self-preservation — this leads us to pursue things that help meet our basic need for food, shelter, warmth

• have a basic instinct for compassion makes us want to relive the suffering of others (if we can do so without endangering our own self-preservation)

• humans are naturally equipped, like all other animals, with the means to satisfy their natural needs.

Rousseau on a more peaceful state of nature

• imagines a multi-stage evolution of humanity from the most primitive condition to something like a modern complex society

• humans in nature are free and peaceful — so why would anyone want to give up this lifestyle

• if the development of the state was not based on rational self-interest (Hobbes) it has to come from some other impulse  

Rousseau on the origins of civilization

• as population grow, temporary and unstable forms of cooperation develop around activities like hunting

• sees competitiveness and increasing interdependence as the origin of unfreedom and inequality

• unequal societies develop notions of private property as a way for powerful people to horde resources and control others

• sees the state as displacing natural human impulses toward sympathy with reason used to dominate, oppress and exploit others

• since modern society has evolved to the point where people cannot meet their own needs, the core political question becomes how to reconcile individual freedom with the authority of the state

Rousseau on the state

• critical of the societies of his time because of the way in which the state reinforces unequal and exploitative power imbalances between rich and poor

• proposed that a free society could exist if it was based on the general will: the collective will of the citizen body taken as a whole

• the general will is the source of law and is willed by each and every citizen

• because the law is based on the will of the citizens themselves, they can obey the laws of the state while also still remaining free

The general will 

• for it to be truly general, it must “come from all and apply to all”

• laws based on the general will have to apply to everyone and be based in the common interest of all people in the society

• Rousseau sees significant social inequality as incompatible with the general will - the impact of the laws will not be the same for everyone 

• even in the state governed by the general will, people have to exchange their natural freedom for civil freedom - still have to make concessions to live socially 

Moral freedom

• based on our ability to rule ourselves - moral agency is based on our ability to act according to laws we have determined for ourselves

• a free society is one in which all people are able to have moral agency

• the people as a whole are the sovereign - the law source of law in society - while the government exists to administer things within the bounds set by the general will

Anthropology

• research into contemporary hunter gatherer societies has challenged many assumptions about the state of nature and the origins of complex societies

• hunter gatherers tend to be much healthier, highly egalitarian, and experience less violence than settled agriculture communities

• these societies often have complex rituals and social norms aimed at preventing people from becoming too powerful or hoarding too many resources

Greatest Happiness Principle: 

• actions are good insofar as they maximize happiness

• so, the best possible action is the one which results in the most happiness 

• focuses on the consequences of an action as the determinant of moral value

  • the character of the person performing the action or their intentions behind the action are not what determines moral value; it is what the action produces

  • utilitarianism is patient-focused rather than agent-focused; it is concerned with the effects of actions rather than the person who acts.

  • an individual is judged as good or bad insofar as their actions result in happiness or unhappiness, respectively

• holds that you should maximize happiness

  • to maximize overall happiness, you have to consider the good of others as well as your own good.

  • utilitarianism aims to be impartial: no one gets special preference. everyone’s happiness counts the same.

  • similarly, the reason I have to promote overall happiness is the same reason anyone else else has to promote happiness. it is not peculiar to me

• happiness is usually understood as individual’s well-being

  • pleasure and the absence of pain = happiness

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

• Bentham took the core principles of his philosophy to be that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”

• advocate for the equal rights for women and the decriminalizing of homosexual act

• called for the abolition of slavery, capital punishment, and physical punishment, including that of children

• early advocate for animal rights 

Hedonic Calculus

• Bentham believed that you could quantify happiness

• because happiness was something that could be expressed numerically, one could develop a “pleasure calculator” to determine the exact amount of happiness that would be produced

• the calculus would factor in how intense the pleasure is, its duration, whether it will lead to further happiness, and more

• supposed to give a precise measure of happiness and allow for certainty in moral decision making

• Intensity: how strong is the pleasure?

• Duration: how long will the pleasure last?

• Certainty or uncertainty: how likely or unlikely is that the pleasure will occur?

• Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?

• Fencudity: the probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind

• Purity: the probability that will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind

• Extent: how many people will be affected?

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

• saw himself as a successor to Bentham’s utilitarianism but aimed to correct a number of perceived shortcomings

• early advocate for women’s rights and a critic of slavery on utilitarian grounds.

Mill on Happiness and Pleasure 

• rejected the idea that happiness could be quantified; instead, he held that there are varying levels or kinds of happiness

• intellectual and moral pleasures (higher pleasures) are superior to more physical forms of pleasure (lower pleasure.)

• “Happiness” includes all kinds of pleasures while “contentment” is when you only have the lower pleasures.

Mills Moral Philosphy

• people desire happiness, so since we desire happiness individually, collectively we should all desire the happiness of everyone (society as a whole)

• in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions

• the best people in society are those whose actions contribute to the happiness of society as a whole

• “strong utilitarian conscience” 

Criticism of Utilitarianism

• difficulty of predicting consequences — we don’t know with certainty what kind of consequences an action will produce

• tension between utility and justice — is it acceptable to punish an innocent person for the greater good?

• because utilitarianism is impartial, it seems to require huge sacrifices — well-being of strangers is just as important as that of family and friends

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Critique of Pure Reason (1781): 3 core philosophical concerns

1. What can I know?

2. What should I do? (core question)

3. What may I hope?

Enlightenment (1784)

• man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity

• immaturity is the ability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. this is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another.

Ethical implications

• mature individuals have to determine right and wrong for themselves — moral agents are autonomous (self-governing)

political implications

people should have a right to freely and openly discuss their ideas without fear of censorship — freedom of speech and expression

empirical

humanity as it actually is, moral laws affected by nature, descriptive morality

rational

what ought to be (even if it is not actually the case), moral laws based on pure reason 

Kant’s Moral Philosophy

• moral laws have to be derived from pure reason; empirical morality comes after rational morality

• for a moral law to be obligatory, it has to be absolutely necessary and universal (apply in all times and cultures)

• human beings are rational creatures with free will, so we should be able to determine these laws on our own (autonomy)

The good will

• there is no possibility of thinking anything at all in the world, or even out od it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a ….

• kant argues that the only thing we can (rationally) determine as good in itself is a good will; other things can be good, but they are good in a qualified sense

• a person with a good will is committed above all else to making decisions that are morally worthy

how do we know what makes something morally worthy? 

• our reason allows us to determine the moral laws which consists of imperatives and duties that we freely choose whether or not to obey 

• is the will is something good in itself, then what makes something good or bad is the intention behind it

The Fair Shopkeeper

• if we have a duty to be fair in our dealings with others, then businesses have to charger everyone the same prices.

The Categorical Imperative

• fundamental principle of our moral duties

• imperative: a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not

• categorical: applies unconditionally without reference to any ends that we might or might not have

• moral law applies to all free rational beings irrespective of whatever desires or goals they have

• “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

• “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”