Unit 4.

Framework and Principles of

Moral Disposition
For Unit 4, the following are the objectives and your topics.
At the end of this Unit, you are expected to:

1. Promote personal and professional growth of self by understanding how one develops his/her
moral characters, the stages of moral development, and conscience-based moral decisions.
2. Demonstrate and integrate the principles of ethical relativism and objectivism in understanding
ethical standards of different cultures.

Unit 4. Framework and Principles of Moral Disposition

1. Virtue Ethics
1. Aristotle (Telos, Virtue as a habit, Happiness as a virtue)
2. Tomas (Natural Law: natural law and its tenets, Happiness as constitutive of moral and
cardinal virtues)
2. Kants and Rights Theorists
1. Kant (Good Will, Categorical imperative)
2. Different kinds of Rights (legal and moral)
3. Utilitarianism
1. Origins and nature of theory
2. Business’s fascination with utilitarianism
4. Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good

You will learn the different concepts and principles using the following Instructional/Learning
Materials:
1. Aristotle and Virtue Theory
- character
- if we can focus on being good people, the right actions will follow, effortlessly
- why should you become a virtuous person? EUDAIMONIA –
- VIRTUE THEORY – reflects the ancient assumption that humans have a fixed nature – an essence
– and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature
- Aristotle – proper functioning – everything has a function and a thing that is good to the extent that it
fulfils its function, and bad to the extent that it doesn’t
Imagine a person who always knows what to say.
Who can diffuse a tense situation, deliver tough news gracefully, is confident without being arrogant,
brave but not reckless, generous but never extravagant.
This is the type of person that everybody wants to be around, and to be like.
Someone who seems to have mastered the art of being a person.
This may sound like an impossible feat, but Aristotle believed that, while rare, these people do exist.
And they are what we all should aspire to be: virtuous.
And there's a whole moral theory based on this idea of virtue.
But unlike most of the moral theories we’ve discussed, virtue theory doesn’t spend a lot of time telling
you what to do.
There’s no categorical imperative or principle of utility.
Instead, virtue theory is all about character.
Rather than saying, “follow these rules so that you can be a good person,” Aristotle and other virtue
theorists reasoned that, if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions will follow,
effortlessly.
Become a good person, and you will do good things. No rulebook needed.
So, why should you be a virtuous person?
Because: EUDAIMONIA.
Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans have a fixed nature – an essence – and
that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature.
Aristotle described this in terms of what he called proper functioning.
Everything has a function, and a thing is good to the extent that it fulfills its function, and bad to the
extent that it doesn’t.
This is easy to see in objects created by humans.
A function of a knife is to cut, so a dull knife is a bad knife.
And a function of a flower is to grow and reproduce, so a flower that doesn’t do that is just bad at
being a flower.
And the same goes for humans – we’re animals – so all the stuff that would indicate proper
functioning for an animal holds true for us as well – we need to grow and be healthy and fertile.
But we’re also “the rational animal,” and a social animal, so our function also involves using reason
and getting along with our pack.
Now you might notice that some of this sounds like parts of natural law theory – Aquinas' theory that
God made us with the tools we need to know what’s Good.
Well, Aristotle had a strong influence on Thomas Aquinas, so part of Aristotle’s thoughts on virtue
ended up in natural law theory.
But for Aristotle, this isn’t about God’s plan, it’s just about nature.
Aristotle argued that nature has built into us the desire to be virtuous, in the same way that acorns are
built with the drive to become oak trees.
But what exactly does it mean to be virtuous?
Aristotle said that having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in
the right amount, toward the right people.
Which sort of sounds like Aristotle is saying exactly nothing.
I mean, how vague can you be?
But according to Aristotle, there's no need to be specific, because if you’re virtuous, you know what to
do.
All the time.
You know how to handle yourself and how to get along with others.
You have good judgment, you can read a room, and you know what's right and when.
Aristotle understood virtue as a set of robust character traits that, once developed, will lead to
predictably good behavior.
You can think of virtue as the midpoint between two extremes, which Aristotle called vices.
Virtue is the just-right amount – the sweet spot between the extreme of excess and the extreme of
deficiency.
And this sweet spot is known as the Golden Mean.
So let’s take a look at some particular virtues, starting with courage.
What is courage?
To take a closer look at this, let’s head to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.
Walking home from a movie, you see a person being mugged.
What is the courageous action for you to take?
Your impulse might be to say that a courageous person would run over there and stop the mugging,
because courage means putting yourself in harm's way for a good cause, right?
Well, no.
A virtuous person – in the Aristotelian sense – would first take stock of the situation.
If you size up the mugger and have a good reason to believe that you could safely intervene, then
that's probably the courageous choice.
But if you assess the situation and recognize that intervention is likely to mean that both you and the
victim will be in danger, the courageous choice is not to intervene, but to call for help instead.
According to Aristotle, courage is the midpoint between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness.
Cowardice is a deficiency of courage, while recklessness is an excess of courage – and both are bad.
Aristotle said that you definitely can have too much of a good thing.
So, being courageous doesn’t mean rushing headlong into danger.
A courageous person will assess the situation, they’ll know their own abilities, and they’ll take action
that is right in the particular situation.
Part of having courage, he argued, is being able to recognize when, rather than stepping in, you need
to find an authority who can handle a situation that's too big for you to tackle alone.
Basically, courage is finding the right way to act.
And a lot of the time – but not all of the time – that means doing a thing that you know you’re capable
of, even if doing it scares the pants off of you.
Aristotle thought all virtue works like this.
The right action is always a midpoint between extremes.
So, there’s no all-or-nothing in this theory – even honesty.
In this view, honesty is the perfect midpoint between brutal honesty and failing to say things that need
to be said.
