Studied by 1 person
What are the 3 ethical theories?
Deontological ethics
Utilitarianism
Virtue ethics
What is the utilitarian theory?
They are consequentialists, meaning they think it’s the consequences that make it right or wrong. The theory says we should act to minimise pain and maximise pleasure.
What is Kant’s deontological ethics?
Kant’s deontological ethics takes a rule-based approach. According to Kant, there are certain moral laws that are universal and we have a duty to follow them. He provides two tests to determine what these laws are. Based on these tests, Kant would say stealing is always wrong, regardless of the consequences.
What is Aristotle’s virtue theory?
Aristotle is more concerned with what sort of person we should be. So, if a virtuous person would not steal in a particular set of circumstances, then it is wrong to steal in those circumstances.
What are the three different types of utilitarianism?
Act utilitarianism: we should act so as to maximise pleasure and minimise pain in each specific instance
Rule utilitarianism: we should follow general rules that maximise pleasure and minimise pain (even if following these rules doesn’t maximise pleasure in every specific instance)
Preference utilitarianism: we should act to maximise people’s preferences (even if these preferences do not maximise pleasure and minimise pain)
What are the claims of act utilitarianism?
Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism can be boiled down to three claims:
Whether an action is right/good or wrong/bad depends solely on its consequences
The only thing that is good is happiness
No individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s
What is the falicific calculus?
Act utilitarianism is sometimes called quantitative utilitarianism, because it’s about quantifying happiness and then deciding how to act based on the numbers. Bentham provides the felicific calculus as a way to calculate utility in this way. This is done based on: Intensity (how strong the pleasure is), Duration (how long the pleasure lasts), Certainty (how likely the pleasure is to occur), Propinquity (how soon the pleasure will occur), Fecundity (how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure), Purity (how likely the pleasure will lead to pain), Extent (the number of people affected). So the ethically right course of action is the one that leads to the more intense pleasure. The felicific calculus should provide a means to calculate the total happiness: add up all the pleasures and minus all the pains.
What are the problems with act utilitarianism?
-Difficult to calculate for example you can’t predict the future e.g. you could save a child but that child ends up killing people.
-How can you measure intensity?
-tyranny of the majority. For example there’s 10000 anger people that want a murderer to get caught. However the police can’t find that man. So they frame another one because the peoples overall happiness of who they think the killer is getting imprisoned, out ways the pain of that innocent man.
-moral status. For example giving your mum 10 pounds isn’t moral when Joe would have been happier if you gave it to him.
-Ignores intentions - someone could do good but intended to do bad and the opposite can also occur.
-the experience machine, even though it would cause happiness we may not want to use the machine. But it feels morally wrong to force people.
How does rule utilitarianism respond to tyranny of majority issue?
Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions (act utilitarianism). This provides a response to the tyranny of the majority objection to act utilitarianism above. Although in this specific instance punishing the innocent man leads to greater happiness, as a general rule it would lead to more unhappiness.
How does preference utilitarianism respond to the experience machine?
Preference utilitarianism is a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism. It says that instead of maximising happiness (hedonistic utilitarianism), we should act to maximise people’s preferences. This provides a response to the experience machine objection to act utilitarianism above. Act utilitarianism says we should shove everyone into the experience machine – whether they want to go in or not – because doing so would maximise their happiness. However, preference utilitarianism can reject this by saying we should respect people’s preference to live in the real world (even if living in the real world means less happiness). For example if a dead man wanted his money to go to charity, act utilitarianism would ignore this and give it to where it would create the most happiness. However preference utilitarianism says we should respect the wish of the dead.
What is Kant’s deontological theory?
Kant’s theory is quite long-winded, but it can be summarised as:
The only thing that is good without qualification is good will.
Good will means acting for the sake of duty.
You have a duty to follow the moral law.
Moral laws are universal.
You can tell is a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative is two tests:
Contradiction in conception
Contradiction in will
Finally, do not treat people as means to an end (the humanity formula).
What is good will?
Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty. This, according to Kant, is the source of moral worth. For example, if you save someone’s life because you expect to be financially rewarded, this action has no moral worth. You’re acting for selfish reasons, not because of duty. However, if you save someone’s life because you recognise that you have a duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.
Moral law is categorised by categorical imperative. What is the categorical imperative?
It is commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances.
What are the 2 types of maxims (rules)?
Hypothetical rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement,
E.g. “you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam.“
Categorical rules are not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, they apply universally.
E.g. “you shouldn’t steal” is a rule that applies to everyone, i.e. it applies universally.
What are the 2 tests to see whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imperative?
Outline TEST 1: CONTRADICTION IN CONCEPTION to see whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imerative.
For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory. Example: we might ask Kant whether it is morally acceptable to steal. I.e., we might ask whether “you should steal” is a universally applicable maxim. If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense – as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do. So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible. Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim “you should steal” leads to a contradiction in conception. Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.
Outline TEST 2: CONTRADICTION IN WILL to see whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imerative.
Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will – i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not. Example: can we rationally will “not to help others in need”? There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else. But we cannot rationally will it, says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes we have goals (Kant calls these ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others. To will the ends, we must also will the means. So, we cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the means). Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim “not to help others in need”.
What is the humanity formula?
Never treat someone as a means to your end (don’t use someone). An example of treating someone as a means to your ends is marrying someone for their money by pretending to love somebody. However there would be nothing wrong if both parties are informed
What are the problems with Kant’s deontological ethics?
-not all maxims are morally good.
Note
Flashcard