Ethical Theory Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism Nonconsequentialism Consequentialism Consequences are not the only thing to consider Ethical Theory The only thing that determines the Consequences Consequences are irrelevant one of several morality of an action to the morality things to � Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) in Practice are its results of an act consider � Criticisms of Consequentialism (consequences) � Kant Prima facie Absolute rules rules or prima or rights. facie rights Kantian ethics (Non-absolute rules or rights) Consequentialism “in practice” What is “good” consequence to promote? ► Happiness as only good � Bentham: quantity of pleasure ► If right act is one that creates good � Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure consequences, good for whom? ► Satisfaction of preferences as the good ► Answer: for everyone affected . (less paternalistic?) ► Must be impartial: self or family counts no � Goes with capitalism (see later slide) more (or less) than anyone else � “Preference utilitarianism” Must Choose Best Possible Act How do we get the numbers? ► Number of people (non-humans?) affected Act A Act B Act C ► “Intensity” of the effect + 15 +9 +8 ► Likelihood ► (Should we also consider whether effect will -10 -3 -1 happen sooner or later?) 5 6 7 Ethics 1
Ethical Theory How does utilitarian theory get applied A weak criticism of consequentialism: “we as cost-benefit analysis? can’t predict the future” ► The “minus points” are costs (e.g., $$$) ► Consequentialism takes that into account ► The “plus points” are benefits such as (likelihood) � Lives saved ► Reasonable to “play the odds,” just as we � Reduction in risk of dying do in everyday life � Suffering avoided (e.g., days in hospital) ► Falsely assumes that a good ethical theory � Pleasure gained must be simple and easy to apply. � Likelihood (% chance) must be considered: a 50% chance of 100 plus points of benefit = +50. ► Typical: is it worth spending a million dollars to . . .? What are the problems of CBA? Problem of Preferences ► The “dwarfing of soft variables”—stuff ► People often want things based on that can’t easily be quantified as dollars manipulation or advertising. like enjoyment of a sunny day. ► People are irrational at estimating risks. ► Defining the value of a human life in ► People often desire things for short-term dollar terms. gain that conflict with genuine happiness � Expected future earnings? (smoking, spending spree, long-term � Willingness to pay for reduction in risks environmental damage for quick profits). � Wording of surveys � Problems of accepting human preferences. Key Concepts ► Moral rules and moral rights Criticisms of ► Justice (as one part of morality) Consequentialism ► Morally relevant difference between acts and omissions ► Intuition and “reflective equilibrium” ► Testing whether an argument withstands criticism Ethics 2
Ethical Theory Problems Applying vs. Criticisms Criticisms of Consequentialism (overview) Utilitarianism does not take into account 1. ► “Problems applying” utilitarianism do not rights and rules. challenge the whole approach of the theory. Utilitarianism does not take into account 2. (Criticisms do.) justice. ► They are things utilitarians disagree about. Consequentialism does not take into account 3. special obligations to special people ► If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) Consequentialism does not take into account 4. is the right theory, then we may still debate the morally relevant difference between acts and omissions � What things are good (happiness, etc.)? Consequentialism requires too much of us � How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life) 5. (relate this to #3) Consequentialism ignores moral rules and moral rights ► A fundamental question of all ethics: Do we need the notion of rights? ► Big problems: Where do rights come from? What rights do we have? ► But can we have an acceptable ethical theory without rights? 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
Ethical Theory “We Broke Theory and Particular Cases Him” ► For three months of interrogation, Mr. Faruq ► Can’t decide on particular case first and provided investigators with only scraps. "He then pick the theory that matches. Why not? was a hostile interrogation," said a Western intelligence specialist. ► But we do test theory by application to ► Then, two weeks ago, the interrogators specific cases. (Analogy with science.) "broke him ," the specialist said. ► Debate on role of intuition. ► He declined to provide any details of ► Reflective equilibrium. the techniques employed in the questioning. Justice in 2 Areas Utilitarianism Ignores Justice ► Distributive justice : 10% of population � how should economic goods be distributed? becomes slaves. � Is it fair that some are rich and others poor ► Criminal justice: what is the justification for 90% are extremely punishment? Two main approaches: happy. � Utilitarian ► Protection of society Society has greatest ► Rehabilitation, if possible balance of +/- points. Everyone has freedom ► Deterrence � Retributive Utilitarian chooses this. Total happiness not as ► People freely choosing evil deserve punishment great ► The punishment should fit the crime ► Only the guilty should be punished (We didn’t discuss criminal justice in class; see course pack) Utilitarianism Ignores Special What principle might justify special Obligations to Special People obligation of… But why should I save my daughter over ► Parents to their children? 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 ► Person to a friend? would do. ► Need an ethical principle. Ethics 4
Ethical Theory 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 Possible Quiz 2 ► What is the strongest criticism of In one clear sentence, state one formulation utilitarianism? Why? of Kant’s categorical imperative. ► Can utilitarianism withstand criticism ? ► Basic: A claim is well-grounded if the (The course pack discusses 2 of them.) arguments for it can withstand criticism. ► A “well-grounded claim” is one more worthy of belief. Consequentialism and Kantian Ethics Nonconsequentialism ► Difference between acts and omissions: action is Consequentialism Nonconsequentialism done with a particular intent Consequences are not ► When I buy running shoes, I don’t intend to kill the only thing to The only thing that innocent people consider determines the ► Kant: utilitarianism doesn’t understand the Consequences Consequences morality of an action are irrelevant one of several meaning of a moral agent. to the morality are its results things to of an act consider ► Kant: consequences are irrelevant to morality (consequences) ► Happiness and unhappiness can result from Prima facie Absolute rules earthquakes, sunsets, puppy dogs. rules or prima or rights. facie rights Kantian (Non-absolute ethics rules or rights) Ethics 5
Recommend
More recommend