Like, no one needs to be told that they have a big zit on their face – they already know.
The virtue of honesty means knowing what needs to be put out there, and what you should keep quiet
about.
And it also means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully.
How to break bad news gently, or to offer criticism in a way that’s constructive, rather than soul-
crushing.
The virtue of generosity works the same way.
It avoids the obvious vice of stinginess, but also doesn’t give too much.
It’s not generous to give drugs to an addict, or to buy a round of drinks for everyone in the bar when
you need that money for rent.
The just right amount of generosity means giving when you have it, to those who need it.
It can mean having the disposition to give just for the heck of it, but it also means realizing when you
can’t, or shouldn’t give.
So now you can see why Aristotle’s definition of virtue was totally vague – where that Golden Mean is
depends on the situation.
But, if you have to figure out what virtue is in every situation, how can you possibly ever learn to be
virtuous?
Aristotle thought there was a lot that you could learn from books, but how to be a good person was
not one of them.
He said virtue is a skill, a way of living, and that’s something that can really only be learned through
experience.
Virtue is a kind of knowledge that he called practical wisdom.
You might think of it as kind of like street smarts.
And the thing about street smarts is that you gotta learn ‘em on the street.
But the good news is, you don’t have to do it alone.
Aristotle said your character is developed through habituation.
If you do a virtuous thing over and over again, eventually it will become part of your character.
But the way you know what the right thing to do is in the first place, is by finding someone who
already knows, and emulating them.
These people who already possess virtue are moral exemplars, and according to this theory, we are
built with the ability to recognize them, and the desire to emulate them.
So you learn virtue by watching it, and then doing it.
In the beginning, it'll be hard, and maybe it’ll feel fake, because you’re just copying someone who's
better than you at being a good person.
But over time, these actions will become an ingrained part of your character.
And eventually, it becomes that robust trait that Aristotle was talking about.
It'll just manifest every time you need it.
That's when you know you have virtue, fully realized. It becomes effortless.
OK but: Why? What's your motivation?
What if you have no desire to be the guy who always says the right thing, or the lady who always
finds the courage when it's needed?
Virtue theory says that you should become virtuous because, if you are, then you can attain the
pinnacle of humanity.
It allows you to achieve what's known as eudaimonia.
This is a cool Greek word that doesn’t have a simple English translation.
You might say it means “a life well lived.”
It’s sometimes translated as “human flourishing.”
And a life of eudaimonia is a life of striving.
It’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits, and finding success.
A eudaimonistic life will be full of the happiness that comes from achieving something really difficult,
rather than just having it handed to you.
But choosing to live a eudaimonistic life means that you’re never done improving, you’re never to a
point where you can just coast.
You’re constantly setting new goals, and working to develop new muscles.
Choosing to live life in this way also means you'll face disappointments, and failures.
Eudaimonia doesn’t mean a life of cupcakes and rainbows.
It means the sweet pleasure of sinking into bed at the end of an absolutely exhausting day.
It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’ve accomplished a lot, and that you’ve pushed yourself to be the
very best person you could be.
This is morality, for Aristotle.
It’s being the best you can personally be, honing your strengths while working on your weaknesses.
And, for Aristotle, the kind of person who lives like this, is the kind of person who will do good things.
08:24
Today we learned about virtue theory.
08:26
We studied the Golden Mean, and how it exists as a midpoint between vices of excess and
deficiency.
08:31
We talked about moral exemplars, and the life of eudaimonia that comes with virtuousness.
08:36
Next time, we’re going to consider a tricky little problem in ethics known as moral luck.
08:40
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
08:44
You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:
08:48
PBS Space Time, BBQ with Franklin, and PBS OffBook.
08:51
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
08:55
with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
2. Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas was no dummy.

00:04
Remember him? The Italian fella? Christian monk? Philosophical superstar of the 13th century?
00:08
Aquinas thought morality was important for everyone, and that being a good person was a vital part of
God’s plan for each of us.
00:14
But he knew that not everyone had been exposed to the Bible, or had even heard of God.
00:19
So, what bothered him was:
00:20
How could people follow God’s moral rules – also known as the divine commands – if they didn’t even
know about the guy who made the commandments?
00:28
Aquinas just couldn’t believe that God would have expectations for us, if he didn’t also give us – all of
us – a way to meet them.
00:35
So, Aquinas’ theorized that God made us pre-loaded with the tools we need to know what’s Good.
00:40
This idea became known as the natural law theory.
00:44
And there are a lot of versions of this theory still circulating around today.
00:48
But Aquinas’ original take on natural law is by far the most influential, and the longest standing.
00:53
How influential?
00:54
Well, if you’re Catholic or a member of any of the major Protestant denominations, or were raised in
any of those traditions,
00:59
then you’re probably already familiar with how Aquinas saw the moral universe and your place in it.
01:05
Basically, God is awesome, and he made you. So, you are awesome.
01:09
It’s just important that you don’t forget to be awesome.
01:13
[Theme Music]
01:23
We all want stuff. Aquinas got that. And he said that it was OK.
01:27
In fact, the theory of natural law is based on the idea that God wants us to want things – specifically,
good things.
01:33
Aquinas argued that God created the world according to natural laws, predictable, goal-driven
systems whereby life is sustained, and everything functions smoothly.
01:43
And as part of this natural order, God made certain things that were good for his various creatures.
01:48
Sunlight and water are good for plants.
01:50
Meat is good for cats, and plants are good for bunnies.
01:52
And – because God is awesome – he instilled all of his creatures with an intuitive desire for the things
that he designed to be best for them.
02:00
The things that we’re designed to seek are known as the basic goods, and there are seven of them.
02:04
The first thing that all living things just naturally want, Aquinas said, is self-preservation – the drive to
sustain life.
02:10
Aquinas thought God built all creatures with a survival instinct.
