Normative Ethics Ch 3

3 Doing Harm

3.1 Deontology

  • Consequentialism:

    • Focuses solely on the goodness of an act's consequences to determine its moral status.

    • Accepts that there are secondary rules (like promise-keeping) but sees them as instrumentally valuable.

    • The ultimate measure of an act is its consequences: an act is right if it leads to the best results.

  • Critiques of Consequentialism:

    • Many find the consequentialist position difficult to accept, believing other factors also hold intrinsic moral significance.

    • There can be acts that are morally forbidden despite their best results, indicating the presence of other normative factors.

  • Example to Highlight Issues:

    • Scenario of Chuck: Five patients need organs, and only Chuck's compatible organs can save them.

    • A consequentialist might argue that killing Chuck is permissible (5 lives saved vs 1 lost).

    • However, intuitive morality suggests that harming an innocent person like Chuck is forbidden, indicating a moral constraint against harming.

3.2 Thresholds

  • Moral Significance of Harm:

    • Many believe a constraint against harming exists, holding that preventing harm holds significant weight.

    • Some hold extreme views that cause a person moral hardship, while others take a moderate view allowing for exceptions.

  • Moderate Deontology:

    • Suggests that a constraint can have thresholds; up to a certain threshold, harming someone is impermissible.

    • If enough good is at stake, crossing that threshold may justify harming someone.

  • Examples of Moral Dilemmas:

    • Killing vs. Allowing Harm:

      • In cases of significant good, the threshold might allow for infringing on the norm against harming.

      • The difficulty lies in determining where that threshold lies within the moral framework.

3.3 The Scope of the Constraint

  • Nature of Harm:

    • Harm is construed as adversely affecting someone's interests or well-being.

    • Any act resulting in someone's lower well-being constitutes harm, irrespective of the intrinsic value.

  • Concerns Over Broad Scope:

    • Moderate deontologists might argue that the scope against doing harm infringes too broadly on minor infractions.

    • Deontological absolutists might argue against the implications concerning minimal harms.

  • Contrasting Views on Harm:

    • Distinctions in harm arise where individual cases necessitate moral weighing; considering different contexts impacts moral relevance.

3.4 Doing and Allowing

  • Deontological Ethics:

    • A significant distinction between doing harm (commission) and allowing harm (omission) is critical.

    • Allowing harm is morally important but often less weighty than actively doing harm.

  • Argument for Distinction:

    • A strong moral intuition exists that doing harm is intrinsically worse than merely allowing it.

    • Cases such as letting drowning persons die without intervention exemplify this intuition: inaction can be immoral, but not as severely as direct harm.

3.5 Intending Harm

  • Nuance in Moral Judgments:

    • Moral actions must consider intent; a suggestion arises to replace constraints against doing harm with those against intending harm.

    • Recognizing distinctions between intending harm (as an end or a means) versus foreseeing harm (an unintended side effect) can offer clarity.

  • Implications in Normative Theory:

    • Both harm and intention can yield diverse outcomes; discussions on real-life scenarios, such as the trolley problem, illustrate these complex moral landscapes.

  • Conclusion:

    • No broad consensus on the implications of doing versus allowing harm; different moral theories dynamically reflect various nuances in our moral framework.

Key Concepts in Moral Philosophy

  1. Consequentialism: A moral theory that evaluates the rightness of actions based on the goodness of their outcomes. It asserts that the ultimate measure of an act's morality is its consequences.

    • Critiques: Critics argue that consequentialism dismisses intrinsic moral significance, suggesting that certain acts remain morally forbidden regardless of outcomes.

    • Example Dilemma: The case of Chuck illustrates the conflict between saving multiple lives versus harming an innocent person, challenging consequentialist reasoning.

  2. Deontology: A moral framework that prioritizes duties and rules over results. It emphasizes moral constraints against harming others.

    • Moderate Deontology: Accepts that harming may be permissible if sufficient good is at stake, allowing for defined thresholds where moral rules can be bent.

    • Scope of Harm: Evaluates what constitutes harm, arguing against broad constraints that infringe upon minor infractions.

  3. Doing vs. Allowing Harm: Distinction is made between actively causing harm and passively allowing it. Generally, actively doing harm is viewed as more morally reprehensible than inaction.

  4. Intention in Moral Judgments: Introduces the idea that intent matters in moral evaluations. Distinctions between intending harm and foreseeing it can alter the moral implications of actions.

  5. Moral Dilemmas: Situations where moral principles conflict, such as the trolley problem, showcase the complexities and nuances in addressing moral behavior and intentions.

Conclusion: The discourse on morality is dynamic, with various theories providing insights into the intricate relationship between actions, intentions, and consequences.