1.1.1 What is Morality?

- Intended
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. discuss the nature of morality/ethics, and
2. present their own moral starting points.

1.1.2 Definition of Morality / Ethics

What Is Morality?
Before investing yourself in the study of an
academic subject, it would be useful to first have some
idea of what you are getting yourself into. One way—
sometimes the best—to gain such an understanding is by
considering a definition. When you open your
trigonometry text or chemistry handbook, you’ll likely be
given, very early on, a definition of the area you are about
to study. So, as your teacher, I would seem to have a duty
now to present you with a definition of morality.
Even if we want to we just simply can’t. There is no
widely agreed-on definition of morality. The absence of a
definition does not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
(After all, no one has yet been able to offer informative
definitions of literature, or life, or art, and yet we know a
great deal about those things.) Indeed, we can get a good
sense of our subject matter by doing these four things:
 1. being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality;
2. distinguishing the different branches of moral
philosophy and their central questions;
3. identifying starting points for moral thinking; and
4. contrasting morality with other normative systems,
including religious ones.

That being said, Let’s get to work!

1.1.3 Conventional and Critical

Morality
Conventional Morality
Suppose you take sociology or an anthropology
course, and you get to a unit on the morality of the
cultures you’ve been studying. You’ll likely focus on the
patterns of behavior to be found in the cultures, their
accepted ideas about right and wrong, and the sorts of
character traits that these cultures find admirable. These
are the elements of what we can call conventional
morality—the system of widely accepted rules and
principles, created by and for human beings, that members
of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to
assess the actions and the motivations of others.
Conventional morality can differ from society to
society. The conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids
women from publicly contradicting their husbands or
brothers, while Denmark’s conventional morality allows
this. People in the United States would think it immoral to
leave a restaurant without tipping a good waiter or
bartender, while such behavior in many other societies is
perfectly OK.
Critical Morality
When we talk about morality in this course, we will
be referring to moral standards that are not rooted in
widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of
conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate
its merits.
It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality
is all there is. But this would be a very surprising discovery.
Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a
moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be
wrong on this point, but until we have a chance to consider
the matter in detail, I think it best to assume that
conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken. If so,
then there may be some independent, critical morality that
(1) does not have its origin in social agreements;
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular
prejudices; and
(3) can serve as the true standard for determining when
conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen
into error.
That is the morality whose nature we are going to
explore in this course.
1.1.4 The Branches of Moral
Philosophy
We all know that there are lots of moral questions. So it
might help to impose some organization on them. This will
enable us to see the basic contours of moral philosophy
and also to better appreciate the fundamental questions in
each part of the field, you are about to study.
There are three core areas of moral philosophy:
1. Value theory
• What is the good life?
• What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
• How do we improve our lot in life?
• What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as
well-being?
2. Normative ethics
• What are our fundamental moral duties?
• What makes right actions right?
• Which character traits count as virtues, which as
vices, and why?
• Who should our role models be?
• Do the ends always justify the means, or are there
certain types of action that should never be done
under any circumstances?
3. Metaethics
• What is the status of moral claims and advice?
• Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific
moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them
true?
• Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
• Do we always have a good reason to do our moral
duty?

1.1.5 Moral Starting Points

One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where
to begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that there are
any proper starting points for ethical reflection. They
believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing
our biases and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to
be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude
that no moral views are any better than others. While this
sort of skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as
the default view of ethics. We should accept it only as a
last resort.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible
ethical assumptions, claims that can get us started in our
moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you
up to the idea that we are not just spinning our wheels
when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us
when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them:
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism. The law does not have the final word on
what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition.
Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes
morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some
mistaken ethical views, and no human being is
wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good
thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are
better off when there are people you care deeply
about, and who care deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality
can demand only so much of us. Moral standards
that are impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality
must respect our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults.
Moral responsibility assumes an ability on our part
to understand options, to make decisions in an
informed way, and to let our decisions guide our
behavior. The fewer of these abilities you have, the
less blameworthy you are for any harm you might
cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral
theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply
suspect. It is important that we get what we
deserve, and that we are treated fairly.
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification. The default position in ethics is this: do
no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to harm
others, but there must be an excellent reason for
doing so or else the harmful behavior is unjustified.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are
alike in all relevant respects should get similar
treatment. When this fails to happen—when racist
or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then
something has gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the
only thing of moral importance. Morality sometimes
calls on us to set aside our own interests for the
sake of others.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional
pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to
cause such extreme suffering, but doing so requires
a very powerful justification.
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get
away with lots of things that the rest of us can’t.
That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person can
escape punishment is one thing—whether his
actions are morally acceptable is another.
12. Free and informed requests prevent rights
violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one
twisting your arm, you ask someone to do
something for you, and she does it, then your rights
have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as
a result.