02:14
And this appears to be pretty much true.
02:15
I mean, we naturally avoid dangerous situations like swimming with hungry sharks,
02:20
and when we find ourselves in danger, we don’t have to stop and ponder the options before getting
ourselves to safety.
02:25
After preserving our own lives, our next most pressing basic good is to make more life – in other
words, to reproduce.
02:32
Some beings are able to do this on their own, but since we need to coordinate matters with a partner,
God kindly instilled us with a sex drive, and made the process feel good, to make sure that we do it.
02:41
Thanks, God!
02:42
But once we manage to achieve our second basic good – reproduction – we need to educate those
kids we just made.
02:48
For humans, that’s going to mean stuff like school and lessons in morality.
02:52
But even non-human animals need to teach their babies how to hunt and avoid predators.
02:56
Otherwise, the offspring they worked so hard to create aren’t going to survive long enough to
reproduce themselves, which, of course, is the goal of everything.
03:03
And while these first goods seem to apply to a pretty wide swath of creation, some of the basic goods
are just for humans, because of the particular kind of being we are.
03:12
For instance, Aquinas thought we are built with an instinctual desire to know God.
03:16
He believed we seek him in our lives, whether we’ve been exposed to the idea of God or not.
03:21
Interestingly, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre agreed with Aquinas on this.
03:25
He said we’re all born with a god-shaped hole inside of us.
03:29
The tragedy, for Sartre, is that he was an atheist, so he believed this was an emptiness that could
never be filled.
03:34
Next, taking a page out of Aristotle’s book, Aquinas also said that humans are naturally social
animals, so it’s part of our basic good to live in community with others.
03:43
While short periods of solitude can be good, he believed that we’re basically pack animals, and our
desire for love and acceptance, and our susceptibility to peer pressure, are all evidence of this.
03:52
Now, since we naturally want to be part a pack, it’s a good idea not to alienate our pack-mates.
03:57
So, basically, Aquinas said we recognize the basic good of not pissing everybody off.
04:01
I mean, he didn’t actually say it that way.
04:03
But if he did, I’m sure it sounded a lot better in Latin.
04:05
The point is, Aquinas said we feel shame and guilt when we do things that cause our group to turn
against us, and that was another basic good.
04:13
And finally, Aquinas said we’re built to shun ignorance.
04:16
We’re natural knowers.
04:17
We’re inquisitive, and we want to be right.
04:19
This is another trait we share with non-human animals, because knowledge promotes survival, and
ignorance can mean starving to death or ending up as someone else’s dinner.
04:27
So these are the basic goods, and from them, we can derive the natural laws.
04:32
We don’t need the Bible, or religion class, or church in order to understand the natural law, Aquinas
said.
04:37
Instead, our instinct shows us the basic goods, and reason allows us to derive the natural law from
them.
04:43
Right acts, therefore, are simply those that are in accordance with the natural law.
04:48
So how does this whole system work?
04:50
Well, I recognize the basic good of life, because I value my own life.
04:54
And that’s clear to me, because I have a survival instinct that keeps me from doing dangerous, stupid
stuff.
04:59
Then, reason leads me to see that others also have valuable lives.
05:02
And from there I see that killing is a violation of natural law.
05:06
So, for each negative law, or prohibition, there’s usually a corresponding positive one – a positive
injunction.
05:12
For example, ‘Do not kill’ is a prohibition, but there’s also a positive injunction that encourages us to
promote life.
05:18
And I can take that positive injunction of promoting life to mean anything from feeding the hungry, to
caring for the sick, to making healthy choices for myself.
05:26
And we could do the same thing with each of the basic goods.
05:28
The basic good of reproduction leads to a prohibition, don’t prevent reproduction, which is why the
Catholic Church has been so opposed to birth control.
05:35
And the positive injunction there is: Do procreate!
05:38
Do all the procreating you want!
05:40
And if you think it through – using your God-given reason – you’ll be able to see how the other natural
laws are derived from the basic goods.
05:46
But, of course, as with the Divine Command Theory, the theory of Natural Law raises plenty of
questions.
05:52
For example, if God created us to seek the good, and if we’re built with the ability to recognize and
seek it, then why do people violate the natural law all the time?!
06:01
Like, if this is supposed to be something so intuitively obvious that even plants and non-human
animals can manage it, why is the world so full of people-killing and offending others and folks who do
everything but seek God?
06:12
Aquinas had two answers for this: ignorance and emotion.
06:16
Sometimes, he said, we seek what we think is good, but we’re wrong, because we’re just ignorant.
06:20
And yes, that happens.
06:22
I mean, there once was a time when cigarettes were literally what the doctor ordered.
06:26
Back then, we thought we were promoting our health, but we were actually hurting it.
06:29
No matter how awesome God made you, or your desires, you have to have some understanding of
how to be awesome.
06:35
But ignorance can’t account for all of the stupid things we do.
06:40
Aquinas, again following Aristotle here, said that, even though we’re rational, we’re also emotional
creatures.
06:45
And sometimes, we see what we should do, but emotion overpowers our reason, and we fail to do the
things we know we should.
06:52
So, in those cases, we just kinda forget to be awesome.
06:55
Now, as with the Divine Command Theory, Natural law gives us a handy answer to the grounding
problem.
06:59
It tells us that morality is grounded in God, that he created the moral order.
07:03
It also gives us a reason to be moral – following the natural law makes our lives work better.
07:08
But while it seems to have a lot more going for it than divine command theory, natural law theory has
its share of critics as well.
07:14
First of all, it’s not going to be super appealing to anybody who doesn’t believe in God.
07:17
You can tell me God set the world up according to natural laws, but if I reject that whole premise,
there’s not a lot you can do to convince me.
