Normative Theories - Comprehensive Study Notes
Consequentialism
Definition: Your duty is to maximize the good in the world and minimize the bad (think in terms of a ratio of G/B).
Interpretations: Consequentialism is like the term for the outcome or result; Ethical Egoism is the idea that total effects alone determine the moral quality of an action.
How to be a Consequentialist (in general):
Identify what is good and what is bad
Identify options for action
Calculate the total good and total bad effects for each option
Choose the option with the best ratio of G/B, i.e., maximize \frac{G}{B}.
Act Utilitarianism (AU) as a particular version of Consequentialism:
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Core duty: You have one moral duty: to improve overall well-being with every action you take.
Well-being = pleasure, happiness (Bentham’s view).
Examples of evaluating consequences:
A (truth) = \frac{7}{5}, B (lying) = \frac{9}{1}
Another example: \frac{10}{5} vs \frac{9}{1}
Obligatory vs Permissible: which actions are required vs allowed depending on outcomes.
Which consequences matter? All consequences affecting pleasure/pain levels.
Short term vs long term cases: need to consider both horizons.
How can we know about the effects? J. S. Mill: compare actual results vs reasonably expected results.
Millian perspective on AU:
Experience matters: Actual results vs reasonably expected results influence judgments.
Illustrative examples:
Aiding the elderly across the street example (AU application).
Parolee with a good record is released (example of evaluating results).
Actual results = default view in evaluating consequences.
Attractions of AU:
Impartiality: treat all affected beings with equal consideration.
Defined: AU applies impartial considerations to moral decision making.
Applies to non-human animals; can justify conventional moral wisdom.
Provides a framework for resolving conflicts among duties by appealing to overall well-being.
Clear rule for cases of conflicting duties.
Moral flexibility: Only one moral absolute is required to maximize the ratio \frac{H}{U}; other principles may be violated if AU is being followed.
Lying is not always wrong under AU.
The Scope of the Moral Community:
What is the moral community (MC)? The category of things that matter morally.
It includes things that can feel pain and pleasure.
Harm is sometimes justified within AU when it leads to greater overall well-being.
Slippery Slope Arguments:
Definition: An argument that a sequence of events leads to a disaster; A > B > C > D(isaster).
The fallacy vs legitimate reasoning: used in political debates about policies.
The role of Utilitarianism:
Applications include euthanasia and drug legalization.
Criticisms of AU often focus on demandingness, predictability, impartiality, and compatibility with rights and justice.
The Case for Utilitarianism in Practice
Euthanasia: AU would assess the overall balance of pleasure/pain.
Drug legalization: AU would weigh societal consequences; harms and benefits.
Criticisms: AU can be seen as too demanding, unable to predict outcomes perfectly, and potentially at odds with individual rights.
Non-Consequentialism and Kant (Overview)
Kantian critique of AU:
AU is too demanding for ordinary moral life; predictions of outcomes are uncertain; impartiality is rejected by some.
Objections that AU reduces persons to vessels of pleasure and pain; moral community might be too large.
Rule Utilitarianism is offered as a reply to some objections.
Emotions need ot be conquered to think clearly.
Non-Consequentialism defined:
Kant (1724-1804): morality grounded in reason, emotion, and moral law.
The traditional debate:
Imperatives: commands that bind action.
Hypothetical imperatives: depend on desires (if you want X, do Y).
Categorical imperatives: universal moral duties regardless of desires.
Two versions of the Kantian approach:
1) Rule Procedure
2) Ends/Means (The Principle of Humanity)
Kantian Imperatives (smth you should do): Rules and Universals (Rule Procedure)
Hypothetical imperative → smth you should do only if you have certain kinds of goals. You should practice a sport if you want to achieve that goal. Do things only if you want to do them.
Categorical imperative → everyone should do these things regardless of your personal disposition. Moral obligations. Everyone is obligated to do these things.
Rule/Universalization procedure
What rule am I endorsing if I do X?
Could the rule be universal? Identify the rule you’re endorsing, and picture everyone doing it.
If yes, you ought to do X.
If not, X is wrong.
Example: Lying. If you choose to lie, you’re implying that everyone should lie, lying becomes universalized. If everyone lies in the world, it becomes logically incoherent.
Being a good person is a matter of being reasonable.
Being a bad person is a matter of not being reasonable.
A = tell the truth; B = lie
Kantian Imperatives: Ends/Means (The Principle of Humanity)
Procedure: Always treat other persons as an end in themselves rather than as a means to an end.
Autonomy: Reason and free will; central to Kantian ethics.
Both formulations (Reason and Autonomy) yield the same verdict for Kantian ethics.
Self-regarding duties: duties to oneself; part of the moral community.
Moral community: those to whom moral duties apply.
Criticisms of Kantian ethics: consideration of consequences matters; applicability to certain cases.
The Case of the Inquiring Murderer:
What rule am I following?
Rule conflicts: Are there categorical reasons to override rules?
Moral community may be too limited if we apply strict duties.
Worked Examples: A and B in Kantian Context
A = tell the truth; B = lie (illustrating the test of universalizable rules)
Summary of Key Kantian Concepts
The Principle of Humanity (End in Itself): always treat persons as ends, not as means.
Autonomy and rational agency as the basis for moral decision making.
Distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
The role of rules, universality, and duties in moral reasoning.
Comparative Reflections and Implications
Consequentialism vs. Kantian ethics:
Consequentialism focuses on outcomes and well-being; Kantian ethics emphasizes duties and rational maxims.
Possible conflicts: a rule that yields good outcomes may be rejected by Kant for violating the principle of treating persons as ends.
Practical implications:
Policy debates (euthanasia, drug legalization) can be analyzed from both perspectives.
Slippery slope concerns often arise in utilitarian justifications of policy changes.
Real-world decision making requires balancing theoretical ideals with practical constraints and rights considerations.
Key Terms and Concepts
Consequentialism: moral worth of an action is determined by its outcomes.
G/B: good to bad ratio used to evaluate actions.
Act Utilitarianism (AU): focuses on the consequences of individual acts to maximize well-being.
Well-being: often equated with pleasure, happiness (Bentham).
Impartiality: treating the interests of all affected beings as equally important in AU.
Moral Community: the set of beings whose interests matter morally.
Slippery Slope: argument that a small step leads to a chain of related events, often dramatic.
Euthanasia, Drug Legalization: examples used to illustrate AU considerations.
Kantian Ethics: morality grounded in reason, autonomy, and universalizable maxims.
Hypothetical Imperatives: commands contingent on desires (not universal).
Categorical Imperatives: universal moral commands binding regardless of desire.
Ends/Means (Principle of Humanity): treat humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means.
Autonomy: rational self-governance and free will as central to moral agency.
Moral Community (Kant): scope of beings to whom we owe duties.
Rule vs Consequence: Kant emphasizes rules and duties; consequentialism emphasizes outcomes.