There are a number of points to make about

these claims.
o First, this shortlist isn’t meant to be
exhaustive. It could be made much longer.
o Second, we are not claiming that the items
on this list are beyond criticism. We are only
saying that each one is very plausible. Hard
thinking might weaken our confidence in
some cases. The point, though, is that
without such scrutiny, it is perfectly
reasonable to begin our moral thinking with
the items on this list.
o Third, many of these claims require
interpretation in order to apply them in a
satisfying way. When we say, for instance,
that equals ought to be treated equally, we
leave all of the interesting questions open.
(What makes people equals? Can we treat
people equally without treating them in
precisely the same way? And so on.)

A morality that celebrates genocide, torture,

treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is,
depending on how you look at it, either no morality
 at all or a deeply failed one. Any morality worth the
name will place some importance on justice,
fairness, kindness, and reasonableness.

1.1.6 Moral Status

1.2.1 Morality and Other
Normative Systems - Intended
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the module, you should be able to:
1. recognize the difference between morality and
other normative systems, and
2. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of relying
morality upon religious commitments.

1.2.2 Other Normative Systems

We can also better understand morality by contrasting its
principles with those of other normative systems. Each of
these represents a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.
There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our
focus to four of the most important of them: those that
govern the law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
The fact that a law tells us to do something does
not settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp
of approval. Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse)
are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism
of a dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, many laws require
what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids.
But the fit is hardly perfect, and that shows that morality is
something different from the law. That a legislature passed
a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally
acceptable.
Etiquette
We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to
standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the
left of a plate, but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right.
Good manners are not the same thing as morally good
conduct. Morality sometimes requires us not to be polite
or gracious, as when someone threatens your children or
happily tells you a racist joke. So the standards of etiquette
can depart from those of morality.
Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the standards of
self-interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten
ahead in life by betraying others, lying about their past,
breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an
unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you
sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally.
And those who behave virtuously are sometimes punished,
rather than rewarded, for it. Whistleblowers who reveal a
company’s or a government official’s corruption are often
attacked for their efforts sued to the point of bankruptcy,
and targeted for their courageous behavior. Though the
relation between self-interest and morality is contested, it
is a plausible starting point to assume that morality can
sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that
we can sometimes improve our lot in life by acting
unethically.
Tradition
Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That
practice has been around a long time does not
automatically make it moral. Morality sometimes requires a
break from the past, as it did when people called for the
abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And
some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be
morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a
foolproof test of its morality.

1.2.3 Morality and Religion

The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are
inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can be
understood only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy
are assumed to be authorities on morality. When viewed
from a non-religious perspective, the universe seems to be
a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose.
The Divine Command Theory
The basic idea is that God decides what is right and
wrong. Actions that God commands are morally required;
actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and all other
actions are permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features.
• It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of
personal feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It
is right if God commands it and wrong if God
forbids it.
• The Divine Command Theory explains why any of
us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we
just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the
violation of God’s commandments, then there is an
easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will
be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
• Atheists would not accept it, because they do not
believe that God exists.
• But there are difficulties even for believers. One can
be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the
gods command it, or do the gods command it
 because it is right? This is a question of whether
God makes the moral truths true or whether he
merely recognizes that they’re true.
First, we might say that right conduct is right
because God commands it. But this idea encounters
several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s commands
arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles.
The second option has a different drawback.
• In taking it, we abandon the theological conception
of right and wrong. When we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is
right, we acknowledge a standard that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior
to God’s command and is the reason for the
command.

1.2.4 God and Morality (Part 1)

Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship between
morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there no morality if there
is no God? Ultimately, Stephen will argue that morality and
God's commands are distinct, even if there is a God and she
commands moral things. However, in this first video, Steve
considers why you might like the view that morality just is
God's commands.

Speaker: Dr. Stephen Darwall (Links to an external site.),

Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy, Yale
University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.

1.2.4 God and Morality (Part 2)

Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship
between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is morality
the same thing as the commands of God? Is there no
morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks the answer to
both these questions is 'no'. He argues that if you believe
God exists and that we should follow his commands *for
certain reasons*, then you should *not* think that morality
just is whatever God commands.

Speaker: Dr. Stephen Darwall (Links to an external site.),

Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy, Yale
University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.

Summary / Key Takeaways Module

1
There is no widely agreed-on definition of morality. The
absence of a definition does not leave us entirely in the
dark, however.
What we can do is to get a good sense of our subject
matter by doing two things:
• 1. Being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality
• 2. Distinguishing morality with other normative
systems.
Conventional Morality
• the system of widely accepted rules and principles,
that members of a culture or society use to govern
their own lives.
Critical Morality
• It refers to the moral standards that are
independent of conventional morality and can be
used to critically evaluate its merits.
Three core areas of moral philosophy
Value theory
Normative ethics
Metaethics
Moral Starting Points
1.Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism.
2.Everyone is morally fallible.
3.Friendship is valuable.
4.We are not obligated to do the impossible.
5.Children bear less moral responsibility than adults.
6.Justice is a very important moral good.
7.Deliberately hurting other people requires justification.
8.Equals ought to be treated equally.
9.Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
10.Agony/suffering is bad.
11.Might does not make right.
12.Free and informed requests prevent rights violations.
Other Normative Systems
• We can also better understand morality by
contrasting its principles with those of other
normative systems.
• Other normative systems also represent a set of
standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim
for, rules that we should not break but are different
from morality.
• There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our
focus to four of the most important of them: those
that govern the law, etiquette, self-interest, and
tradition.
The Divine Command Theory
• The basic idea is that God decides what is right and
wrong.
 • Actions that God commands are morally required;
actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and all
other actions are permissible or merely morally
neutral.