07:24
Another objection comes from 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the form of what’s
known as the is-ought problem.
07:30
And to investigate this, let’s pop over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.
07:34
Hume said it’s fallacious to assume that just because something is a certain way, that means that it
ought to be that way.
07:41
But that’s basically what natural law theory does all day long.
07:43
We look at nature and see that creatures have strong survival instincts.
07:46
So from there we conclude that survival instincts are good.
07:49
But, are they?
07:50
I mean, to me, yeah, because it helps me stay alive.
07:54
But my survival instinct could also cause me to do all sorts of things that look immoral to other people.
07:59
Like killing you and crawling inside your still-steaming body, tauntaun-style, to stay alive in a blizzard.
08:04
Not that I would do that, but just for example.
08:06
Likewise, we can observe the existence of sex drives and conclude that reproduction is good.
08:11
But, sexual drive can also fuel terribly immoral things, like sexual assault.
08:17
And for that matter, is reproduction always good?
08:20
Is it something all beings have to do?
08:22
Am I sinning if I choose never to have children?
08:25
And what about bodies that can’t reproduce?
08:26
Or people who don’t want to reproduce or have partners that they can’t reproduce with?
08:30
Thanks, Thought Bubble!
08:31
As you can see, for all it has going for it, natural law theory can pretty quickly open some big ol’ cans
of philosophical worms.
08:37
Which might be why 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant thought we needed a better
option.
08:42
Which we’ll consider next time.
08:44
Today, we learned about natural law theory, as proposed by Thomas Aquinas.
08:47
We studied the basic goods and the way instinct and reason come together to point us to the natural
law.
08:53
We also discussed some problems with the theory, in particular, the is-ought problem advanced by
David Hume.
08:59
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
09:02
You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes
09:05
of shows like Blank on Blank, Braincraft, and Coma Niddy.
09:09
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
09:12
with the help of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
3. Kant and Categorical Imperatives

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

00:06
Squarespace: share your passion with the world.
00:08
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but all of our discussions about ethics so far have had one thing in
common: God.
00:14
Divine Command Theory, for example, argues that what’s good, and what’s not, are determined by a
deity, whether that’s the God of Abraham, or a panoply of gods who come up with ethical rules by
committee.
00:24
And the Theory of Natural Law, as advanced by Thomas Aquinas, says that morality comes from us
but only because we were made by God, who preloaded us with moral sensibilities.
00:33
But many other thinkers have argued that humanity’s moral code doesn’t come from some
supernatural force.
00:38
18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, for one, thought religion and morality were a
terrible pairing, and if anything, the two should be kept apart.
00:47
Instead, Kant argued, in order to determine what’s right, you have to use reason.
00:51
And a sense of consideration for other people.
00:53
And – at least the way I’m teaching it today – chom-choms.
00:56
[Theme Music]
01:07
Kant took morality pretty seriously, and he thought we should, too – all of us – regardless of our
religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
01:15
Because, he knew that if we look to religion for our morality, we’re not all going to get the same
answer.
01:20
But he thought morality was a constant, in an almost mathematical sense.
01:24
Two plus two equals four, whether you’re a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist.
01:28
And for Kant, the same went for moral truths.
01:30
But he made a distinction between the things we ought to do morally, and the things we ought to do
for other, non-moral reasons.
01:37
He pointed out that, most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral
choice – instead, it’s just contingent on our desires.
01:45
Like, if your desire is to get money, then you ought to get a job.
01:48
If your desire is get an A in class, then you ought to study.
01:51
Kant called these if-then statements hypothetical imperatives.
01:54
They’re commands that you should follow if you want something.
01:57
But hypothetical imperatives are about prudence, rather than morality.
02:01
So, if you don’t want money, you can always choose not to work.
02:04
And if you don’t care about getting a good grade, studying becomes totally optional!
02:08
It’d be a terrible option, in my opinion as an educator, but still: optional.
02:12
But Kant viewed morality not in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but through what he called
categorical imperatives.
02:17
These are commands you must follow, regardless of your desires.
02:21
Categorical imperatives are our moral obligations, and Kant believed that they’re derived from pure
reason.
02:28
He said it didn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of us.
02:34
And he said you don’t need religion to determine what that law is, because what’s right and wrong is
totally knowable just by using your intellect.
02:42
OK, so how do you figure out what’s moral?
02:46
Kant said the categorical imperative can be understood in terms of various formulations.
02:50
Basically, different ways of phrasing or looking at the same essential idea.
02:54
And he came up with four formulations of the categorical imperative.
02:58
Let me tell you about the two most popular ones.
03:00
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is often known as the universalizability principle.
03:05
And Kant phrased it this way:
03:06
“Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law without contradiction.”
03:14
OK, Kant. Pretty wordy guy. So let’s unpack what he was saying.
03:18
A maxim is just a rule or principle of action.
03:21
And a universal law is something that must always be done in similar situations.
03:25
So, as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask myself, what’s the maxim of my action?
03:30
In other words, what’s the general rule that stands behind the particular action I’m considering?
03:35
Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning.
03:37
You don’t have time to go get it between classes, and you’re really hungry.
03:40
You notice that the student working the snack kiosk in the union is engrossed in a conversation, and
you could easily snag a banana and be on your way.
03:48
Sorry. Chom-chom. I mean: chom-chom.
03:50
You could easily swipe that chom-chom and be on your way.
03:52
Is it ok, morally, for you to do this?
03:55
Well, the particular action you’re considering – taking a chom-chom from a merchant without paying
for it – is stealing.
04:00
And if you approve the maxim of stealing – which you’re doing, whether you admit it or not – then
what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action.
04:07
You’re saying that everyone should always steal.
04:11
If you should be able to do it, then – everyone should be able to do it.
