GEETHICS

Uni-criterial Theories

Theories claiming that there is just one defining feature of moral personhood

Multi-criterial theories

Theories claiming that there is more than one defining feature of moral personhood

Meta-critical theories

Theories about nature of the defining features of moral personhood

Uni-criterial theories of personhood

Genetic theory

Life theory

Rational theory

Sentient theory

Relational theory

What is Genetic Theory?

Moral persons are those possessing human DNA

What is Life Theory?

Moral persons are those who are alive

What is Rational Theory?

Moral persons are those with reason and will (those capable of intelligence and free will)

What is Sentient Theory?

Moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain (or suffering) and pleasure

What is Relational Theory?

Moral persons are those in caring relationships

Beings or entities having moral status or standing. They are the appropriate objects of moral concern.

Moral persons

The actions which we subject to a moral evaluation are those that

Concern moral persons-either as the doers or recipients of these actions.

Only apply to actions performed by moral persons.

Moral standards

All moral persons have moral rights but some

have moral duties as well.

Entitlements; they are interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is allowed to do

Rights

are what we are obliged to do.

Duties

Correlate with duties:

Rights

Not exercising rights will not merit

Sanctions (penalties or punishments),

Not performing duties will merit

Sanctions

Rights are classified according to

1) the duties they impose (the duties having such rights impose on other people), and

(2) the manner of their acquisition.

impose the duty of non-interference in a person's exercise of his/her rights. E.g., right to free speech

Negative rights

impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a person's exercise of rights. E.g., right to life, right to information.

Positive rights

Moral persons acting as the sources of morally evaluable actions; they necessarily possess both moral rights and duties; they can be morally accountable for their actions (i.e., they can deserve moral blame or praise for their actions).

Moral agents

moral persons acting as the receivers or recipients of morally evaluable actions; they necessarily posses moral rights only; they cannot be morally accountable for their actions.

Moral patients

Rights are either

Contractual, legal, or moral

are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract. They may be formal or informal.

Contractual rights

Acquired through citizenship

Legal rights

acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession of the morally relevant qualities (such as sentience and rationality-discussed under Criteria for Moral Personhood).

Moral rights

Moral persons who can be both moral patients and agents. E.g., normal human adults

Agentive Moral Persons

Moral persons who can only be moral patients. E.g., animals, mentally challenged humans, infants

Non-agentive Moral Persons

A moral person possesses all features in the combination

Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation

A moral person possesses at least one of the features in the combination

Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation

The most reasonable multi-criterial theory is the ___, as it is able to account for the moral agent-patient distinction, and the kinds of moral personhood assumed in ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

Rationality-sentience-relationality combination interpreted liberally

Moral personhood is a social construct. The criteria for moral personhood are decided by society.

Social Theory

moral personhood comes in degrees. The criteria for moral personhood can be possessed in greater or lesser degree. Consequently, some entities have greater moral personhood than the others. (E.g., the more rational or sentient, the greater moral personhood)

Gradient Theory

Both theories are criticized for

justifying inhumane treatment of one group of persons by another group

a person's deservingness of moral blame or praise for his/her actions.

Moral accountability

The deservingness of blame or punishment for doing what is wrong or not doing what is right, and praise or reward for doing what is right or not doing what is wrong.

Accountability

A responsible person is one who deserves blame or praise for his/her actions.

Responsibility as Accountability

A responsible person is one who does or causes the action. An agent is not necessarily accountable for his/her actions.

Responsibility as Agency

A responsible person is one who does his/her duties or obligations. One is accountable for failing to perform one's duties.

Responsibility as Duty

This accoutability is based on the laws of the government

Legal accountability

This accountability is based on moral principles

Moral accountability

the sanctions for this type accountability are external (e.g., imprisonment, physical punishment, fine, revocation of license);

Legal accountability

the sanctions for this type of accountability are internal (e.g., shame, guilt, remorse, low self-esteem);

Moral accountability

conditions that determine whether a person is

morally accountable for his/her actions

Attribution Conditions

What is the attribution condition when they commit a person to moral accountability?

Incriminating

What is the attribution condition when they excuse or absolve a person from moral accountability?

Excusing

conditions that determine the extent or gravity of a person's moral accountability

Degree Conditions

What is the degree condition when they tend to lessen the degree of moral accountability?

Mitigating

What is the degree condition when they tend to increase the same?

Aggravating

Incriminating Conditions

1. Agency: the person causes the action.

2. Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad.

3. Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do it.

Excusing Conditions

1. Non-agency: the person does not cause the action.

2. Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action (Note: t person should be blamelessly ignorant-see next slide).

3. Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does not intend to perform the action.

The excusable ignorance; the ignorant person cannot be said to have known better.

Real / Blameless Ignorance

The non-excusable ignorance: the ignorant person can be said to have known better

Irresponsible / Blameful/Blameworthy Ignorance

the greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the lesser the knowledge, the lesser the accountability

Knowledge

the greater the pressure, the lesser the accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability

Pressure or difficulty in life

the greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the accountability; the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the accountability

Intensity of the injury

the greater the involvement, the greater the accountability; the lesser the involvement the lesser the accountability

Degree of involvement

the view which states that all moral principles are valid relative to a particular society or individual

Ethical relativism

the view which states that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any)

Ethical skepticism

the view which states that there are universally valid moral principles binding all people.

Ethical objectivism

The rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the the individual's own commitments and interests.

There is no interpersonal basis by which to judge whether an act is morally good or bad, right or wrong.

Individual Ethical Relativism /Ethical Subjectivism

The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society's norms.

Morality is social in nature. While there are no universal moral principles, there are valid moral principles justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance.

Considered more acceptable or reasonable than individual ethical relativism.

Cultural Ethical Relativism/Ethical Conventionalism

Ethical relativism must be true since moral beliefs and rules vary from culture to culture (and within the same culture, they vary over time).

Diversity Argument

Our perception of things is inescapably culture-bound: there is no independent, non-cultural viewpoint. Consequently, moral beliefs can only be true or valid relative to certain groups.

Dependency argument

Relativism must be the right way to view the nature of morality since acknowledging the differences among various societies in terms of their moral beliefs and practices leads to respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence among the different cultural, religious, and social groups.

Toleration argument

First, moral criticism would be impossible or meaningless. It would be senseless to criticize an action by another individual or group however abhorrent or inhumane.

Second, morality would simply be a matter of following social norms, which would undermine our rational nature.

Third, moral progress would be impossible. For how can we change social practices for the better if we cannot criticize them?

Ethical relativism leads to absurd consequences.

When two people disagree about something, it may be that one of them is correct while the other is wrong

Moral diversity or disagreement does not establish moral relativism

Cultural practices may differ but the fundamental moral principles underlying them do not

Despite the fact that some moral beliefs and practices vary among cultures,

there are still universal moral standards that exist, such as those that respect life and promote the pursuit of truth, justice, and peace.