2.1.1 Moral Reasoning - Intended

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. support your moral judgment with sufficient reason,
and
2. determine the minimum conception of morality.

2.1.2 Moral Reasoning in Ethical

Issues
Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons;
and second, morality requires the impartial consideration
of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting
to assume that we just know what the truth is, without
even having to consider arguments on the other side.
Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be
irrational; they may be nothing but the by-products of
prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let
our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This
is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the arguments. Of
course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good
reason. There are bad arguments as well as good ones, and
much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning
the difference.
The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The facts
exist independently of our wishes, and responsible moral
thinking begins when we try to see things as they are.
Next, we can bring moral principles into play. In our
three examples, a number of principles were involved: that
we should not “use” people; that we should not kill one
person to save another; that we should do what will
benefit the people affected by our actions; that every life is
sacred; and that it is wrong to discriminate against the
handicapped. Most moral arguments consist of principles
being applied to particular cases, and so we must ask
whether the principles are justified and whether they are
being applied correctly.
The role application of routine methods is never a
satisfactory substitute for critical thinking, in any area.
Morality is no exception.
The Requirement of Impartiality
 Almost every important moral theory includes the
idea of impartiality. This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one should get special
treatment. At the same time, impartiality requires that we
do not treat the members of particular groups as inferior,
and thus it condemns forms of discrimination like sexism
and racism.

2.1.3 The Minimum Conception of

Morality
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum conception:
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best
reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by one’s action.
This paints a picture of what it means to be a
conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent
is someone who is concerned impartially with the interests
of everyone affected by what he or she does; who
carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who
accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them
to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to reason”
even when it means revising prior convictions; and who,
finally, is willing to
act on these deliberations.
 As one might expect, not every ethical theory
accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious
moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However,
theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is
why most moral theories embrace the minimum
conception, in one form or another.

2.2.1 Skepticism in Morality -

Intended Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. identify the sources of skepticism or doubt in
morality; and
2. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the
skeptical arguments of egoism and relativism.

2.2.2 The Types of Egoism -

Psychological Egoism, Ethical
Egoism, and Rational Egoism
We respond differently when there is a “crisis.” We have
duties to others simply because they are people who could
be helped or harmed by what we do. If a certain action
would benefit (or harm) other people, then that is a reason
why we should (or should not) perform that action. The
common-sense assumption is that other people’s interests
count, from a moral point of view.
 Some people believe that we have no duties to
others. On their view, known as Ethical Egoism, each
person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively. This is the morality of selfishness. It holds that
our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other
people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought to
pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People
ought to be self-interested and our neighbors ought not to
give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim about
morality, or about the way things should be.
Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts that each
person does, in fact, pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively. People are self-interested and our neighbors
will not give to charity. Psychological Egoism makes a claim
about human nature, or about the way things are.

2.2.3 Ethical Egoism: Ayn Rand's

Argument
2.2.4 Cultural Relativism
Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of
their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—
the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral
pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great
distances, and their customs turned out to be very
different from ours. The men often had more than one
wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending
them out for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover,
within a community, a dominant male might demand—and
get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives. The
women, however, were free to break these arrangements
simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new
partners—free, that is, so long as their former husbands
chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo
custom of marriage was a volatile practice that bore little
resemblance to our custom.

Cultural Relativism
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral
codes. Therefore, there are no universal moral truths, the
customs
of different societies are all that exist.

The following claims have all been made by cultural

relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes; that
a certain action is right, then that action is right, at
least within that society.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to
judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
There are no
moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
 3. The moral code of our own society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is
right within that society; that is, if the moral code of
a society says it is.
The Cultural Differences Argument
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.

What Follows from Cultural Relativism

1. We could no longer say that the customs of other
societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own
society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly,
about the danger of assuming that all of our practices are
based on some absolute rational standard. They are not.
Some of our customs are merely conventional—merely
peculiar to our society—and it is easy to lose sight of that
fact. Cultural Relativism begins with the insight that many
of our practices are like this—they are only cultural
products.
The second lesson has to do with keeping an open
mind. As we grow up, we develop strong feelings about
things: We learn to see some types of behavior as
acceptable, and other types as outrageous.
Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind
of dogmatism. Realizing this can help broaden our minds.
We can see that our feelings are not necessarily
perceptions of the truth— they may be due to cultural
conditioning and nothing more.
Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural
are really only cultural products.

2.2.5 Ethical Relativism

Summary / Key Takeaways Module
2
Reason and Impartiality

• Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and second, morality

requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning

• If we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much
as possible by reason.
• This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.

The Requirement of Impartiality

 • Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of impartiality.
• This is the idea that each individual’s interests are equally important; no one
should get special treatment.
• Impartiality requires that we not treat the members of particular groups as
inferior, and thus it condemns forms of discrimination like sexism and racism.