04:14
The thing is, this leads to a contradiction – and remember:
04:16
Kant’s wording specifically says that moral actions cannot bring about contradictions.
04:21
The contradiction here is: no one would say that everyone should steal all the time.
04:26
Because, if everyone should always steal, then you should steal the chom-chom.
04:29
And then I should steal it back from you, and then you should steal it back from me, and it would
never end and no one would ever get to eat any chom choms.
04:35
Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable.
04:37
So what Kant’s really saying is that it’s not fair to make exceptions for yourself.
04:42
You don’t really think stealing is ok, and by imagining what it would be like to universalize it, that
becomes clear.
04:48
Now, Kant’s view that moral rules apply to everyone equally sounds nice and fair.
04:53
But it can sometimes lead to some pretty counterintuitive results.
04:56
To see how this formulation can go awry, let’s visit the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.
05:01
Let’s say, one morning, Elvira and Tony are having breakfast.
05:05
Then a stranger comes to the door and asks where Tony is, so he can kill him.
05:09
Obviously, Elvira’s impulse is to lie, and say that Tony isn’t around right now in order to protect him
from this would-be murderer.
05:15
But Kant says that she can’t lie – not ever, not even to save Tony’s life.
05:20
Here’s his reasoning:
05:21
Suppose she’s at the front door, talking to the stranger.
05:24
At the time, she thinks Tony’s in the kitchen, where she left him.
05:27
But it turns out he was curious about the caller, so he followed her into the living room, and heard the
stranger make his threats.
05:33
Fearing for his life, Tony slipped out the back door.
05:36
Meanwhile Elvira, in her desire to save him, tells the stranger that Tony isn’t there, even though she
thinks he is.
05:42
Based on her lie, the stranger leaves, and runs into Tony as he rounds the corner heading away from
the house, and kills him.
05:48
Had she told the truth, the stranger might have headed into the kitchen looking for Tony, which would
have given Tony time to escape.
05:54
But she didn’t.
05:55
Now, by Kant’s reasoning, Elvira is responsible for Tony’s death, because her lie caused it.
06:01
Had she told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might have
occurred.
06:06
Now, she could have refused to answer the stranger altogether, or tried to talk him out of it.
06:11
But the one thing she is never permitted to do is violate the moral law, even if others are doing so,
even for a really good cause.
06:18
Poor Tony. Very sad. But thanks, Thought Bubble!
06:21
So, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is about the universality of our actions.
06:25
But the second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people.
06:29
And it goes this way:
06:30
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end,
and never as a mere means.”
06:38
Again, we have to define some terms here to figure out what this is all about.
06:41
To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the
interests or benefit of the thing you’re using.
06:48
Now, we use things as mere means all the time.
06:50
I use this mug to hold my coffee, and if it would stop benefiting me – like if it got a crack in it and
started leaking, I wouldn’t use it anymore.
06:57
It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means – but not humans.
07:01
This is because we are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves.
07:04
We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others.
07:07
We’re our own ends. We’re rational and autonomous.
07:11
We have the ability to set our own goals, and work toward them.
07:14
Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers.
07:17
Humans exist for themselves.
07:18
So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of the person you’re
encountering, to realize that she has goals, values, and interests of her own, and you must, morally,
keep that in mind in your encounters with her.
07:31
Now, Kant pointed out that we do use people, all the time, and that’s ok.
07:36
Because, most of time time, we use other people as a means for something, but not as a mere
means.
07:40
We still recognize their humanity when we use them, and they agree to being used.
07:45
So, for example, you are using me right now to get information about Kantian ethics.
07:50
I am using Nick and Nicole to help me get that information to you.
07:53
Kant said that you and I, and Nick and Nicole – we all we deserve to not be used as mere means,
because of our autonomy.
08:00
Unlike other things in the world, we’re self-governed.
08:03
We’re able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills.
08:08
We can set goals for ourselves, and take steps to realize those goals.
08:11
This imbues us with an absolute moral worth, Kant said, which means that we shouldn’t be
manipulated, or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit.
08:21
And this means that things like lying and deception are never OK.
08:25
Because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an autonomous decision about how to act, because my
decision is based on false information.
08:32
For instance, I might agree to loan you money so you can buy books for school, but I wouldn’t agree
to loan you money so that you can get a new Xbox.
08:38
I’m sorry, but no.
08:40
So when you lie to me about what you’re gonna be doing with the money you’re asking for, you rob
me of my ability to autonomously decide to help you.
08:46
You’ve treated me as a mere means to accomplish your goals, with no thought to my own goals and
interests.
08:52
And that’s a violation of Kant’s second categorical imperative.
08:55
So! Kant argued that proper, rational application of the categorical imperative will lead us to moral
truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents.
09:05
No God required.
09:07
Of course, not everyone agreed with him.
09:09
So next time we’re going to check out a theory that is in many ways the antithesis of Kantianism:
utilitarianism.
09:15
Today we learned about Kant’s ethics.
09:18
We talked about hypothetical and categorical imperatives, the universalizability principle, autonomy,
and what it means to treat people as ends-in-themselves, rather than as mere means.
09:28
This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace.
09:32
Squarespace is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas.
09:36
Squarespace features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support.
09:41
Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.
09:45
Squarespace: share your passion with the world.
09:47
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
09:51
You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:
09:54
Deep Look, First Person, and PBS Game Show.
09:57
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
10:01
with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
4. Utilitarianism

Should Batman kill the Joker?

00:04
If you were to ask the Dark Knight himself, with his hard-and-fast no-killing rule, he’d say absolutely
not.
00:10
Actually, in fact, he would say: [Batman voice] “Absolutely not.”
00:13
When you think about it, dude is pretty Kantian in his ethics.
00:16
Regardless of what Joker does, there are some lines that good people do not cross, and for Batman,
killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line.
