Example of Moral Dilemma

Cheating on a Boyfriend: Magjowa si Mariz and Rico. Isang araw, nag-away sila kasi nagpaalam si Mariz na sasamahan niya daw mga kaibigan niya sa bar para magcelebrate ng birthday ng kabigan niya na si Anthony. Eh ayaw ni Rico, ‘di siya pumapayag. So nag-away sila hanggang sa parang napupunta na sa usapang break up pero di pa sila nagbe-break non,then pumunta pa rin si Mariz. So ‘di muna sila nagpansinan kasi magkaaway sila. Nung nasa bar na si Mariz, nilandi niya yung kaibigan niya na si Anthony, which is still considered cheating kasi ‘di pa rin naman sila break ni Rico. So after the party at the bar, ilang araw lang nagbati na uli si Mariz at Rico. The moral dilemma is dapat pa bang sabihin ni Mariz yung cheating incident at the bar or ‘wag na kasi maayos naman na silang dalawa ni Rico?

• The ethical action to do is to tell the truth.

  • Kahit nag-away kayo, and napag-usapan yung about sa breakup - mali pa rin yung cheating kasi ‘di naman kayo totally nagcommit sa break up

  • It’s important for your partner to know the truth kasi accountable ka sa kaniya. Mariz should accept the consequences of her actions even if it means magbe-break na talaga sila.

  • Mas lalala yung situation kung hindi aamin si Mariz kasi baka sa iba pa marinig ni Rico yung cheating incident. Cofessing the truth will allow Mariz to explain herself and ask for forgiveness. The act of confessing shows na she didn’t only regret the consequences of her actions but she totally abhors the act of infidelity that she did.
    

UTILITARIANISM

Kantianism

• Immanuel Kant

• All about sticking to the moral rulebook. There are never any exceptions, or any excuses, for violating moral rules

Utilitarianism

• Moral theory that focuses on the results or consequences of our actions and treats intentions as irrelevant

• Good consequences = Good actions

• Modern utilitarianism was founded in the 18th century by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill but has philosophical ancestors: Epicurus

➢ They all agreed that actions should be measured in terms of the happiness

or pleasure, that they produce

➢ Happiness is our final end - "I want all I want because it will make me feel

happy"

• Utilitarians agree that a moral theory should apply to everyone.

➢ They thought that the way to do that was to ground it in something that's

really intuitive and there's really nothing more basic than the primal desire

to seek pleasure and avoid pain

• Utilitarianism is hedonistic and not egoistic

➢ Hedonistic moral theory - The good is equal to the pleasant and we ought,

morally, to pursue pleasure and happiness and work to avoid pain

➢ Egoism - Everyone ought, morally, to pursue their own good

• It is "Other-regarding"

➢ We should pursue pleasure or happiness - not just for ourselves, but for

as many sentient beings as possible

• Principle of Utility - "We should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number"

  • ➢ It can mean sacrificing your pleasure, in order to produce more good overall

  • ➢ You've chosen the action that would produce the most overall happiness for the group, even though it produced less happiness for you than other alternatives would have

  • ➢ Where morality is concerned, utilitarians argue, as special as you are, you are no more special that anybody else

  • ➢ Utilitarians suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent disinterested spectator

• Rather than thinking about what I should do, they suggest that I consider what I would think if I were advising a group of strangers about what they should do

• This would yield a fair and unbiased judgment about what's really

best for the group

Thought example

- Jim is on a botanical expedition in South America when he happens upon a group of 20 indigenous people, and a group of soldiers. The whole group is about to be executed for protesting their oppressive regime. For some reason, the leader of the soldiers offers Jim the chance to shoot one of the prisoners, since he's a guest in their land. He says that if Jim shoots one of the prisoners, he'll let the other 19 go. But if Jim refuses, then the soldiers will shoot all 20 protesters. What should Jim do?

Utilitarianism: Jim should shoot 1 to save 19

Critique: No moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life. It's not Jim's fault that the head shoulder is a total dirt bag and Jim shouldn't have to get the literal blood on his hands to try and rectify the situation

• Utilitarianism is a really demanding moral theory*

➢ We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we're

the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things

better, we must, even if that means we must get our hands dirty.

➢ Jim should not think about killing one man because that man was dead

already, because they were all about to be killed. Jim should think of his

decision as doing what it takes to save 19.

• Types of Utilitarianism

➢ Act Utilitarianism (Classical Utilitarianism) - In any given situation, you

should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest

number.

• A surgeon should kill his neighbor to save five dying patients.

➢ Rule Utilitarianism - Version of the theory that says we ought to live by

rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest

number.

• Allows us to refrain from acts that maximize utility in the short run, and

instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time.

