Unit 3 -Philosophical Ethics and Political Philosophy
What kinds of questions do we ask when we do ethics?
What is the right thing to do?
What is the wrong thing to do?
What is the good?
What does it mean to live the good life?
What is just, courageous, prudent (virtuous)?
What will generate the best effects?
What is my duty or obligation?
What are my, and other people’s rights?
Free will and Determinism
The Dilemma of Determinism
Can you be morally responsible for your actions if you don’t have free will?
If determinism is true, we are not responsible, since our choices are determined by factors over which we have no control
If indeterminism is true, we are not responsible, since our choices are chance occurrences
Types of Determinism
Logical determinism - we know that true or false claims about the future can be made (even if we don’t know yet what they are)
Theological determinism - if God holds prior beliefs, those cannot be wrong
Physical determinism - every event is the result of the past material history of the world
What does it mean to be free?
Freedom is the ability to act or choose otherwise
Newtonian physics and the rise of determinism
Quantum mechanics and indeterminism
Resolving the tension
Can you have free will and determinism be true?
If yes, then you are a compatbilist
If no, then you are an incompatibilist
Compatabilism
Also describes as soft determinism
The compatabilism think that there is a way in which a person could have done otherwise, even though they chose to do something else and that those actions and choices are determined
Incompatibilism
Hard determinism
Free will is an illusion and does not really exist
Scientific experiments and free will
Libertarianism - we have free will
A though experiment
The compatibilist definition of free will doesn’t make sense: there must be some sort of agent-causality
Moral Relativity and Objectivity
First and second order moral views
The independence thesis
Arguments for Moral Relativism
The metaphysical argument
It does not seem that any property, things such as “rightness” or “to-be-doneness” exists in the world
If such a property does not exist then morality cannot be objective, because it would have to be created rather than found
Are there moral experts to whom we should defer when making moral decisions?
If morality is objective, why would be not defer to experts who specialize in discovering objective morals?
The motivational argument
This critique thinks about why you act in certain ways, like dinking water. You do not do so because you have reasoned your way to the fact that you must drink (normally) but rather because you are thirsty
Where and how have you learned ethics?
Ethics is a form of practical reasoning
The argument for disagreement
It is obvious that people disagree about morals in the present and have throughout history, so how could it be objective?
Quotidian moral relativism
Robust moral relativism
Questions of authority
Questions of judging
Problems with Relativism
Individual relativism
Why are there conflicts if it’s all relative?
Personal infallibility makes no sense
It is logically incoherent to claim that “all truth is relative”
Moral equivalence is intuitively implausible
Social relativism
Many of the same issues as individual relativism
Conflicts, at times, with our notions of human rights
Societies are above moral criticism
You can never have any reformers
Theories of Ethics
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
The greatest happiness principle - act in such a way that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for the most people
How do we measure pleasure and pain?
This is not rational egoism
Deontology
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Categorical imperative - act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law
Humanity formulation - treat everyone, in their humanity, as an end not as a means. Respect humanity
What does it look like?
rule following
Acting from duty and not just in accordance with duty
Human rights
Virtue Ethics
Aristotle - the chief end of humanity is eudaimonia
“Virtue is a state that decides the mean relative to use to the reason by reference to which the prudent person would define it. It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency”
Particular case
Feelings of fear and confidence
Giving and taking money
Excess
Foolhardiness; without fear and rash
Wastefulness
Mean
Courageous
Generous
Deficiency
Cowardice
Stinginess
The end (telos) of a human person answers questions such as:
What does it mean to be a human being?(or)
What is a well-lived life?
What is the good life?
What will bring happiness to a human life?
“I can only answer the question ‘what and I to do?’ If I can answer the prior questions ‘of what story or stories do i find myself a part?’” - Alasdair Maclntyre
Using these Theories
Is there a best theory?
Applying Ethics
Types of Ethics
Descriptive ethics - doesn’t make any claims or theories, but just describes
Normative ethics - gives a way to reason through; will guide you to act
Metaethics - ethical implications, but doesn’t tell us how to live
The beginning of the universe
Applied ethics - applying theories to situations
Applying Ethics
Simplifying examples
Analogies
Crafting plausible principles
Singer: famine, affluence, and morality
“The way the people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal [i.e., famine] cannot be justified” (pg 679)
Thesis: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (pg 679)
This should take no account of proximity
Impartiality and negative responsibility
Should not matter if others could also provide aid
This upsets the categories of duty and charity
Supererogation is not possible
I ought to give money way rather than spend it on clothes that I don’t need to keep me warm…To do so it not charitable, or generous…we ought to give money away, and it is wrong not to do so - Singer
How much should we give away?
Among practicing christians
5% do not give financially
34% give, the amount varies
8% give, the proportion varies yearly%
11% giving is set at less than 10% of income
42% giving is set at 10% or more
Diamond: Eating meat and people
Speciesism: “our attitude to members of other species we have prejudices which are completely analogous to the prejudices people may have regard to members of other races," sex, etc. (pf 723)
Singer and others who assert speciesism begin by drawing a connection between humans and other (animal) lives
An articulation of specieisism’s argument: “we are only one kind of animal; if what is fair for us is concern for our interest, that depends only on our being living animals with interests - and if that is fair, it is fair for any animal” (pg 726)
This often relies on the notion of rights
It also raises questions of moral status
Substantive approach
Singer suggests sentience or the ability to feel pain is what gives animals equal status with humans
Functional approach
Relational approach
Imago Die - image/reflection of God
Diamond thinks we must begin by asking about the significance of being human. In other words, what are the differences between humans and animals?