00:25
But, let’s be real here: Joker is never gonna stop killing.
00:29
Sure, Batman will have him thrown back in Arkham, but we all know that he’s gonna get out – he
always gets out – and once he’s free, he will kill again.
00:37
And maim and terrorize.
00:39
And when he does won’t a little bit of that be Batman’s fault?
00:44
Batman has been in a position to kill Joker hundreds of times.
00:48
He has had the power to save anyone from ever being a victim of the Joker again.
00:53
If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill?
00:59
Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?
01:04
[Theme Music]
01:14
So, why do I describe Batman as Kantian?
01:17
Well, the school of thought laid out by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant – now known
as Kantianism – is pretty straightforward.
01:24
More precisely: It’s absolute.
01:26
Kantianism is all about sticking to the moral rulebook.
01:29
There are never any exceptions, or any excuses, for violating moral rules.
01:34
And our man Batman tries his hardest to stick to his code, no matter what.
01:38
But there are other ways of looking at ethics.
01:40
Like, instead of focusing on the intent behind our behavior, what if we paid more attention to the
consequences?
01:45
One moral theory that does this is utilitarianism.
01:47
It focuses on the results, or consequences, of our actions, and treats intentions as irrelevant.
01:53
Good consequences equal good actions, in this view.
01:56
So, what’s a good consequence?
01:58
Modern utilitarianism was founded in the 18th century by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill.
02:03
But the theory has philosophical ancestors in ancient Greek thinkers such as Epicurus.
02:08
All of these guys agreed that actions should be measured in terms of the happiness, or pleasure, that
they produce.
02:14
After all, they argued, happiness is our final end – it’s what we do everything else for.
02:19
Think about it like this: many things that you do, you do for the sake of something else.
02:23
You study to get a good grade.
02:25
You work to get money.
02:26
But why do you want good grades, or money?
02:29
There are different answers we could give – like maybe we’re seeking affirmation for our intelligence,
or the approval of our parents, or a degree that will give us a career we want.
02:37
But why do we want that particular career?
02:39
Why do we want approval?
02:40
We can keep asking questions, but ultimately our answer will bottom out in,
02:44
“I want what I want because I think it will make me happy.”
02:47
That’s what we all want – it’s one of the few things everyone has in common.
02:51
And utilitarians believe that’s what should drive our morality.
02:55
Like Kant, utilitarians agree that a moral theory should apply equally to everyone.
02:59
But they thought the way to do that was to ground it in something that’s really intuitive.
03:04
And there’s really nothing more basic than the primal desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
03:08
So, it’s often said that utilitarianism is a hedonistic moral theory – this means the good is equal to the
pleasant, and we ought, morally, to pursue pleasure and happiness, and work to avoid pain.
03:20
But, utilitarianism is not what you’d call an egoistic theory.
03:24
Egoism says that everyone ought, morally, to pursue their own good.
03:28
In contrast to that, utilitarianism is other-regarding.
03:32
It says we should pursue pleasure or happiness – not just for ourselves, but for as many sentient
beings as possible.
03:37
To put it formally: “we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.”
03:43
This is known as the principle of utility.
03:46
OK, no one’s gonna argue with a philosophy that tells them to seek pleasure.
03:50
But, sometimes doing what provides the most pleasure to the most people can mean that you have to
take one for the team.
03:57
It can mean sacrificing your pleasure, in order to produce more good overall.
04:01
Like when it’s your birthday and your family says you can choose any restaurant you want.
04:04
The thing that would make you happiest is Thai food, but you know that that would make the rest of
your family miserable.
04:09
So when you choose Chinese – which is nobody’s favorite, but everybody can make do – then you’ve
thought like a utilitarian.
04:15
You’ve chosen the action that would produce the most overall happiness for the group, even though it
produced less happiness for you than other alternatives would have.
04:22
The problem is, for the most part, we’re all our own biggest fans.
04:26
We each come pre-loaded with a bias in favor of our own interests.
04:29
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – caring about yourself is a good way to promote survival.
04:34
But where morality is concerned, utilitarians argue, as special as you are, you’re no more special than
anybody else.
04:40
So your interests count, but no more than anyone else’s.
04:43
Now, you might say that you agree with that.
04:45
I mean, we all like to think of ourselves as being generous and selfless.
04:48
But, even though I’m sure you are a totally nice person – you have to admit that things seem way
more important – weightier, higher-stakes – when they apply to you, rather than to some stranger.
04:59
So, utilitarians suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent,
disinterested spectator.
05:05
Rather than thinking about what I should do, they suggest that I consider what I would think if I were
advising a group of strangers about what they should do.
05:13
That way, I have a disposition of good will, but I’m not emotionally invested.
05:16
And I’m a spectator, rather than a participant.
05:19
This approach is far more likely to yield a fair and unbiased judgment about what’s really best for the
group.
05:25
Now, to see utilitarianism put to the test, let’s pop over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash
Philosophy.
05:30
20th century British philosopher Bernard Williams offered this thought experiment.
05:35
Jim is on a botanical expedition in South America when he happens upon a group of 20 indigenous
people, and a group of soldiers.
05:42
The whole group of indigenous people is about to be executed for protesting their oppressive regime.
05:48
For some reason, the leader of the soldiers offers Jim the chance to shoot one of the prisoners, since
he’s a guest in their land.
05:54
He says that if Jim shoots one of the prisoners, he’ll let the other 19 go.
05:59
But if Jim refuses, then the soldiers will shoot all 20 protesters.
06:03
What should Jim do?
06:04
More importantly, what would you do?
06:07
Williams actually presents this case as a critique of utilitarianism.
06:11
The theory clearly demands that Jim shoot one man so that 19 will be saved.
06:15
But, Williams argues, no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life.
