Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 252 views

    Ethics

    Uploaded by

    balablooms
    This document provides an overview of several key theories and approaches in ethics, including: 1) Natural Law theory, which views morality as derived from human nature and rationality. Modern variants focus on individual rights. 2) Kantian ethics, which argues morality is derived from reason alone. Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative to determine moral duties. 3) Consequentialism and deontology, with the former arguing actions are right based on their outcomes, and the latter arguing some acts are intrinsically right or wrong. 4) Virtue ethics focuses on character traits rather than rules or outcomes. It draws from ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle. 5) Rights-based approaches view individuals as having

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ethics

    Uploaded by

    balablooms
    252 views31 pages
    This document provides an overview of several key theories and approaches in ethics, including: 1) Natural Law theory, which views morality as derived from human nature and rationality. Modern variants focus on individual rights. 2) Kantian ethics, which argues morality is derived from reason alone. Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative to determine moral duties. 3) Consequentialism and deontology, with the former arguing actions are right based on their outcomes, and the latter arguing some acts are intrinsically right or wrong. 4) Virtue ethics focuses on character traits rather than rules or outcomes. It draws from ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle. 5) Rights-based approaches view individuals as having

    Original Description:

    Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of several key theories and approaches in ethics, including: 1) Natural Law theory, which views morality as derived from human nature and rationality. Modern variants focus on individual rights. 2) Kantian ethics, which argues morality is derived from reason alone. Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative to determine moral duties. 3) Consequentialism and deontology, with the former arguing actions are right based on their outcomes, and the latter arguing some acts are intrinsically right or wrong. 4) Virtue ethics focuses on character traits rather than rules or outcomes. It draws from ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle. 5) Rights-based approaches view individuals as having

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    252 views31 pages

    Ethics

    Uploaded by

    balablooms
    This document provides an overview of several key theories and approaches in ethics, including: 1) Natural Law theory, which views morality as derived from human nature and rationality. Modern variants focus on individual rights. 2) Kantian ethics, which argues morality is derived from reason alone. Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative to determine moral duties. 3) Consequentialism and deontology, with the former arguing actions are right based on their outcomes, and the latter arguing some acts are intrinsically right or wrong. 4) Virtue ethics focuses on character traits rather than rules or outcomes. It draws from ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle. 5) Rights-based approaches view individuals as having

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 31

    Ethics and ethical theories

    Unit 1
    Marco EL. Guidi

    Positive vs. normative discourse

    True / false

    Good / bad

    (Beautiful / ugly)

    Positive statements:

    Existence, attributes ...

    Description, interpretation, analysis ...

    Normative statements:

    Duties, rights, rules, laws

    Prescription, regulation, ...

    Humes is / ought distinction


    Also known as
    Humes guillotine

    David Hume (1711-1776)

    Humes is /ought distinction

    A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), book III, part I,


    section I:

    In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I


    have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some
    time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the
    being of a God, or makes observations concerning human
    affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that
    instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is
    not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an
    ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is
    however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or
    ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis
    necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at
    the same time that a reason should be given; for what
    seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can
    be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from
    it.

    Aristotles map of philosophy


    PHILOSOPHY

    theoretical

    practical

    Logic
    Physics
    Natural history
    Metaphysics

    Morals
    (government of ones person)

    Economy
    (government of the house)

    Politics
    (government of the city)

    Positive vs. Normative: proofs

    Positive discourse:

    Verification, falsification

    Normative discourse:

    Argumentation, comparison

    Living traditions
    in contemporary ethics

    Natural Law

    How ought I to live?

    Kantian Ethics

    What ought I do?

    Normative ethics:

    Main approaches:

    The Social Contract


    Tradition

    Egoism

    Deontology

    Ethic of Prima Facie


    Duties

    Virtue Theory

    Rights

    Consequentialism

    Utilitarianism

    Natural Law
    (Stephen Buckle 1991)

    There is a(n unchanging?) normative order that


    is a part of the natural world
    Origin: Aristotle, the Stoics
    For Aquinas the natural law is natural because
    it is in accordance with human nature, and this
    nature is a rational nature
    The law-like character of natural law is a
    function of its rationality Law = an ordinance
    of reason for the common good
    Natural theology and natural law

    Natural Law

    Modern natural law tradition (Grotius,


    Pufendorf, Hobbes, Locke):
    Divine providence is infinitely good order of
    the world (God is a clock-maker)
    Two types of laws:

    physical (deterministic)

    moral (requiring voluntary acceptance)

    Dualistic notion of law:

    diritto naturale

    diritto positivo

    Natural Law
    (Stephen Buckle 1991)