The Minimum Conception of Morality

• Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that
is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight
to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision.

Skepticism in Ethics

• Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-
interest exclusively.
• Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts that each person does in
fact pursue his or her own self- interest exclusively.

Cultural Relativism

• Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there are
no universal moral truths, the customs of different societies are all that exist.

3.1.1 The Utilitarian Approach -

Intended Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. explain the basic idea of Utilitarianism; and
2. apply the basic idea of Utilitarianism to specific
moral issues.

3.1.2 The Revolution in Ethics

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a powerful
argument for a novel conception of morality. Morality, he
urged, is not about pleasing God, nor is it about being
faithful to abstract rules; instead, it is about making the
world as happy as possible. Bentham believed in one
ultimate moral principle, the “Principle of Utility.” That
principle requires us, in all circumstances, to “maximize
happiness”—in other words, to produce the greatest total
balance of happiness over unhappiness, or of pleasure over
suffering.
Bentham led a group of radicals who worked to
reform the laws and institutions of England along utilitarian
lines. One of his followers was James Mill, the
distinguished Scottish philosopher, historian, and
economist. James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873),
would become the next leading advocate of utilitarian
ethics. The younger Mill’s advocacy was even more elegant
and persuasive than Bentham’s. Mill’s short book
Utilitarianism (1861) is still required reading for serious
students of moral philosophy.
To understand why the Principle of Utility was so
radical, consider what it leaves out of morality: It says
nothing about God, nor does it speak of abstract rules
“written in the heavens.” Morality is not viewed as
obedience to a list of ancient proclamations. Or as the
utilitarian Peter Singer (1946–) puts it, morality is not “a
system of nasty puritanical prohibitions . . . designed to
stop people [from] having fun.” Rather, ethics is about the
happiness of beings in this world, and nothing more; and
we are permitted—even required—to do what is necessary
to bring about the most happiness. This was no quaint
truism; this was a revolutionary idea.

3.1.3 Utilitarianism and Real-World

Issues
The Utilitarian wanted their doctrine to matter in practice.
So let’s see what Utilitarianism has to say about three real-
world issues: euthanasia, use of marijuana, and the
treatment of nonhuman animals. This will give us a better
sense of the theory.

euthanasia use of marijuana

3.1.3.1 First Example: Euthanasia

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the legendary Austrian
psychologist, was stricken with oral cancer after decades
of cigar smoking. During his final years, Freud’s health
went up and down, but in early 1939, a large swelling
formed in the back of his mouth, and he would have no
more good days. Freud’s cancer was active, and he was
also suffering from heart failure. As his bones decayed,
they cast off a foul smell, driving away his favorite dog.
Mosquito netting was draped over his bed in order to keep
flies away.
On September 21, at the age of 83, Freud took his
friend and personal physician, Max Schur, by the hand and
said, “My dear Schur, you certainly remember our first talk.
You promised me then not to forsake me when my time
comes. Now it’s nothing but torture and makes no sense
anymore.” Forty years earlier Freud had written, “What has
the individual come to . . . if one no longer dares to disclose
that it is this or that man’s turn to die?” Dr. Schur said he
understood. He injected Freud with a drug in order to end
his life. “He soon felt relief,” Dr. Schur wrote, “and fell into
a peaceful sleep."
Did Max Schur do anything wrong?
To know more about how Utilitarianism would approach
this situation, please read...First Example, Euthanasia.pdf