06:20
Thinking like a Kantian, Williams argues that it’s not Jim’s fault that the head soldier is a total dirt bag,
and Jim shouldn’t have to get literal blood on his hands to try and rectify the situation.
06:29
So, although it sounds pretty simple, utilitarianism is a really demanding moral theory.
06:34
It says, we live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things.
06:38
And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we
must.
06:43
Even if that means getting our hands dirty.
06:45
And if I sit by and watch something bad happen when I could have prevented it, my hands are dirty
anyway.
06:50
So, Jim shouldn’t think about it as killing one man.
06:53
That man was dead already, because they were all about to be killed.
06:57
Instead, Jim should think of his decision as doing what it takes to save 19.
07:01
And Batman needs to kill the Joker already.
07:04
Thanks, Thought Bubble!
07:05
Now, if you decide you want to follow utilitarian moral theory, you have options.
07:09
Specifically, two of them.
07:11
When Bentham and Mill first posed their moral theory, it was in a form now known as Act
Utilitarianism, sometimes called classical utilitarianism.
07:19
And it says that, in any given situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good
for the greatest number. Period.
07:25
But sometimes, the act that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number can seem just
wrong.
07:30
For instance, suppose a surgeon has five patients, all waiting for transplants.
07:34
One needs a heart, another a lung. Two are waiting for kidneys and the last needs a liver.
07:38
The doctor is pretty sure that these patients will all die before their names come up on the transplant
list.
07:43
And he just so happens to have a neighbor who has no family.
07:46
Total recluse. Not even a very nice guy.
07:49
The doctor knows that no one would miss this guy if he were to disappear.
07:52
And by some miracle, the neighbor is a match for all five of the transplant patients.
07:56
So, it seems like, even though this would be a bad day for the neighbor, an act-utilitarian should kill
the neighbor and give his organs to the five patients.
08:04
It’s the greatest good for the greatest number.
08:06
Yes, one innocent person dies, but five innocent people are saved.
08:10
This might seem harsh, but remember that pain is pain, regardless of who’s experiencing it.
08:15
So the death of the neighbor would be no worse than the death of any of those patients dying on the
transplant list.
08:20
In fact, it’s five times less bad than all five of their deaths.
08:24
So thought experiments like this led some utilitarians to come up with another framework for their
theory.
08:29
This one is called Rule Utilitarianism.
08:32
This version of the theory says that we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the
greatest good for the greatest number.
08:38
So, yes, there are going to be situations where killing an innocent person will lead to the greatest
good for the greatest number.
08:45
But, rule utilitarians want us to think long-term, and on a larger scale.
08:49
And overall, a whole society where innocent people are taken off the streets to be harvested for their
organs is gonna have a lot less utility than one where you don’t have to live in constant fear of that
happening to you.
09:00
So, rule utilitarianism allows us to refrain from acts that might maximize utility in the short run, and
instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time.
09:10
As an owner of human organs, this approach might make sense to you.
09:13
But I still gotta say: If Batman were a utilitarian of either kind, it wouldn’t look very good for the Joker.
09:19
Today we learned about utilitarianism.
09:21
We studied the principle of utility, and learned about the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.
09:27
Next time, we’ll take a look at another moral theory – contractarianism.
5. Justice and Fairness
Justice is one of those things that people talk about all the time, without really being specific about
what they mean.
00:08
Activists talk about economic justice.
00:11
Police and lawyers talk about criminal justice.
00:13
Parents, teachers, and students talk about justice a lot, too, though they may never use that word.
00:18
When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t deserve, we find
ourselves talking about what’s fair.
00:24
And that is talking about justice.
00:25
And we think we know what it is, but we probably don’t – or at least, we don’t agree.
00:30
Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting what we deserve? Or getting what we need?
00:35
Sometimes we talk about balancing the scales of justice.
00:38
This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding of justice as harmony.
00:43
In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that society runs smoothly.
00:48
In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you don’t want to hold – is
considered unjust.
00:54
Other times, justice has been understood in a more utilitarian way, where a just society is one that
tries to increase the overall quality of life for its citizens.
01:03
And for a political libertarian, a just society is simply one that allows its citizens to be maximally free.
01:08
So which is it?
01:09
Is justice buying a meal for someone in need?
01:12
Is it sending a criminal to jail?
01:14
Is it doling out rewards and punishments based on merit?
01:17
The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most fundamental social,
ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day.
01:24
And in the end, what justice means to you personally, pretty much defines how you think society
should work.
01:32
[Theme Music]
01:42
You might have already noticed this, but when people talk about justice, a lot of the time, they’re
really talking about stuff.
01:47
Like, who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like healthcare and
sanitation.
01:54
Who gets to decide who gets what? And on what basis?
01:58
The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as distributive justice, and
there are many different schools of thought here.
02:05
For example, some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff, no
matter what.
02:11
This concept is known as justice as equality.
02:14
It sounds totally fair.
02:16
But, is everyone getting the same stuff really justice?
02:19
Because I need – or want – different kinds and amounts of stuff than you do.
02:24
So, there’s also the idea of need-based justice.
02:26
This says everyone shouldn’t get the same, because our needs aren’t the same.
02:30
By this logic, justice is getting based on what we need.
02:33
So those who need more, get more.
02:35
And some say that this makes sense, while others argue that it amounts to favoring some people
over others, putting those who happen to not be in need, at a disadvantage.
02:43
And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-based justice,
which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves.
02:53
And you deserve stuff – or don’t – based on what you’ve done.
02:56
So this view rewards hard work and punishes trouble-makers.
02:59
Finally, there’s the very simple-sounding approach advanced by twentieth century American political
philosopher John Rawls.
03:06
He argued that justice is fairness.
