OB

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