.1.3.2 Second Example: Marijuana

The War on Drugs.
In 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte
declared that drug abuse was “public enemy number one”
in the Philippines. “In order to fight and defeat this enemy,”
Duterte said, “it is necessary to wage a new, all-out
offensive.” Thus began the Philippines’ “War on Drugs.”
Since then, billions of pesos on law enforcement, prison
construction, military action, and public-opinion campaigns
were spent, all designed to reduce the use of illicit drugs.
And every local government joined in. Today, thousands of
people are prisoners of the Philippines' Drug War; part of
those of people incarcerated in the Philippines are locked
up primarily due to nonviolent drug offenses.
Despite its name, the War on Drugs targets only
some drugs. Many drugs are perfectly legal. Anyone can
buy over-the-counter medications, which contain such
drugs as aspirin. Also legal are three substances that
millions of Filipinos are addicted to alcohol, caffeine, and
nicotine.
Drugs that the Drug War does target are stated
in THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002 or REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. Those drugs are
considered so dangerous that, not only are they outlawed
for personal use, but doctors cannot even prescribe them
to patients.
Among those villains is marijuana. The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act has always classified
marijuana as an outlawed. Thus, under law, nobody in the
Philippines may grow, possess, or distribute cannabis,
including doctors and pharmacists. Marijuana, it seems, has
been one of the main enemies in the War on Drugs.
Growing Support for Marijuana Reform in other parts of
the world.
During the past fifty years, many Americans have
opposed the Drug War, at least in their private behavior,
from time to time: marijuana has always been popular. A
recent poll found that 52% of adults have tried marijuana,
and 22% are current users. For such reasons, perhaps, the
drug has many nicknames. A federal-government website
notes that marijuana is sometimes called “pot,” “weed,”
“bud,” “herb,” “grass,” “ganja,” and “Mary Jane”—to which
we may add “reefer,” “chronic,” “cannabis,” “dope,”
“schwag,” “skunk,” “stinkweed,” “gangster,” “420,” “THC,”
and “the Devil’s lettuce.” Yet most Americans—Democrats
and Republicans alike—have supported the War on Drugs,
ever since Nixon in 1971 declared it.
In the last decade, however, many states have
passed pro-marijuana laws in defiance of the Controlled
Substances Act. By 2018, most states had legalized
marijuana for medical purposes (for example, for treating
nausea in cancer patients), while eight states, including
California, had legalized it outright. Today, more than 20%
of Americans live in states with laws that let adults
purchase pot in certain places, just as adults might buy
vodka at a package store or liquor store.
What happens, in practice, when a state law
conflicts with federal law? Usually, the state law is deemed
null and void, because the U.S. Constitution says that
federal laws get priority. In this case, however, the federal
government has decided—so far—not to enforce the
Controlled Substances Act against people who use weed in
states that have legalized it.
Given the nature of politics, perhaps that’s
unsurprising; a recent poll of Americans found broad
support for the reform of marijuana laws, with 61%
supporting full legalization, 88% in favor of medical
marijuana, and 71% wanting the federal government to let
states do as they wish.
What do other people in other parts of the world say about
the pros and cons of using marijuana?
What does the utilitarian approach say about the pros and
cons of legalizing the use of marijuana?
To know more answers about this question please
read...The Pros and Cons of Marijuana Use.pdf

3.1.3.3 Third Example: Treatment of

Animals
The treatment of animals has traditionally been regarded
as a trivial matter. Christians believe that man alone is
made in God’s image and that animals do not have souls.
Thus, by the natural order of things, we can treat animals in
any way we like. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
summed up the traditional view when he wrote,
Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for
a man to kill brute animals; for by the divine providence
they are intended for man’s use in the natural order. Hence
it is not wrong for a man to make use of them, either by
killing them or in any other way whatever.
But isn’t it wrong to be cruel to animals? Aquinas
concedes that it is, but he says the reason has to do with
human welfare, not the welfare of the animals:
And if any passages of Holy Scripture seem to forbid us to
be cruel to brute animals, for instance, to kill a bird with its
young, this is either to remove man’s thoughts from being
cruel to other men, lest through being cruel to animals one
becomes cruel to human beings; or because injury to an
animal leads to the temporal hurt of man, either of the
doer of the deed or of another.
Thus, according to the traditional view, people and
animals are in separate moral categories. Animals have no
moral standing of their own; we are free to treat them in
any way we please.
Put so bluntly, the traditional doctrine might make us
a little nervous: It seems extreme in its lack of concern for
nonhuman animals, many of which are, after all, intelligent
and sensitive creatures. Yet much of our conduct is guided
by this doctrine. We eat animals; we use them as
experimental subjects in our laboratories; we use their
skins for clothing and their heads as wall ornaments; we
make them the objects of our amusement in circuses,
rodeos, and bullfights; and we track them down and kill
them for sport. All of these activities involve considerable
animal pain.
 If the theological “justification” of these practices
seems thin, Western philosophers have offered plenty of
secular ones. Philosophers have said that animals are not
rational, that they lack the ability to speak, or that they are
simply not human—and all these are given as reasons why
their interests lie outside the sphere of moral concern.
How do you think should we treat non-human animals?
How do you think the Utilitarian approach to ethics would
deal with the treatment of nonhuman animals?
To know more answers please read.

3.2.1 The Debate over

Utilitarianism - Intended Learning
Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. present the basic idea of Utilitarianism; and
2. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the
Utilitarian Theory.

3.2.2 The Classical Version of the

Theory
Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three
propositions:
(a) The morality of an action depends solely on the
consequences of the action; nothing else matters.
(b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they
involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals.
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s
happiness gets “equal consideration.”
An action is right if it produces the greatest overall
balance of happiness over unhappiness.

3.2.3 Is Pleasure All That Matters?

The question "What things are good?" is different from the
question "What actions are right?" and Utilitarianism
answers the second question by reference to the first.
Right actions are the ones that produce the most good. But
what is good? The utilitarian reply is: happiness.
But what is happiness? According to the classical
utilitarians, happiness is pleasure. Utilitarians understand
“pleasure” broadly, to include all mental states that feel
good.
The thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate good—and pain
the one ultimate evil—has been known since antiquity as
Hedonism.
We value things other than pleasure.
For example, we value artistic creativity and friendship.
These things make us happy, but that’s not the only reason
we value them.
G. E. Moore (1873–1958), have compiled short lists of
things to be regarded as valuable in themselves. Moore
suggested that there are three obvious intrinsic goods—
pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment— and so
right actions are those actions that increase the world’s
supply of these things.
For details, please read Is Pleasure All That Matters.pdf

