Moral Reasoning and Ethical Theory[1].Ppt[1]

8/11/2019 Moral Reasoning and Ethical Theory[1].Ppt[1]

1/48

Philosophy 246: BioethicsMoral Reasoning & Ethical Theory


2/48


3/48

What is Morality?

Principles or rules of conduct thatpeople use to decide what is right

or wrong.

Discuss: How would you define morality?


4/48

Morality vs. Ethical Theory

Morality is concerned with the socialpractices defining right and wrong.

Ethical theory provides guidelines for

justification of right or wrong actions whensettling human conflict.

No one moral philosophy is accepted byeveryone!


5/48

What is Law?

LAW = (i) a public means for translatingcertain actions into explicit social

practices and (ii)a public means forstipulating punishments for violating

these practices.

Discuss: How would you define Law?How does law differ from morality?

**Note that what is immoral could be legal andjust because something is illegal does not mean its

immoral.


6/48

Is morality a matter of opinion?

Primarily two ways to answer thisquestion:

Relativismwhat makes an action right

or wrong is a cultural consensus Absolutismwhat makes an action right

or wrong does not depend on humanbelief, but principles that are universal(e.g., we should never kill a living beingwithout just cause).


7/48

Relativism

What is good (or right) is sociallyacceptedand what is bad (or wrong)is socially unacceptablein a given

culture.

On this view, there is no such thingas universal truth in ethics, there are

only the various cultural codes andnothing more.


8/48

Argument for Relativism

1. What is considered morally right andwrong varies from society to society, sothat there are no universal moral

standards held by all societies.2. Whether or not it is right for an individual

to act in a certain way depends on or isrelative to the society to which he or she

belongs.

3. Therefore, there are no absolute (orobjective) moral standards that apply to

all people everywhere and at all times.


9/48

Relativism: a few troubling features

1- A culture is never at a consensus onanything (e.g., embryonic stem cell research,same-sex marriage, etc.)

2- If morality is in fact relative, then itsdifficult to see how we can make moralprogress on any issue.

The existence of real moral principles are our best

bet for moral progress (e.g., abolition of slavery,civil rights movement)

Relativism faces the problem of the moral reformer

3- At least sometimes, entire cultures can be

wrong about whats moral (e.g. Nazi Germany).


10/48

Why not Relativism?

An argument against relativism:

There are some basic moral principlesthat all societies will have in

common, because those principlesare necessary for society to exist.

Discuss possible examples?

We will assume that relativism is falseand proceed by considering absolutisttheories of morality


11/48

Examples of how moral decisions areusually made

Do what the Bible tells you = DivineCommand Theories

Just follow your conscience = The Ethics ofConscience

Look out for #1 = Ethical Egoism

Do the right thing = The Ethics of Duty

...all men are created ...with certain

unalienable Rights = The Ethics of RightsMake the world a better place = Utilitarianism

Daddy, thats not fair = The Ethics of Justice

Be a good person= Virtue Ethics


12/48

Your Peers Moral Orientation

E

x

t

r

e

m

e

l

y

V

e

r

y

A

v

e

r

a

g

e

L

i

t

t

le

No

t

a

t

a

l

l

Religious Commands

Your Conscience

Your own self interestsDuties or obligations

Respect for others

Rights

Consequences for Everyone

Justice

Personal Virtues


13/48

The basic question of ethics

Historically, philosophers have disagreedabout what the basic question of ethics is.They fall into two camps:

Act-oriented approaches:How ought I to act?

Character-orientedapproaches:What kind of personought I to try to be?

FundamentalQuestion


14/48

The Big Three

For our purposes, we will focus on thethree most popular ethical theories.

1. Consequentialism (or

Utilitarianism)

2. Kantian Ethics (or Deontology)

3. Virtue Ethics


15/48

There are two ways to answer thequestion, How should I act?

Act-oriented approaches

Consequentialism:

Look at the consequencesand choose the action thathas the best consequences

Deontology:

Look at the rules andfollow the rules (tencommandments, duty,human rights, justice,etc).

Act-orientedapproaches


16/48

Utilitarianism: Make the world abetter place

Made popular by JeremyBentham (1748 1832) & JohnStuart Mill (1806 1873)

Seeks to reduce suffering andincrease pleasure or happiness

Demands a high degree of self-sacrificewe must consider the

consequences for everyone. Utilitarians claim the purpose of

morality is to make the world abetter place.


17/48

Utilitarianism: the purpose ofmorality

The utilitarian has a very simpleanswer to the question of whymorality exists:

The purpose of morality is to guidepeoples actions in such a way as toproduce the best possible outcome.

Consequently, the emphasis inutilitarianism is on consequences, notintentions.