KANT AND CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

Divine Command Theory

• Argues that what's good, and what's not, are determined by a deity, whether that's the God of Abraham, or a panoply of Gods who come up with ethical rules by committee

Natural Law Theory

• Morality comes from us because we were made by God, who preloaded us with moral sensibilities

Immanuel Kant

• Thought religion and morality was a terrible pairing, and if anything, the two should be kept apart

➢ In order to determine what's right, you have to use reason

➢ He thought morality was a constant, in an almost mathematical sense

• Most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn't really a moral choice - instead it's just contingent on our desires

• Kant viewed morality through categorical imperatives

  • ➢ Hypothetical imperatives - They're commands that you should follow if you want something

    • If-then statements

    • About prudence rather than morality

  • ➢ Categorical imperatives - Commands you must follow, regardless of your desires. Moral obligations are derived from pure reason. It doesn't matter whether you want to be moral or not-The moral law is binding on all of us

• You don't need religion to determine what law is, because what's right and wrong is totally knowable just by using your intellect

  • Can be understood in terms of various formulations

  • Formulations - Different ways of phrasing or looking at the same essential idea

Four formulations of the Categorical Imperative

1. The Universalizability Principle - Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

About the Universality of our actions.

a. Maxim - Rule or principle of action

b. Universal law - Something that must always be done in similar situations

c. What's the maxim of my action?" "What's the general rule that stands

behind the particular action I'm considering?" - If you should be able to do

it, then everyone should be able to do it

1. Moral actions cannot bring about contradictions"

2. It’s not fair to make exceptions for yourself"

Thought example:

- One morning, Elvira and Tony are having breakfast. Then a stranger comes to the door and asks where Tony is, so he can kill him. Obviously, Elvira's impulse is to lie and say that Tony isn't around right now in order to protect him from this would-be murderer.

Kant - The girl can't lie-not ever, not even to save Tony's life. Elvira is responsible for Tony's death, because her lie caused it. Had she told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might have occurred.

2. The formula of humanity - Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means.

a. Mere means - Use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the

interests or benefit of the thing you're using

1. It is okay for objects to be treated as mere-means but not humans

2. Ends-in-ourselves - Humans are not mere objects that exist to be used by others. We're our own ends. We're rational and autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals, and work toward them.

c. End-in-herself - Recognize the humanity of the person you're encountering,

to realize that she has goals, values, and interest of her own, and you must,

morally keep that in mind in your encounters with her

1. We use other people and that's okay. Because most of the time, we

use other people as a means for something, but not as a mere means. We still recognize their humanity when we use them, and they agree to being used.

2. We all we deserve to not be used as mere means, because of our autonomy-Unlike other things in the world, we're self-governed. We're able to set our own ends to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills.

3. This imbues us with an absolute moral worth

• We shouldn't be me manipulated or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit.

d. Kant argued that proper, rational application of the categorical imperative

will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents.

Irrational Man

Abe Lucas was first inclined to nihilism which asserts that life or the universe is ultimately meaningless or purposeless. Therefore, all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. He was taken to drink, lost his sense of purpose and meaning in life, and become creatively blocked, impotent and suicidal.

There are hints provided that he has been severely traumatized by life, having lost his mother to suicide when twelve, later being betrayed and abandoned by his wife and best friend, and, perhaps the final straw, having another close buddy blown up by a landmine in the Middle East. These are existential crises, major losses, from which he evidently never recovered.

Not until he happens quite by accident upon what he perceives as an opportunity to do something good, something important, something significant--to rid the world of a biased judge and the needless suffering he has supposedly inflicted upon others by murdering him--does his despair, depression, apathy and malaise suddenly disappear.

Abe is convinced that by committing this single crime, he is following what might be existentialist Ernest Becker's counsel in The Denial of Death, that all that we can do to make life meaningful is contribute something to the world while we are still alive, despite the fact that it is the equivalent to dropping a minuscule droplet of water into a vast cosmic ocean.

As existential analyst Viktor Frankl, when we experience an "existential vacuum," a loss or absence of meaning and purpose in life, there is always the risk that this emptiness will be filled by something neurotic, negative or evil. Nature abhors a vacuum. The inner necessity to create and assert oneself in the world can be expressed constructively or destructively. We, as individuals, are responsible for how we deal with life's inevitable existential crises, and for ethically choosing between evil and good, destructiveness and creativity, disintegration or integration of the personality, in our efforts to resolve or weather them. Tragically, sometimes in desperation to find or create some sense of meaning, purpose, significance or recognition in life, we can be tempted to engage in evil by irrationally disguising it to ourselves as good. And, in so doing, we sooner or later, in some way or another, fall prey to the consequences of that same evil deed.