3.2.4 Are Consequences All That

Matter?
To determine whether an action is right, utilitarians believe
that we should look at what will happen as a result of
doing it. This idea is central to the theory.
Here are three arguments that attack the theory at just this
point.
Justice. Utilitarianism is incompatible with the idea of
justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly,
according to the merits of their particular situations. (H. J.
McCloskey)
Rights. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people
have rights that may not be trampled on merely because
one anticipates good results. On Utilitarianism, an
individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if enough
people benefit from the trampling.
Utilitarianism has thus been accused of supporting the
“tyranny of the majority”: if the majority of people would
take pleasure in someone’s rights being abused, then those
rights should be abused because the pleasure of the
majority outweighs the suffering of the one.
Backward-Looking Reasons. Utilitarianism makes the past
irrelevant, and so it seems flawed. The fact that someone
committed a crime is a reason to punish him. The fact that
someone did you a favor last week is a reason for you to
do her a favor next week. The fact that you hurt someone
yesterday is a reason to make it up to him today. These are
all facts about the past that are relevant to determining our
obligations.
For details, please read...Are Consequences All That
Matter.pdf

3.2.5 Should We Be Equally

Concerned for Everyone?
We must treat each person’s happiness is equally
important. This has troubling implications. One problem is
that the requirement of “equal concern” places too great a
demand on us; another problem is that it disrupts our
personal relationships.
The Charge That Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding.
Faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard would
require you to give away your wealth until you’ve made
yourself as poor as the people you’re helping. Utilitarianism
seems unable to recognize the “supererogatory” moral
category.
The Charge That Utilitarianism Disrupts Our Personal
Relationships.
In practice, none of us is willing to treat everyone equally,
because that would require giving up our special ties to
friends and family. We are all deeply partial where our
family and friends are concerned.
When you are impartial, you miss out on intimacy, love,
affection, and friendship. At this point, Utilitarianism seems
to have lost all touch with reality.
For details, please read Should We Be Equally Concerned
for Everyone.pdf

3.2.6 The Defense of Utilitarianism

Together, these objections appear to be decisive.
• Utilitarianism seems unconcerned with both justice
and individual rights.
• Moreover, it cannot account for backward-looking
reasons.
 • If we lived by the theory, we would become poor,
and we would have to stop loving our family and
our friends.
Most philosophers have therefore abandoned
Utilitarianism.
Some philosophers, however, continue to defend it. They
do so in three different ways.
The First Defense: Contesting the Consequences.
Most of the arguments against Utilitarianism go like this:
a situation is described; then it is said that some particular
(vile!) action would have the best consequences under
those circumstances; then Utilitarianism is faulted for
advocating that action.
These arguments, however, succeed only if the actions
they describe really would have the best consequences.
Would they? According to the first defense, they would
not.
Theories like Utilitarianism are supposed to apply
to all situations, including situations that are merely
hypothetical. Thus, showing that Utilitarianism has
unacceptable implications in made-up cases is a valid way
of critiquing it. The first defense, then, is weak.
The Second Defense: The Principle of Utility Is a Guide for
Choosing Rules, Not Acts.
 The new version of Utilitarianism modifies the theory so
that individual actions are no longer judged by the Principle
of Utility.
Instead, we first ask what set of rules is optimal, from a
utilitarian viewpoint. In other words, what rules should we
follow in order to maximize happiness?
Individual acts are then assessed according to whether
they abide by these rules. This new version of the theory is
called “Rule- Utilitarianism,” to distinguish it from the
original theory, now commonly called “Act-Utilitarianism.”
In shifting emphasis from the justification of acts to the
justification of rules, Utilitarianism has been brought into
line with our intuitive judgments.
However, a serious problem with Rule-Utilitarianism arises
when we ask whether the ideal rules
have exceptions. Must the rules be followed no matter
what? What if a “forbidden” act would greatly increase the
overall good?
The rule-utilitarian might give any one of three answers.
First, if she says that in such cases we may violate the
rules, then it looks like she wants to assess actions on a
case-by-case basis.
Second, she might suggest that we formulate the rules so
that violating them never will increase happiness.
Finally, the rule-utilitarian might stand her ground and say
that we should never break the rules, even to promote
happiness.
The Third Defense: “Common Sense” Is Wrong.
This defense is given by hard-nosed and unapologetic
utilitarians.
The First Response: All Values Have a Utilitarian Basis.
Utilitarianism is not incompatible with common sense; on
the contrary, Utilitarianism justifies the commonsense
values we have.
Apart from the utilitarian explanation, common sense
duties would seem inexplicable. What could be stranger
than saying that lying is wrong “in itself,” apart from any
harm it causes? And how could people have a “right to
privacy” unless respecting that right brought them some
benefit?
The Second Response: Our Gut Reactions Can’t Be Trusted
when Cases Are Exceptional.
Why do we immediately and instinctively believe it to be
wrong to bear false witness against an innocent person?
The reason, some say, is that throughout our lives we have
seen lies lead to misery and misfortune. Thus, we
instinctively condemn all lies.
However, when confronting unusual cases, such as
McCloskey’s (where lies that increase happiness), perhaps
we should trust the Principle of Utility more than our gut
instincts.
The Third Response: We Should Focus on All the
Consequences.
When we’re asked to consider a “despicable” action that
maximizes happiness, the action is often presented in a
way that encourages us to focus on its bad effects, rather
than its good effects.
If instead we focus on all the effects of the act,
Utilitarianism seems more plausible.
Concluding Thoughts
Our “common moral consciousness,” many considerations
other than utility seem morally important. But Smart is
right to warn us that “common sense” cannot be trusted.