    Modern variant: secular theory of human rights

    Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace (1625)


    Pufendorf, On the Law of Nature and Nations
    (1672)

    Moral domain: a body of individual rights

    Right as the moral quality of a person

    Morality as the result of human transactions


    between independent moral agents (contracts,
    consensus, rational choice)
    Separateness of persons

    Natural Law

    Problems:

    (Stephen Buckle 1991)

    If moral duties depend on my having freely


    accepted them, why cannot I renege on them when
    I find it convenient to do so?
    Irreducible diversity of human beliefs pluralistic
    view of human goods /ends no criterion for
    human goods above and beyond the preference of
    actual human individuals (Bentham: caprice)
    Two ways out:

    Insisting on the separateness of persons and


    distinguishing the possession and justification of rights
    from any overarching human good (Nozicks Anarchy,
    State and Utopia)
    Weighting individual preferences (preference utilitarianism)

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    Human morality derives


    from reason

    Groundwork of the
    Metaphysics of Morals
    (1785)
    Critique of Practical
    Reason (1787)
    The Metaphysics of Morals
    (1797)

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    We cannot do without an idea of ourselves as


    agents and as moral beings
    Human freedom = capacity to act autonomously
    is not part of the natural world
    Causality and freedom apply in separate
    domains

    Knowledge is restricted to causality

    Morality is restricted to freedom

    Central question: what ought I do?

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    Principles of ethics constructed according to


    rational procedures
    Minimal question:

    What maxims could be adopted by a plurality of


    agents without assuming anything specific about
    the agents desires and social relations?

    Moral principles ought to be universally valid

    Categorical imperative:

    Act only on the maxim through which you can at


    the same time will that it be a universal law

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    Example:

    false promising is wrong not because of its


    consequences, but because it cannot be willed as a
    universal principle.

    Acting according to morally worthy principles is acting


    out of duty
    Duties:

    Perfect: they hold for all agents in all their actions with
    all possible others

    (refraining from false promises, coercion, violence)

    Imperfect: less complete and lacking counterpart rights

    We cannot help all others in all needed ways, nor can we


    develop all possible talents in ourselves

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    Formulations of the Categorical imperative:

    We ought to to treat humanity on our own person


    or in the person of any other never simply as a
    means but always at the same time as an end
    Demand for respect for persons
    To use another is to treat her as a thing and not as
    an agent
    It implies doing something to which the other cannot
    consent

    Example: deceivers make it impossible for their victims to


    consent to their projects

    Kantian Ethics
    (Onora ONeill 1991)

    Criticisms:

    Formalism (the categorical imperative is purely


    formal)

    Rigorism (no account for cases)

    Abstraction (too abstract principles to guide action)

    Conflicting grounds of obligation (the set of


    principles identified by Kantian ethics may come
    into conflict. Example: fidelity and helpfulness)

    Contemporary deontology
    (Nancy Davis 1991)

    Acting morally involves the self-conscious acceptance


    of some rules that place limits on the pursuit both of
    our interests and of the general good
    Deontology vs teleology (John Rawls, A Theory of
    Justice, 1971):

    Teleology (consequentialism):

    The good is defined independently from the right


    The right is defined as that which maximises the good

    Deontology:

    the right is not to be defined in terms of the good


    The good is not prior to the right
    The fact that an act promotes the good does not imply
    that the act is right (C, Fried, Right and Wrong, 1978)

    Contemporary deontology
    (Nancy Davis 1991)

    To act rightly means that we must refrain from doing things


    that may be ex-ante said to be wrong
    Acts are right or wrong according to some deontological
    constraints: rules, laws, prohibitions, limitations,
    proscriptions, norms, etc.
    NB: agent should act rightly even when they foresee that
    this will result in greater harm (non-consequentialism)

    Example 1: harming an innocent person to save the life of 5


    other persons ( no impartiality)
    Example 2: saving a life by lying to an evil agent, when the
    lie will prevent the loss of life by deceiving him and
    dissuading his intention to kill (no prevention of wrongdoing)

    Problem: what makes wrong acts wrong?

    Prima facie duties

    William D. Ross, The Right and the Good (1930):


    pluralism vs monism (of either Kantians and
    Utilitarians)
    We have a prima facie duty to help others, to keep
    promises, etc. These things matter morally. If we follow
    a certain duty, our action is right to that extent. To each
    case its relevant prima facie duty: no a priori hierarchy
    We often know what are our prima facie duties, but we
    can never know what are our duty proper (one we
    ought overall to do)
    The truth of a principle can be discovered only in
    moral experience.

