Module 6: Ethics

How we act towards ourselves, others and the world.

Different Kinds of Ethical Theories

• What is moral relativism

  • Some ethicists see ethics as a science and therefore can infer their beliefs from observations

  • the moral relativist says nuh uh

  • in each community there’s a different standard to what is right and what is ethical, so observations in each place will have different moral codes

  • ethics is not universal and can be observed like science

• What is consequentialism

  • we can determine what is right and wrong based on its consequences

• What is deontology

  • duty based theorizing

    • there ARE universal ethical codes and that we have a duty to follow them

  • Kant’s example

    • “do not lie”

    • if we universalize lying, it would erode the trust between people

  • have very harsh conditions

  • do not think morals are situation dependent

  • often viewed in a more negative light

• what is divine command theory

  • an action is right or wrong depending whether or not the deity you follow says its right or wrong

• What is feminist ethics

  • our ability to do right and be good people is dependent in an oppressive set of circumstances

  • people often do “immoral” things due the circumstances they are put in which causes them to act in certain ways

Extreme Circumstances & Ethical Dilemmas

• ethical dilemma: individuals having to make a decisions where both outcomes are viewed as morally problematic

• guy with a plane crash had to eat the people on board

Singer: Famine & Affluence

• Why should philosophers care about solving issues relating to famine in other parts of the world?

  • its not beyond the capacity of rich nations to alleviate the suffering of poor nations

• Works on a few assumptions

  • that suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad

  • if its within our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of moral importance, we ought to do it

  • without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance = without causing anything else comparably bad to happen or failing to promote some good comparable in significance to the bad thing we can prevent

• What can a drowning child teach us about what we ought to do?

  • prevent the bad, do the good

  • it doesn’t matter how close or distant someone is from me to care for them

  • it does not matter if i am the only person to help or one in a million who could help

• What is the justification for these principles?

  • while it may feel better if someone helped too, but failed to do so, that doesn’t affect whether we ought to help or not

  • am i less obliged to help the drowning child if others are nearby? an excuse for inactivity

• What is the paradox of giving

  • very few people are likely to give

  • even fewer in large amounts

  • so this would mean those who do give more than they are obligated to

  • giving at this point may risk damage to oneself

  • but if everyone does this Bengali will have more than the money needed to help the refugees meaning the giving would be deemed unnecessary

• What is Singer's reaction to the paradox?

  • paradox only arises if funds are sent simultaneously and the giving is unexpected

  • if everyone contributes to something and plans it out problems do not arise

  • the result of everyone doing what he ought to do cannot be worse than the result of doing less than he ought

    • ex: a group project

• What is the final outcome of Singer's argument?

  • distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn

  • ordinarily men who give to charity are praised

    • this shifts if one is obligated to give

  • we would not be sacrificing anything if we continue to wear our old clothes and give to charity relief

    • by doing so, we prevent another person from starving

  • the present way of celebrating charitable man cannot be supported by utilitarian thought

• What objections does Singer consider? What are the responses to these that he presents?

  • Objection: too drastic

    • “shouldn’t condemnation be reserved for violating moral norms?”

    • Sidwick and Urmson

      • we need a basic moral code which is not too far from the capacities of the ordinary man

      • if we tell people they ought refrain from murder and give everything they do not need to famine, they will do neither

      • but they will do if you frame it in terms: you ought refrain from murder and it is good to give to famine relief but not that you ought to, individuals will at least refrain from murder

    • where do we draw the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good but not required so that we get the best social result

    • “what is possible for men to do is influenced by what the people around him are doing and expect him to be doing” - singer

    • shifts the view from what we as individuals can do to what we should require from others

  • objection 2

    • Often made against utilitarianism (a branch of consequentialism that is concerned with generating the greatest overall happiness)

    • Follows from this theory, we all ought to be working full-time to increase the balance of happiness over misery

    • it doesn’t follow from singers theory bc there are mitigating factors to consider

    • nevertheless, we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something of equal moral importance

  • objection 3: government responsibility

    • Giving privately allows the government a means to escape their responsibilities.

    • falsly assumes people are less likely to give if the government also gives

    • the individual giving would put more pressure on the government to give

    • governments do have a responsibility to act and should be giving far more than they are

  • objection 4: population explosion

    • until there is effective population control, relieving famine postpones starvation but doesn’t eliminate it

    • Accepts the planet cannot support infinitely rising population and it poses a problem for anyone who thinks it important to prevent famine

    • Could just endorse giving to efforts working for population control

• What giving is required for individuals

  • reducing ourselves to a level of marginal utility but that doesn’t set us too far ahead of Bengali

  • the goal is taking our philosophy and acting on them

  • we should be reducing our consumption and giving more

Problems with Consequentialism: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

• omelas was a very simple structure wise and happy society

• all imagined good

• scenario is around a summer festival with a horse race

• disabled kid in a broom closet thats abused

  • all of the good things depend on the childs misery

  • they want to help it, but omelas would be destroyed if they do

  • to disabled and inhumane and used to horrible conditions to thrive