We do not eat our dead…even if they die of natural causes, amputations, etc. (except in situations of extreme need, particular rituals, etc.)
This discinciton is visible in the fact that we do not eat pets
“A pet is not something to eat”… if someone eats a pet, then it is not a “pet” in the way that we mean the word
A pet “is given a name, is let into our house and may be spoken to in ways in which we do not normally speak to cows or squirrels. That is to say, it is given some part of the character of a person
Diamond is a vegetarian…but she describes Singer as a knee-jerk liberal on racism and sexism extending that sentiment to cows and guinea pigs
Because she fears that doing so will cause us to lose sight of the fact that human life is at “the source of moral life, and not appeal to the prevention of suffering which is blind to this can in the end be anything but self-destructive” (pg 726)
Anscombe’s Intention
Mr. Truman’s degree
When “a man is known everywhere” as a notorious criminal”, “it is sycophancy to honor him”
“For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder, and murder is one of the worst of human actions” (pg 741)
Definitions of intention
Foreseen consequences
The relevant answer to the questions “why”?
Should intentions be considered internal and private?
What consequences are you responsible for?
If ethics is only about foreseen consequences, you are only responsible for the consequences that you anticipate and hope to bring about (Anscombe think this is wrong)
Anscombe thinks you are responsible for the good results of good actions (but not the bad results)
Anscombe thinks you are responsible for the bad results of bad actions (but not the good results)
Moral Theology (Christian Ethics)
Teaching and Learning Christian Ethics
Moral theology and/or Christian ethics
How do theology and ethics relate? Is Christian ethics just one more theory to choose from when thinking about ethics?
What is ethics?
“As an academic discipline, ethics has been in search of a method, system, or procedure that will give it precision, so that an individual know what they ought to do” (pg 1)
If ethics becomes theory it is separated from what matters most - life
“What theology brings to ethics is an understanding of the moral life as a gift that seeks to participate in divine perfection” (pg xi)
Ethics is a gift found in the virtues of faith, hope, and love
We receive all these through charity that comes through the Holy Spirit
Theology Matters
Christology - how Jesus lives
Christian ethics vs moral theology
Anthropology - study of humanity and nature
Pneumatology - study of the Holy Spirit
Ecclesiology - study of the church
Eschatology - study of the end times
Political Philosophy
Ethics and Political philosophy
It is hard to draw a sharp line between ethics and political philosophy
One’s ethical approach brings with it a politics
Plato’s Republic
Political Authority
Imagine a world in which there is no government. There are no taxes, no armies, police, etc…What would that world look like?
This is the sate of nature
Social Contract
The social contract theory suggests that we all sacrifice some of our individual freedoms in order to establish a sovereign that will help us live in harmony together
Political authority combines coercion and trust
Forms of Sovereignty
Monarchy - no indecisiveness or subject to internal divisions
Aristocracy - “rule of the best”
Democracy - majority rule
Everyone has a voice
Anarchist Critiques
Because of the oppression and domination that comes from sovereigns (in any form), life would be better without then entirely
Communitarian anarchists - there have been stateless societies that live in better harmony than those with sovereigns
Utilitarian/ market anarchists (libertarians) - society would be better if the market decided what people wanted and goods were bought/sold rather than having any common goods
Freedom and Limits to Liberty
Negative freedom - “freedom from” or noninterference; having multiple choices available
This is classical liberalism
Positive freedom - “freedom for” or the ability to genuinely choose differently
Can a homeless person free to eat at the Ritz?
Negative freedom - yes; has freedom to eat at the Ritz
Positive freedom - no; does not have the freedom to afford to eat at the Ritz
The blanket idea that “the move a government does, the less freedom we have” people doesn’t capture important aspects of freedom
Some things restrict freedoms (seat-belt legislation), but some things ave things possible that otherwise would not have been (ex. government funding for education)
Mill and Liberty
Mill believes that some actions, those that don’t harm other, should be involably free
Unless an action causes harm, the following items should fall within this real on liberty: expressing and publishing opinions, framing the plan of one’s own life, uniting with others for common purposes
For Mill, harm is generally physical harm and does not include offenses
Mill thinks that offense is not a harm. Can harm and offense be separated?
Three things to consider when evaluating harm and offense
Is it a matter of personal idiosyncrasy or generally offensive?
Is it avoidable?
Does the offensive behavior have positive value in contrast to the distress it causes?
Mill thinks the alcoholic should only have freedom limited if they are violent
What is the alcoholic ends up in the Emergency Room weekly?…Should there freedom be limited?
Should people’s diets be monitored?
Rawls and Justice
Commutative justice - fairness in exchange
Distributive justice - equality is distribution of resources
Challenges
Need - unequal distribution of resources (natural lottery)
Desert - unequal distribution of talents
Veil of Ignorance and the Fact of Oppression
Equality of Fair opportunity
Everyone has a fair opportunity to succeed
Two principles
“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others” pg. 1126
“Social and economic inequalites are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest expected benefits of the least advantage and (b) attached to office and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity…” pg. 1130
Christian Political Philosophy
Dangers to be avoided in two extremes
Christians should transform culture and make it according to their own values
Can become theocracy, dominionism, constantinian
There are two distinct realms of culture and church (two swords) and the values of one do no translate necessarily to the others
Can become quietism
The church is an alternative culture, It does not “have a social ethic; it is a social ethic”
Can become sectarianism