Summary / Key Takeaways Module

3
The Utilitarian Approach
The Principle of Utility: the point of morality is the happiness of beings in this world, and
nothing more; and we are permitted—even required—to do whatever is necessary to
promote that happiness.
The Classical Version of the Theory
(a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing
else matters.
(b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser
happiness of individuals.
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal
consideration.”
Criticism against Utilitarianism

• We value things other than pleasure. For example, we value artistic creativity
and friendship.
• Utilitarianism is incompatible with the ideal of justice. Utilitarianism is at odds
with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely
because one anticipates good results.
• The requirement of “equal concern” places too great a demand on us; and it
disrupts our personal relationships.

4.1.1 Are There Absolute Moral

Rules? - Intended Learning
Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to;
1. describe Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative;
and
2. reflect on the existence of absolute moral rules.

4.1.2 The Issue involving Harry

Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe
Harry S. Truman will always be remembered as the
man who made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Using the atomic bomb on one or
two Japanese cities might bring the war to a speedy
end. Truman was at first reluctant to use the new weapon.
The problem was that each bomb would obliterate an
entire city—not just the military targets, but the hospitals,
schools, and homes. Women, children, old people, and
other non-combatants would be wiped out along with the
military personnel.
Elizabeth Anscombe, who died in 2001, was a 20-
year-old student at Oxford University when World War II
began. “For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means
to their ends,” she wrote, “is always murder.” To the
argument that the bombings saved more lives than they
took, she replied, “Come now: if you had to choose
between boiling one baby and letting some frightful
disaster befall a thousand people—or a million people if a
thousand is not enough—what would you do?”
Anscombe’s point was that some things may not be
done, no matter what. It does not matter if we could
accomplish some great good by boiling a baby; it is simply
wrong.

4.1.3 Kant's Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Kant observed that the word ought is often used
non morally:
• If you want to become a better chess player,
you ought to study the games of Garry Kasparov.
• If you want to go to college, you ought to take the
SAT.
 Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because
they tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant
desires.
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on
having particular desires. The form of a moral obligation is
not “If you want so-and-so, then you ought to do such-
and-such.” Instead, moral requirements
are categorical: They have the form “You ought to do such-
and-such, period.”

How can we be obligated to behave in a certain way

regardless of our goals?
Kant - Just as hypothetical “oughts” are possible
because we have desires, categorical “oughts” are possible
because we have reason capacity. Categorical oughts, Kant
says, are derived from a principle that every rational
person must accept: the Categorical Imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can
at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.”

To know more about Kant and his "categorical imperative",

please watch this video:

4.1.4 Kant’s Arguments on Lying

According to Kant, then, our behavior should be
guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that hold
true in all circumstances. Kant believed in many such
exceptionless rules.
Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someone’s
life. Should you do it?
Anscombe - Perhaps your maxim would be: “I will lie when
doing so would save someone’s life.”
Case of the Inquiring Murderer - Under these
circumstances, most of us think, you should lie. After all,
which is more important: telling the truth or saving
someone’s life?
Kant’s reply - This argument may be stated in a
general form: We are tempted to make exceptions to the
rule against lying because in some cases we think the
consequences of honesty will be bad and the
consequences of lying will be good. However, we can
never be certain about what the consequences will be—we
cannot know that good results will follow. The results of
lying might be unexpectedly bad.
Response to Kant - The argument depends on an
unreasonably pessimistic view of what we can know.
Sometimes we can be quite confident of what the
consequences of our actions will be, in which case we need
not hesitate because of uncertainty.
Aren’t white lies acceptable—or even required—
when they can be used to save someone’s life? This points
to the main difficulty for the belief in absolute rules:
shouldn’t a rule be broken when following it would be
disastrous?

4.1.5 Kant’s Insight

Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on
rational agents simply because they are rational; in other
words, a person who rejected this principle would be guilty
not merely of being immoral but also of being irrational.
Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—
if it is true that you ought (or ought not) to do such and
such, then there must be a reason why you should (or
should not) do it.
Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on
all people at all times. This is a requirement of consistency,
and Kant was right to think that no rational person may
deny it.
There are rational constraints on what we may
do. Rules, even within a Kantian framework, need not be
absolute. All that Kant’s basic idea requires is that when we
violate a rule, we do so for a reason that we would be
willing for anyone to accept.

4.2.1 Kant and Respect for Persons

- Intended Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
 1. describe the alternative formulation of the
categorical imperative; and
2. apply the alternative formulation of the categorical
imperative to the idea of punishment.