03:09
Any inequalities that exist in a social system, Rawls said, should favor the least well-off, because this
levels the playing field of society.
03:16
This is a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually
in a position to achieve their basic needs.
03:24
Rawls reasoned that the world is full of natural inequalities.
03:28
Think of all the things we talked about when we discussed moral luck;
03:31
a lot of factors that will shape your life are totally out of your control.
03:34
So Rawls’ sense of justice means correcting for those disadvantages that are beyond our control.
03:39
Once again, there are some who argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to those who have
gotten the most – either through hard work, or because they happened to win life’s natural lottery.
03:49
20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls’ idea that justice-is-fairness.
03:55
And to demonstrate why, he posed this thought experiment, about professional basketball, which we
will explore in the Thought Bubble with some Flash Philosophy.
04:02
Wilt Chamberlain was a wildly popular basketball player when Nozick created this example.
04:07
So Nozick said: What if Chamberlain – probably the most famous athlete of his day – decided that
he’d play only under certain conditions?
04:14
Suppose that Chamberlain decides that tickets for games he plays in should cost 25 cents more than
games he doesn’t play in.
04:21
And what’s more, Chamberlain will be paid $100,000 more than the other players.
04:25
Now, Chamberlain is really popular, so everyone knows that more people will show up to see a game
he’s playing in, even if the tickets cost more.
04:33
Since he is the draw, isn’t he entitled to ask for more money than his teammates?
04:38
Nozick argued that we can’t – and shouldn’t – try to even out the naturally uneven playing field here.
04:44
Sure, we start out with unequal amounts of stuff.
04:46
But Nozick said, we’re each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn’t steal it or otherwise
obtain it unjustly.
04:53
So, if you’re the world’s most famous basketball player, you are entitled to have, and want, more stuff,
even if others don’t have it.
04:59
If Chamberlain’s awesomeness at basketball lets him amass a bunch of wealth, while other people go
hungry, well, that’s not Wilt’s fault.
05:06
Thanks, Thought Bubble!
05:07
As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement about what it means to distribute justly.
05:12
And this is an incredibly important topic, because a lot of what we argue about politically has to do
exactly this with issue.
05:19
People who believe there are essential human rights, for example, argue that we’re simply entitled to
have our most basic needs fulfilled –
05:27
things like having enough to eat, and being able to go to the doctors when we’re sick.
05:31
But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those things, if we’re not able to
get them ourselves.
05:35
Those people might argue that your rights are negative.
05:38
A negative right is the right not to be interfered with, not to be stopped from pursuing the things you
need.
05:43
So in this view, I can’t prevent you from trying to fulfill your needs, but I don’t have to help you to fulfill
them, either.
05:49
By contrast, you might believe in positive rights.
05:52
If you have a positive right to something, you are entitled to help in getting it, if you can’t get it
yourself.
05:56
So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have a right to get assistance in affording one.
06:00
But notice that in this view, a right implies an obligation.
06:04
Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford one – might make
obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for it.
06:12
Of course, someone like Nozick would ask, where would such a right come from?
06:16
How could I incur an obligation to help you, just because I’m better off than you are?
06:22
Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one should compel me to do it.
06:27
But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who have more in order
to assist those who have less.
06:33
So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income inequality,
they’re really talking about justice.
06:39
But of course, a lot of the time, justice isn’t at all about stuff.
06:43
It’s also about punishment.
06:45
Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to respond to wrongdoing.
06:50
One concept is known as retributive justice.
06:53
This holds that the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the
way he’s made others suffer.
06:59
This is your good old fashioned, Biblical, eye-for-an-eye justice.
07:03
And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt; that’s the only way to “make things right.”
07:08
Historically, this would mean things like, if you cause physical harm to someone, your punisher must
do the same thing to you.
07:13
Today, though, in the interest of being civilized, we tend to mete out the pain in terms of incarceration
and fines, rather than straight-up tit-for-tat.
07:21
But still, just retribution is one of the driving philosophical forces behind capital punishment;
07:26
the idea that there’s simply no way to right the wrong of taking a life, other than by taking the life of
the life-taker.
07:33
But utilitarians have other theories of punishment.
07:35
Rather than making wrongdoers suffer for suffering’s sake, these thinkers favor what’s known as
welfare maximization.
07:42
In this view, there’s no good to be found in vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers.
07:46
But some form of punishment is still in order.
07:49
So one option is rehabilitation.
07:51
Here, the approach is to give wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in society and
follow its rules.
07:57
The focus is often on education and, if needed, therapy.
08:00
This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it the assumption that
wrongdoers are in need of our help, that they don’t know any better, and that they need to be “cured”
of some social disease.
08:11
But another approach to just punishment is deterrence.
08:14
For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from committing further
crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules.
08:22
So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of deterrence see
punishment as being for the good of society as a whole.
08:29
Sometimes, we punish people to send a message to other people.
08:32
One more approach to just punishment is the concept of restorative justice.
08:37
Here, you must right your wrongs.
08:40
The focus is on making amends, rather than making the wrongdoer suffer.
08:43
So if you make a mess, you have to clean it up.
08:45
And if you hurt someone, you need to take steps to try and make it right.
08:49
This is the logic behind assigning community service to offenders.
08:52
The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and growth, both for the
wrongdoer and for the wronged.
08:58
It’s about restoration and forgiveness – basically the polar opposite of the retributive approach.
09:03
So, take this advice: Give some thought to your own views on these topics.
09:08
Because what you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote, how you spend your
money, and the way you punish your kids.
09:14
You might discover that, upon reflection, you should change the way you’re doing some things.
09:18
Like I said, everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to decide what it means.
09:24
Today we talked about various theories of justice.
09:27
We talked about just distribution, and we also considered different approaches to punishment.
09:32
Next time, we’ll talk about discrimination.