    Virtue Theory
    (Greg Pence 1991)

    Aims at describing types of character we might


    admire.
    Elisabeth Anscombe (Modern Moral Philosophy,
    1968) and Alsdair MacIntyre (After Virtue, 1981): duty
    cannot become an end in itself, separated from the
    kind of person we desire to be, and the meaning we
    attribute to our life.
    Utilitarianism and Kantianism: a faceless moral agent
    Ancient Greek foundations: Socrates, Plato and
    Aristotle virtues (traits of character) are the subject
    of ethics

    Virtue Theory
    (Greg Pence 1991)

    Question: can an ethical theory which eliminates


    principles and is entirely based on character do all the
    work of ethics?
    You can be honourable, courageous, noble,
    appropriate, good, in taste, and fight for a wrong cause
    (example: a Confederate officer)
    Virtue ethics is perfectionist (maximum development of
    what makes human human, Thomas Hurka 1993), and
    the main examples of perfectionist theories are
    incompatible with modern moral equality

    Greek philosophers were perfectionists and favourable to


    slavery and to aristocratic government (the so-called
    Athenian democracy was not democratic!)
    Friedrich Nietzsches ideal of bermensch is inegalitarian

    Rights
    (Brenda Almonds 1991)

    Inalienable rights of individuals: declarations of rights

    Natural Law roots

    Ronald Dworkin (Taking rights seriously, 1977): rights


    as moral facts, used as trumps in moral disputes

    Example, the right of an heir against confiscation for the


    common good

    Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974):


    rights as side-constraints (setting limits on the actions
    of government)
    Rights are in favour of potential oppressed

    Rights
    (Brenda Almonds 1991)

    Rights as:

    Claims (to have something: it creates a


    corresponding duty)
    Powers (to distribute something, to affect the rights
    of other people)
    Liberties (by not imposing a burdensome
    requirement on individuals, like giving evidence
    against a spouse)
    Immunities (being protected from the actions of
    others, as the right to join a union that cannot be
    forbidden by the employer)

    Rights
    (Brenda Almonds 1991)

    How can rights be justified?


    Social contract: Hobbes, Locke , Rousseau
    John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)
    Utility (J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861): but not the
    ultimate goal
    They are exigent in themselves

    Consequentialism
    (Philip Pettit 1991)

    The first question in a moral theory is what is good or


    valuable.
    A moral theory has two components:

    A theory of the good

    A theory of the right

    Consequentialism: whatever values we adopt, the


    proper response to those values is to promote them
    (teleological)

    a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome.

    Non- Consequentialism (deontological): there are


    values we should honour in every circumstance,
    independently of the effects

    Consequentialism

    Types of consequentialism:

    Egoism (see below)

    Altruism (Auguste Comte)

    Racism

    Nationalism

    Specism

    Pluralism / Rule consequentialism (Amartya Sen)

    Egalitarianism

    Collectivism

    Utilitarianism

    Consequentialism
    (Philip Pettit 1991)

    Criticism:
    1.consequentialism potentially induces individuals to
    do horrendous deeds (for the sake of the value
    which is pursued); nothing is absolutely forbidden
    2.No right is a constraint to action.
    3.No distinction between permissible, obligatory and
    supererogatory options
    4.Impersonality
    5.Individuals incessant calculators

    Consequentialism
    (Philip Pettit 1991)

    Objections:
    1.Deontology also recommends horrible deeds
    2.No consequence is considered when deciding the
    rightfulness of actions
    3., 4. and 5. Distinction between justification and
    deliberation

    A general defence: methodological virtue of


    simplicity

    Non- consequentialists argue that some values


    must be honoured (loyalty, respect) but other values
    must be promoted (safety, security, prosperity)

    Egoism
    (Kurt Baier 1991)

    Psychological egoism: every individual is an


    egoist; apparently altruistic behaviour is
    ultimately egoistic (Helvtius)
    Egoism as a means to common good: Adam
    Smiths invisible hand. Is it always possible?
    some ends are conflicting
    Rational egoism: it is rational to act according
    to self-interest
    Ethical egoism: it is moral to act according to
    self-interest

    Egoism

    Types of ethical egoism:

    Libertarianism
    Individual anarchism (Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
    (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum), 1844)
    Enlightened self-interest (Helvetius, J.-B. Say)
    Neo-Hobbesian contractarian theory (David Gauthier,
    Morals by Agreement, 1986): cooperating is strategically
    rational for individual utility

    Objection: this moral rule does not regulate


    conflicting interests

    You might also like