4.2.2 Kant’s Core Ideas

These are the important points in this lesson:
1. For Immanuel Kant, human beings occupy a special
place in creation.
2. Human beings have “an intrinsic worth” or “dignity”
that makes them valuable “above all price.”
3. Other animals, according to Kant, have value only
insofar as they serve human purposes. Animals. . .
are there merely as means to an end. That end is the
man. Human beings as ends meant that people are
irreplaceable.

Two facts about people, Kant believed, support the

above ideas.
• First, because people have desires, things that
satisfy those desires can have value for people.
• Second, People have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity”
because they are rational agents, that is, free agents
capable of making their own decisions, setting their
own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason.
 The only way that moral goodness can exist is for
rational creatures to act from goodwill —that is, to
apprehend what they should do and act from a sense of
duty.
Kant's Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of another, always as an end and never as
a means only." Treat people “as an end” means, on the
most superficial level, treating them well.

4.2.3 Retribution and Utility in the

Theory of Punishment
The main ideas for this topic are:
1. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) said that “all
punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is
evil.” Bentham had a point. Punishment, by its
nature, always involves inflicting some harm on the
person punished.
2. Retributivism - is idea that punishment is justified as
a way of “paying back” the offender for his wicked
deed. Those who have committed a crime deserve
to be treated badly. It is a matter of justice: If you
harm other people, justice requires that you be
harmed, too.
3. Retributivism was, on Bentham’s view, a wholly
unsatisfactory idea, because it advocates the
 infliction of suffering without any compensating
gain in happiness.
If someone breaks the law, then punishing that
person can have several benefits.
• First, punishment provides comfort and gratification
to victims and their families.
• Second, by locking up criminals, or by executing
them, we take them off the street.
• Third, punishment reduces crime by deterring
would-be criminals.
• Fourth, a well-designed system of punishment
might help to rehabilitate wrongdoers.

4.2.4 Kant’s Retributivism

Kant argues that punishment should be governed by two
principles.
• First, people should be punished simply because
they have committed crimes and for no other
reason.
• Second, punishment should be proportionate to the
seriousness of the crime.
Treating someone “as an end” means treating him as a
rational being, who is responsible for his behavior. So now
we may ask: What does it mean to be a responsible being?
A rational being can freely decide what to do, based on his
own conception of what is best. Rational
beings are responsible for their behavior, and so they are
accountable for what they do.
In punishing people, we are holding them responsible for
their actions. We are responding to them as people who
have freely chosen their evil deeds.
At the end of the day, what we think of Kant’s theory may
depend on our view of criminal behavior. If we see
criminals as victims of circumstance, who do not ultimately
control their own actions, then the utilitarian model will
appeal to us. On the other hand, if we see criminals as
rational agents who freely choose to do harm, then Kantian
retributivism will have great appeal for us.
The resolution of this great debate might thus turn on
whether we believe that human beings have free will, or
whether we believe that outside forces impact human
behavior so deeply that our freedom is an illusion.

Summary / Key Takeaways Module

4
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Kant observed that the word ought is often used nonmorally:
–If you want to become a better chess player, you ought to study the games of Garry
Kasparov.
–If you want to go to college, you ought to take the SAT.
Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because they tell us what to do provided
that we have the relevant desires.
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on having particular desires. The form of a
moral obligation is not “If you want so-and-so, then you ought to do such-and-such.”
Instead, moral requirements are categorical: They have the form “You ought to do such-
and-such, period.”
The Categorical Imperative (First Formulation)

• “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law.

Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on rational agents simply because
they are rational; in other words, a person who rejected this principle would be guilty not
merely of being immoral but also of being irrational.
Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—if it is true that you ought (or ought
not) to do such hand- such, then there must be a reason why you should (or should not)
do it.
The Categorical Imperative (Second Formulation)

• “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of
another, always as an end and never as a means only.”

To treat people “as an end” means, on the most superficial level, treating them well.

Retributivism and Utility in the Theory of Punishment

• Utilitarian Theory of Punishment. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) said that “all

punishment in itself is evil.” Punishment, by its nature, always involves
inflicting some harm on the person punished.
• Retributivism. Those who have committed a crime deserve to be treated
badly. It is a matter of justice: If you harm other people, justice requires that
you be harmed, too.

Utility in the Theory of Punishment

Retributivism was, on Bentham’s view, is a bad idea, because it advocates the infliction
of suffering without any compensating gain in happiness.
If someone breaks the law, then punishing that person can have several benefits.

• First, punishment provides comfort and gratification to victims and their

families.
• Second, by locking up criminals, we take them off the street.
• Third, punishment reduces crime by deterring would-be criminals.
• Fourth, a well-designed system of punishment might help to rehabilitate
wrongdoers.
Kant’s Retributivism

• For Kant, to punish people when they break the moral law is to treat them
with respect, it is a sign of respect.
• Treating someone “as an end” means treating him as a rational being, who is
responsible for his behavior.
• A rational being can freely decide what to do, based on his own conception of
what is best. Rational beings are responsible for their behavior, and so they
are accountable for what they do.
• In punishing people, we are holding them accountable for their actions. We
are responding to them as people who have freely chosen their evil deeds.