DeontologyPrinciple-based ethics

The universality of ethical judgments

Ethical judgments must apply to everyone in the same way.• Ex. It is wrong for everyone to

kill an innocent person.• Ex. It’s always wrong to lie.• Ex. One ought to live a life

aimed at artistic excellence if one has the talent, desire, and opportunities to make likely the achievement of such excellence.

Disagreement & The Golden Rule

You say “This is the way you should behave”. But I say: “No, that is not the way”. You say: “This is right.” But I say: “No, that is wrong and this is right.” You appeal to experience. I appeal to experience against you. You appeal to authority: [but] it is not mine. What is left? If you are strong, you can punish me for behaving my way. But does that prove anything except that you are stronger than I? Does it prove the absurd dogma that might makes right? Is the slavemaster right because he owns the whip[?] … ”

- MacHiver, 1952

MacHiver says that the golden rule is the one thing that everyone can agree on because it’s very reasonable: it’s the ethical principle that applies to everybody despite their differences. Universality – this rule is universal.(Ex. owning a gun… or authority, as in religious authority or Bentham’s principle of utility.)

The Golden Rule

MacHiver: think about the one who would be affected, how would you feel if you were them?

Some possible benefits of the golden rule

1. It is mind-expanding in the sense that it asks you to transcend yourself and your situation and see yourself in the position of others (MacHiver)

2. Greater likelihood of realizing the accident/luck of each of our circumstances. (MacHiver)

3. Greater understanding and empathy with others

4. Improved moral perception and reasoning

The Golden Rule: a rule of reciprocity

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius (551 BC – c. 479 BC)

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. – Udanavarga 5:18 (Buddhism)

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. — Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Hinduism)

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.” —Sirach 31:15 (Judaism)

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation" – Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a (Judaism)

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” – Jesus (Luke 6:31)

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” – Muhammad (An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)

Do all these say the same thing? …No.

Is the Golden Rule the ethic we’ve been looking for?

1. The Golden rule functions as a validation principle for all moral principles and values. These must be compatible with it.

2. It doesn’t tell us what to do about all of our ethical problems. We will still sometimes disagree.

3. Its greatest ethical contribution is to the spirit of how we should treat others – as having interests as valuable as our own.

MacHiver

Ex. the abortion debate… Is this something that I’d wish on others & would like others to wish unto myself…? (huh?)

Criticism of the Golden Rule as an ethic

Literal compliance with the golden rule would sometimes be absurd, wrong, or impossible. This is why people rarely use it.

We’re not after just doing what we would want to do in another’s place, but rather doing what we would regard as fair, just, right, or reasonable in another’s person’s place.

Deciding when the golden rule is appropriate depends on us already having conceptions of what is fair, just, right, and reasonable.

Archbishop Richard Whately (1787-1863)

*We can’t truly follow the golden rule when 2 people may want 2 different things.Ex. farmer & landlord

Kantian Ethics Presents an ethical theory based on the right, rather

than the good – more specifically on having the right motive• “the good” = good consequences. The best action to

do is that which would bring about the best consequences

“Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.”• Good will = intention/motivation, the only truly good

thing in the world because intentions are pure/free/the part of the action you can control. We can’t control the consequences.

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)

Free Will and Human Dignity

Sparky doesn’t care if other cats are hungry. He operates by instinct – mainly to eat and avoid punishment

Humans have reasons that take us beyond instinct. I can go on a hunger strike to protest injustice and resist my instincts.

This freedom – the ability to choose to act from principles is what gives me dignity – what makes me worthy of respect.

The Good Will

Good Will = the morally right motive

Central ideas:• The only intrinsic good is the good

will• The good will is one that acts out of a

sense of duty to do the right thing• Duty is action in accordance with the

moral law/ a universal principle

“What is the morally right motive?”

Doing the right thing for the right reason

Actions contrary to duty not allowed

Actions in accordance with duty but motivated by inclination don’t have any moral worth.

An action that is done from duty and against inclination, has more moral worth, than the same action done from duty with inclination.