18/48

Two main features ofUtilitarianism

1. The Consequentialist principle: therightness or wrongness of an action isdetermined by the results that follow from

it. 2. The Utility principle: the only thing

that is good in itself is some specific type ofstate (e.g. pleasure, happiness, well-being,

etc).


19/48

Utilitarianism: Greatesthappiness principle

Greatest happiness principle:Right actions are those that

produce the greatest good for

the greatest number.

The fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is

GHP: always act in the way that will producethe greatest overall amount of good in theworld.

The emphasis is clearly on consequences.


20/48

Utilitarian Calculus

Utilitarian Calculus: To determine theright course of action

Step 1 Figure out how much pleasure

(or happiness) and pain (or unhappiness)each possible action is likely to cause orinvolve.

Step 2 - The right action will be the one

that produces the most good and the leastpain for all those involved.

NOTE: An action can be right in onesituation and wrong in another.


21/48

Two approaches:

Utilitarian theories

Act Consequentialism:Arguesthat in all situations the good of

an action is based on an actthatleads to the greatest good forthe greatest number

Rule Consequentialism:The

morality of an action should beevaluated on the basis ofprinciples or rulesdesigned topromote the greatest utility forthe greatest number.

ConsequentialistApproaches


22/48

Consider this example

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushedto the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassinsbullet. He needs a heart and lung transplantimmediately to survive. No suitable donors areavailable, but there is a homeless person in the

emergency room who is being kept alive on arespirator, who probably has only a few days to live,and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant,the leader will die; the homeless person will die in afew days anyway. Security at the hospital is very wellcontrolled. The transplant team could hasten thedeath of the homeless person and carry out thetransplant without the public ever knowing that theykilled the homeless person for his organs. Whatshould they do?


23/48

Rule v. Act Utilitarians

For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No onecould approve a general rule that lets hospitals killpatients for their organs when they are going to dieanyway. The consequences of adopting such a

general rule would be highly negative and wouldcertainly undermine public trust in the medicalestablishment.

For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex.If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences

might be such that in this particular instance greaterutility is produced by hastening the death of thehomeless person and using his organs for thetransplant of the leader.


24/48

Utilitarianism: some strengths

1. It is a very practical moral theory

2. It is concerned with consequences

and consequences are important3. It is impartial (?)


25/48

Utilitarianism: some weaknesses

1. Utilitarianism often demands that we putaside self-interest. Sometimes this meansputting aside our own moral convictions.

2. Utilitarianism is concerned almostexclusively about consequences, notintentions.

3. You could spend all day trying to calculate

possible actions, choosing which is the bestcourse to take

4. Does not consider relationships butrelationships seem to be morally significant

(e.g. two drowning people)


26/48

The Ethics of Duty : "Do the rightthing"

More than any otherphilosopher Immanuel Kant(1724 1804), emphasized theway in which the moral life was

centered on duty. Kant wanted to find the

absolute foundation of morality,which he thought was notreligion, sentiment, or humanopinion.

According to Kant thefoundation of morality is duty;to do the right thing.


27/48

The Ethics of Duty : "Do theright thing"

Begins with the conviction that ethics isabout doing what is right, doing yourduty.

Duty may be determined by: Reason

Kant: Do what any rational agentshould do

Professional roleA physicians duty to care for the sick

Social roleA parents duty to care for his or herchildren


28/48

Two Types of Imperatives Most of us live by rules much of the time. 1. Hypothetical Imperative:

If you want to get an A in this class, thenyou need to study.

Kant has shown that the acceptable conception ofthe moral law cannot be merely hypothetical. Ouractions cannot be moral on the ground of someconditional purpose or goal. Morality requires an

unconditional statement of one's duty. 2.Categorical Imperative

Unconditional, applicable at all times

Always tell the truth


29/48

Categorical Imperative:Three Formulations

1 & 2 Universal law formulations

Always act in such a way that the maxim ofyour action can be willed as a universal law ofhumanity.

"Act as though the maxim of your action wereby your will to become a universal law ofnature."

All actions have maxims, such as,

Never lie to your friends.

Always do to others as you would have themdo to you.

Its never ok to cheat if you need to.


30/48

Example: Lying

Is it possible to universalize a maxim thatpermits lying?

What is the maxim?

Its ok to lie when you really need to? Can this consistently be willed as a universal

law?

Kant says no, because it underminesitself, destroying the rational expectationof trust upon which it depends.


31/48

Another example

Is it possible to universalize a maxim thatencourages helping innocent people?

What is the maxim?

When some innocent person is in imminentdanger and we can help them without any riskto ourselves, then we should always help.

Can this consistently be willed as a universallaw?

It seems like it.


32/48

Categorical Imperatives: Threeformulations

3. Respect humanity formulation

Act in such a way that you always treathumanity, whether in your own person or

in the person of any other, never simply asa means, but always at the same time asan end. - Kant

According to Kant, each person has dignity

and profound worth, which means that wemust never exploit or use others as ameans to a good.


