+ 15 +9 +8 Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure - PDF document

Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant Quiz 1 (Out of 4 points; 5 points possible) Ethical Theory (continued) In one clear sentence, state one of the criticisms of consequentialism discussed in the course pack. (up to 2 bonus points): In one clear sentence, state what you regard as Williams’ criticism of utilitarianism. ( not an example; examples are not themselves arguments but support arguments. Here I am asking for the argument itself.) Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism Consequentialism “in practice” Nonconsequentialism Consequentialism Consequences are not the • If right act is one that creates good only thing to consider The only thing that consequences, good for whom? determines the Consequences Consequences • Answer: for everyone affected . one of several are irrelevant to morality of an action the morality of things to are its results an act consider • Must be impartial: self or family counts no (consequences) more (or less) than anyone else Prima facie Absolute rules rules or prima or rights. facie rights Kantian ethics (Non-absolute rules or rights) What is “good” consequence to Must Choose Best Possible Act promote? Act A Act B Act C • Happiness as only good – Bentham: quantity of pleasure + 15 +9 +8 – Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure • Satisfaction of preferences as the good -10 -3 -1 (less paternalistic?) – Goes with capitalism (see later slide) 5 6 7 – “Preference utilitarianism” Ethics 1

Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant A weak criticism of consequentialism: How do we get the numbers? “we can’t predict the future” • Number of people (non-humans?) affected • Consequentialism takes that into account • “Intensity” of the effect (likelihood) • Likelihood • Reasonable to “play the odds,” just as we do in everyday life • (Should we also consider whether effect will happen sooner or later?) • Falsely assumes that a good ethical theory must be simple and easy to apply. What are the problems of CBA? How does utilitarian theory get applied as cost-benefit analysis? • The “dwarfing of soft variables”—stuff that • The “minus points” are costs (e.g., $$$) can’t easily be quantified as dollars like • The “plus points” are benefits such as enjoyment of a sunny day. – Lives saved • Defining the value of a human life in dollar – Reduction in risk of dying terms. – Suffering avoided (e.g., days in hospital) – Expected future earnings? – Pleasure gained – Willingness to pay for reduction in risks – Likelihood (% chance) must be considered: a 50% chance of 100 plus points of benefit = +50. – Wording of surveys • Typical: is it worth spending a million dollars to . . .? – Problems of accepting human preferences. Problem of Preferences • People often want things based on Criticisms of manipulation or advertising. Consequentialism • People are irrational at estimating risks. • People often desire things for short-term gain that conflict with genuine happiness (smoking, spending spree, long-term environmental damage for quick profits). Ethics 2

Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant Key Concepts Problems Applying vs. Criticisms • “Problems applying” utilitarianism do not • Moral rules and moral rights challenge the whole approach of the theory. • Justice (as one part of morality) (Criticisms do.) • Morally relevant difference between acts • They are things utilitarians disagree about. and omissions • If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is the right theory, then we may still debate • Intuition and “reflective equilibrium” – What things are good (happiness, etc.)? • Testing whether an argument withstands – How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life) criticism Consequentialism ignores Criticisms of Consequentialism (overview) moral rules and moral rights 1. Utilitarianism does not take into account rights • A fundamental question of all ethics: and rules. Do we need the notion of rights? 2. Utilitarianism does not take into account justice. 3. Consequentialism does not take into account • Big problems: Where do rights come from? special obligations to special people What rights do we have? 4. Consequentialism does not take into account the morally relevant difference between acts and • But can we have an acceptable ethical omissions theory without rights? 5. Consequentialism requires too much of us (relate this to #3) A Test Case for Consequentialism A friendly country turns over to the United States someone with close ties to, and information about, terrorist activities planned against the United States. You think that gaining this information could prevent a terrorist attack and many deaths. The man is hostile and not ready to talk. What is it morally acceptable to do to extract information from this man? What are the limits? Ethics 3

Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant “We Broke Him” • For three months of interrogation, Mr. Faruq provided investigators with only scraps. "He was a hostile interrogation," said a Western intelligence specialist. • Then, two weeks ago, the interrogators "broke him ," the specialist said. • He declined to provide any details of the techniques employed in the questioning. Theory and Particular Cases Utilitarianism Ignores Justice • Can’t decide on particular case first and 10% of population then pick the theory that matches. Why not? becomes slaves. 90% are extremely • But we do test theory by application to happy. specific cases. (Analogy with science.) Everyone has freedom Society has greatest • Debate on role of intuition. Total happiness not as balance of +/ - points. great • Reflective equilibrium. Utilitarian chooses this. Utilitarianism Ignores Special What principle might justify Obligations to Special People special obligation of… • Parents to their children? But why should I save my daughter over 100 starving children? • Children to their parents? • Person to a 2-year-old brother? • Cannot appeal to feelings • Person to a cousin? • Cannot appeal to what most people would do. • Person to a friend? • Need an ethical principle. Ethics 4

Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant Morally Relevant Difference Williams: kill one Indian to save 19 others? Between Acts and Omissions • What if killing can reduce the number who die, as • Why does Williams think utilitarianism is Williams’ Indian example? wrong? • Is it morally worse to kill a patient who wants to die than not to treat? • What does he mean by “integrity”? • Is it morally worse to bomb innocent civilians than • a special responsibility for what we do in to allow them to die by not acting? contrast to what others do or what we let • Is it wrong to buy running shoes when the money happen. could save many people’s lives? • Some criticize utilitarianism for requiring too much. Think About Quiz 2 • What is the strongest criticism of (Out of 4 points; 5 points possible) utilitarianism? Why? In one clear sentence, state one formulation of • Can utilitarianism withstand criticism ? Kant’s categorical imperative. • Basic: A claim is well-grounded if the arguments for it can withstand criticism. (The course pack discusses 2 of them.) • A “well-grounded claim” is one more worthy of belief. Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism Kantian Ethics Nonconsequentialism Consequentialism • Difference between acts and omissions: action is Consequences are not the done with a particular intent only thing to consider The only thing that • When I buy running shoes, I don’t intend to kill determines the innocent people Consequences Consequences are irrelevant to one of several morality of an action • Kant: utilitarianism doesn’t understand the the morality of things to are its results an act consider meaning of a moral agent. (consequences) • Kant: consequences are irrelevant to morality Prima facie Absolute rules rules or prima or rights. • Happiness and unhappiness can result from facie rights earthquakes, sunsets, puppy dogs. Kantian (Non-absolute ethics rules or rights) Ethics 5