Ethics prac SAC responses

Task 1  - Aristotle (10 marks)

"It is from the same causes and by the same means that every virtue is both produced and destroyed. By doing the acts that we do in our dealings with others we become just or unjust, and by facing danger or avoiding it we become brave or cowardly. The same is true of desires and emotions; some become temperate and good-tempered, others self-indulgent and irascible, depending on their behaviour in certain situations. In short, states of character arise from our activities. It makes a great difference whether we form habits one way or another from our very youth — indeed, it makes all the difference."

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Chapter I (adapted)

a.     According to Aristotle, why does the formation of habits from an early age matter so much for the development of virtue?

b.     How might another philosophical account of moral action challenge or qualify Aristotle’s emphasis on habit? You may draw on one of the Journal thinkers or, where useful, another thinker studied in the unit.

c.     Is the cultivation of a virtuous character sufficient to guide action when moral values conflict or when doing the right thing carries a significant personal cost? Defend your position and test it with a relevant example or case.

A) Aristotle argues that the formation of habits from an early age is crucial for the development of virtue because children are taught how to find pleasure in good actions and pain in bad actions, so that they can think morally. Aristotle argues that we are not born moral, instead we become virtuous characters through habitually acting in a balance between excess and defect, ‘made perfect by habit.’ If children have flawed morals from a young age, Aristotle argues is important for them to be corrected when they are children as to break the habits so that they create a moral, virtuous character. If children to not have moral guidance, then their experiences will shape their character instead of their character shaping their experiences, making them susceptible to acting in excess and defect. When children consistently practice these balanced actions, they are more likely to become second nature and lead to a virtuous character. For example, if a parent notices their child stealing something from a shop when they think the shopkeeper is not looking, it is important for them to correct this behaviour so that they can have more of a balance in justice. Therefore, Aristotle suggests that it is important to form positive habits at a young age so that children develop virtues.

B) Both Kant and Aristotle agree that morality is grounded in reason, but Kant suggests that these desires are accessible through an innate moral sense. As a deontological philosopher, Immanuel Kant would critique Aristotle’s emphasis on habit, by suggesting that humans’ moral actions are motivated by a universal internal sense of duty, ‘the moral law within.’ He would reason that rational beings have an innate capacity to recognise these moral duties, so that moral action is not a result of habit but instead is tied to a sense of duty, in accordance with rational moral principles. For example, if someone sees another person drowning at the pool and they have completed lifeguard training, Aristotle may argue that a virtuous character would do the right thing and save the person, acting in a balance of cowardice and recklessness. However, Kant would suggest that this person must save the other person as if they reason that it is a universal rule and duty to help people in need. If they chose not to save the other person, then Kant would suggest they would be happy to not be saved if the situation was reversed. Overall, Kant focuses more on the rational principles and moral duty of actions, whilst Aristotle focuses on virtuous acts being habituated.

C) I believe that possessing a virtuous character is not sufficient to guide moral action when moral values conflict, or when doing the right thing carries a significant personal cost. There can be multiple conflating moral virtues, such as a duty to tell the truth conflating with a duty to not harm innocent people, in a scenario where telling a friend the truth, that their new haircut is bad, ends up harming them. It can become difficult to suggest that a virtuous character is enough to guide moral action when someone cannot possibly satisfy all their virtues in certain situations. Additionally, virtue ethics is not deontological and does not provide a clear set of rules, meaning that they can be difficult to apply in complex situations. We can have a strong compulsion to act in a certain way yet act differently because of temporary lapses in judgement; ‘akrasia’. For example, if someone sees another person has been waiting in line for an ice-cream on a hot summer’s day, and their child has accidentally grabbed it, they may feel compassionate and offer to pay for that person to get another ice-cream. Yet even though people can feel instinctively compelled to help others or to act virtuously, it can be difficult to do so with competition desires. Consider instead that someone’s house is being invaded and the law enforcement are searching for someone in hiding. You are debating whether to lie to the law enforcement even though you think lying is bad, or to tell them where the person is and risking putting them in danger and being responsible for whatever happens to them. There are two conflating maxims—to tell the truth, and to protect innocent people from harm. Thus, habituation helps guide moral actions, but reasoning and calculations are necessary when conflating values and external factors conflict.

Task 3 – Immanuel Kant (10 marks)

"Humanity itself is an end, and never merely a means. Rational beings have a worth that is not simply a price that can be exchanged for some other benefit. I should therefore act so that I treat humanity, whether in my own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. When we deceive another person, coerce them, or use them only as an instrument for achieving our own purposes, we fail to respect their capacity to choose rationally for themselves. This requirement does not disappear because using one person might produce a desirable result for many others. Moral action is grounded in respect for rational persons and in principles that every rational agent could accept, rather than in calculating which outcome produces the greatest balance of benefit. A good will acts from duty because the moral law is binding in itself, not because obedience happens to produce favourable consequences."

— Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (adapted)

a.        Explain Kant’s claim that rational persons must be treated as ends in themselves rather than merely as means. How does this principle shape his account of morally right action?

b.        How might another ethical perspective respond to Kant in a case where using or harming one person could produce a substantial benefit for many others? Explain the philosophical disagreement, using a relevant case or thought experiment if helpful.

c.        Does respect for universal duties and the intrinsic worth of persons provide an adequate guide when duties, consequences or other moral considerations conflict? Defend your position with philosophical reasoning and a relevant example or case.