33/48

What would Kant say?

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushedto the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassinsbullet. He needs a heart and lung transplantimmediately to survive. No suitable donors areavailable, but there is a homeless person in the

emergency room who is being kept alive on arespirator, who probably has only a few days to live,and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant,the leader will die; the homeless person will die in afew days anyway. Security at the hospital is very wellcontrolled. The transplant team could hasten thedeath of the homeless person and carry out thetransplant without the public ever knowing that theykilled the homeless person for his organs. Whatshould they do?


34/48

Using People as Mere Means The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments: a

clinical study conducted between 1932and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by theU.S. Public Health Service.

Investigators recruited 399 African-

Americans who had Syphilis to determineif patients were better off not beingtreated with the standard toxic remedies.Additionally, researchers wanted tounderstand each stage of the disease inhopes of developing suitable treatments

for others. The 40-year study was controversial for

many reason but primarily becauseresearchers failed to treat patientsappropriately after penicillin was validated

as an effective cure for the disease.


35/48

Respect humanity formulation

Kants argument: in valuing anything, I (a humanbeing) endow it with value; it can have no valueapart from someones valuing it. As a valuedobject, it has conditional worth, which is derived

from my valuation. On the other hand, theperson who values the object is the ultimatesource of the object, and as such belongs to adifferent sphere of beings. We, as valuers, must

conceive of ourselves as having unconditionalworth. And there is no reason to suppose thatone person should have unconditional worth andnot another.


36/48

Kantian Ethics: some strengths

1. What are the strengths of Kantianism?

2. It provides us with a foundation forindividual autonomy and respect for

persons. 3. It is impartial

4. It takes motives into account


37/48

Kantian Ethics:some weaknesses

What are some weaknesses?

1. Gives little guidance to resolveconflicting duties (e.g., to lie or be kind)

2. It ignores relationships


38/48

The basic question of ethics

Historically, philosophers have disagreedabout what the basic question of ethics is.They fall into two camps:

Act-oriented approaches:How ought I to act?

Character-orientedapproaches:What kind of personought I to try to be?

FundamentalQuestion


39/48

Virtue Ethics : "Be a goodperson

Seeks to develop individualcharacter

Places an emphasis on

developing virtue Assumes good persons will

make good decisions

Developed by Plato andAristotle

Integral to the Jesuit tradition

The Spiritual Exercises

A A l f th C i i l


40/48

An Analogy from the CriminalJustice System

As a country, we place our trust for justdecisions in the legal arena in two places:

Laws, which provide the necessary rules

People, who (as judge and jury) applyrules judiciously

Similarly, ethics places its trust in:

Theories, which provide rules for conduct Virtue, which provides the wisdom

necessary for applying rules in particularinstances


41/48

Character-oriented Approaches

Fundamental Question: What kind ofperson should I be?

This approach is known as Virtue Ethics:

Emphasizes strengths of character

necessary for human flourishing

This moral theory suggests that morality iscomprised of virtue, which has to do with aperson's character and the types of actions

that emanate from that character


42/48

Virtue As the Golden Mean

Virtue Ethics is usually associated withAristotle

Aristotle said that strength of character

(virtue) involves finding the proper balancebetween two extremes.

Excess: having too much of something.

Deficiency: having too little of something.

Not mediocrity, but harmony and balance.


43/48

Virtue As the Golden Mean

TheGolden

Mean, forfacing

danger

Actingcowardly =

A deficiency

Acting withcourage =A virtue

Acting hastyor rashly =An excess


44/48

Exercise: virtue as a golden mean

Excess Mean Deficit

Trustworthy

generosity

Being realistic

Fairness

Moderation(e.g. eating)

humility


45/48

Exercise: virtue as a golden mean

Excess Mean Deficit

Boasting or tattletelling

Trustworthy lying

extravagance generosity stinginess

Overly optimistic Being realistic pessimism

Unfair advantage Fairness Disadvantaged

gluttony moderation anorexia

boasting humility self-deprecating


46/48

Virtue and Habit

For Aristotle, virtue is something that ispracticed and thereby learnedit is habit.

This has clear implications for moral

education, for Aristotle obviously thinksthat you can teach people to be virtuous.


47/48

Virtue Ethics: some strengths

1. Virtues are those strengths of characterthat enable us to flourish

2. Like judges, the virtuous person has

practical wisdom, the ability to know whenand how best to apply various moralperspectives.


48/48

Virtue Ethics: some problems

1. How do we determine a virtuous action?Many people have varying definitions ofwhat traits are considered virtuous.

2. It doesnt really give us any moralguidance.

Moral Reasoning and Ethical Theory[1].Ppt[1]

Documents

Transcript of Moral Reasoning and Ethical Theory[1].Ppt[1]