Ex. 2 people drowning, one who you don’t like, the other who’s your friend. Kant’s POV: the right thing to do would be to save the one you don’t like because it would require more action against inclination (?) – that’s BS.

How do we figure out what our moral duty is?

Right actions follow from the right principles.

To find out whether a moral principle is ok to act from, you check if it is compatible with The Categorical Imperative (CI)

All moral rules must rest on a categorical imperative

Kant’s POV: moral principles don’t work in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but categorical imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional on something: If I don’t (?) mind going to prison, I’ll stop performing surgery without a license

How do we know if our moral principle is a good one?

The Categorical Imperative

1st formulation: “Act only according to that maxim that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (a rule that applies to everybody)

2nd formulation: “Never treat a person merely as a means to an end, but always treat them as an end in themselves”

Step 2: Universalize the maxim to everyone, past, present and future. (everyone, as if by a law of nature, does A in C in order to achieve E)

Step 1: Formulate a sincere & rational maxim (a subjective principle of action that states what you propose to do, and why)

“don’t use people”

(Ex: Make false promises whenever you want/whenever it suits you, or steal from the bookstore whenever you go in, if you can get away with it.)

(Ex: Everybody can then lie or break promises/steal from the bookstore if they want to.)

Step 3: Imagine the social world that would result from conjoining all the laws of physics, psychology, sociology, etc. with the law you made in Step 2.

(Ex: Imagine the world as you know it with the maxim.)

Step 4: test the maxim

If a maxim for an action fails either test, you have a duty NOT to act on it!

The contradiction in Conception test – In the imagined world of step 3 would it be possible to achieve your end by means of the action you proposed in step 1?

The Contradiction in the Will test - Could I consistently will that this world (in 3) actually exist?

The Categorical Imperative

(Ex: Would you then be able to use this? Would you be able to lie/steal whenever you want to?)

(Ex: No. Nobody would be trustworthy, there’d be no such thing as promises; there’d be nothing left in the bookstore & it would close.)What makes it bad is that it’s irrational & contradictory.

(Ex: Is this the sort of world you can rationally/would really want to live in? No. You need to be able to trust people in life.)

Two types of DutiesPERFECT DUTIES IMPERFECT DUTIES

Perfect Duties are duties that we are all obligated to meet every time• e.g. do not kill innocent people• e.g. keep all of your promises

Imperfect Duties are duties that we should sometimes fulfill, but are not required to do all the time.• e.g. be charitable• e.g. cultivate yourself

Kant’s POV: • How are you supposed to get all these ethics/maxims in one world?• Happiness doesn’t fit here.

Advantages over the golden ruleWHAT KANTIANISM ADDS PROBLEMS WITH THE GOLDEN RULE

A foundation in reason (rather than faith) for morality

The golden rule is very ambiguous, Kant offers a specific methodology for a first principle of morality

1. Literal compliance with the golden rule would sometimes be absurd, wrong, or impossible.

2. Deciding when the golden rule is appropriate depends on us already having conceptions of what is fair, just, right, and reasonable

- Archbishop WhatleyThe Categorical Imperative offers the answer whereas the golden rule doesn’t. For example, the trolley problem. The golden rule says that it’s wrong to sacrifice...? A maxim saying that it’s okay to sacrifice 1 person for the lives of others doesn’t stand up to the categorical imperative. Would you want to live in a world where at any moment you can be grabbed & sacrificed? We still need notions of things like justice & the golden rule doesn’t provide that.

Criticisms of Kant’s Ethical Theory

1. The system is too absolutist and inflexible

2. Some maxims which seem to be ok, fail the CI test.

3. Other maxims which seem to be objectionable, pass the CI test.

More Criticisms of Kant’s Ethical Theory

4. Usually universalizing bad maxims does not lead to contradiction or inconsistency, but to a really bad situation.

5. Universalization requires a particular description of the action I’m considering performing. But maxims based on different descriptions can give us contradictory answers.

6. Morality should be from the heart, not the head.