A) Kant’s humanity formula, a division of the ‘categorical imperative’ posits that rational beings must be treated as intrinsically valuable in their own rights and not as a means to an end. This ‘maxim’ suggests that actions are morally right when they respect individuals’ rights. Suppose there someone asks their friend to go shopping with them but does not bring any money because they know that their friend is generous. They also know they will not pay their friend back.  Kant would argue that this is exploiting the friend and treating them as a tool in achieving their own desires, thereby making their act immoral. Overall, Kant argues that moral actions should not be exploitative and we should respect people’s autonomy.

B) Whilst both Kant and John Stuart Mill’s philosophy acknowledge that harming someone can produce substantial benefit for many others, Mill suggests that instead of the principle of an action being what determine its morality, it is the consequences of that action. Mill would argue that harming one person for the benefit of many others is ultimately justifiable by the notion that we should act in the pursuit of maximising pleasure and doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, the Trolley Problem thought experiment creates the scenario where there is a person driving a trolley which is about to divert into one of two tracks, and there are five people on one track and one person on the other. Either way someone will be killed, and this person has the lever to determine which track the train will go on. From Mill’s perspective, he would argue that it is best to kill one person as to save five and thereby create the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even if killing people is a maxim which Kant believes cannot be universalised. Thus, even when a maxim cannot be universalised and seems inherently wrong– killing someone, Mill would argue that a person was going to die regardless, and so by allowing five people to live, the consequence of the action is more significant than the intent behind it.

 

C) I would argue that the respect for universal duties and intrinsic worth of people does not necessarily provide an adequate guide when external factors conflict, as it is difficult to create universal duties which everyone can agree with. In certain situations, more harm than good is created by acting according to these maxims. Though it is reasonable to argue that it is unfair to choose to kill one person in a case such as the Trolley Problem, if the five people were criminals and the other person had the cure to cancer (suggesting the singular person has more intrinsic worth), it can be incredibly difficult to predict people’s attributes in urgent situations. Also, these universal duties such as ‘one should not kill’ cannot truly guide all actions when these duties do conflict, creating significant issues. For example, consider how Batman had the opportunity to kill the Joker countless times as to stop him from killing more people, but instead chose to let him live, to abide by his moral values. Though Kant would argue that this principle of not killing others is a moral duty, it is difficult to justify how Batman could choose to allow the Joker to continue causing significant harm. His maxim that killing people is wrong directly conflicts with his action of allowing the Joker to kill others, despite having the ability to stop him. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be W.D. Ross’s critique, with ‘prima facie duties’, suggesting that a maxim is binding unless it conflicts with stronger moral duties, thus resolving the conflating duties within Kant’s ethical dilemma.

Task 4 – John Stuart Mill (10 marks)

“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality.”

- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter II

a.     According to Mill, how can we determine that one pleasure is more valuable than another?

b.     How might another philosophical perspective challenge or complicate Mill’s account of what makes something morally valuable?

c.     Is happiness an adequate basis for determining what is morally right? Defend your position, using a relevant example, case study or thought experiment to test your view.

A)    As a hedonistic utilitarianist, Mill distinguishes between both higher and lower pleasures, and sensual and intellectual pleasures, arguing that ‘it is better to be a man dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied.’ This illustrates his belief that intellectual pleasures are more significant and satisfying than lower pleasures that animals have access to. He creates a distinction between lower, sensual pleasures which are those that satisfy basic human needs and instincts such as eating and drinking, and higher, intellectual pleasures which are longer lasting, more significant to human flourishing, and lead to more profound happiness, such as wisdom and intellect. However, this distinction between types of pleasures creates significant tensions in equality, as intellectual pleasures may not be accessible to everyone. Consider someone from a low economic background who is forced to work on a farm for long hours every day to make a living. They may not have the time to focus on achieving higher, intellectual pleasures when they need to consider when their next meal is. Mill’s hedonistic utilitarianism thus creates unfairness towards them, by suggesting that they do not experience as significant pleasures as rich, educated people.

 

B)    Though both Mill and G.E. Moore hold utilitarian views, Moore argues that pleasure and happiness are not the only things which are intrinsically valuable and suggests that morality encompasses a broader range of intrinsic values that contribute to human wellbeing instead. This perspective challenges Mill’s view for its overly simplistic and reductive nature. G.E. Moore proposed The Two Worlds thought experiment to illustrate the complexity of moral evaluation. In the first world, there are multiple things which are intrinsically valuable in themselves like friendship, truth, fairness, and more, independent of any utility they may bring. The second world lacks these intrinsic values and thus is seen as fundamentally less good. Moore uses this thought experiment to argue against ethical naturalism and hedonism, instead arguing that things other than pleasure and happiness hold value in themselves, thus challenging Mill’s account of what makes things morally valuable.

 

C)    I would argue that happiness is not an adequate basis for determining what is morally right, as other qualities are also important in ethical evaluation. Though gaining happiness is important for human flourishing an wellbeing, so is minimising pain as it serves as a more immediate threat. Philosophers such as Karl Popper would argue that minimising harm must take precedence over maximising happiness, as suffering has a more immediate and severe impact on wellbeing. That is not to say that happiness is not important, but simply, it may not be the only factor that should be taken into consideration when determining what is morally right. Consider Amartya Sen’s colosseum thought experiment, in which the fights that occurred in the arena were watched as entertainment for many. Mill would argue that if only a few numbers of gladiators were hurt and the happiness of the masses in the crowds was enormous, then it would be morally justifiable for these practices to occur. However, this creates ethical problems, as it risks treating humans as a means to an end and with no intrinsic value in themselves. Thus, a large amount of happiness can be created whilst an action is still not entirely morally right. Other factors such as pain and the intrinsic value of other properties should be considered when assessing the morality of actions.

skip