Ethical Theories: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture II Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

Ethical Theories: Introduction

Nanoethics Lecture II

Roderick T. Long

Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

What Are Ethical Theories?Explain what makes an action right or wrong

Ethical theories vs. particular ethical judgments

Analogy with scientific theories and observations

Some Kinds of Ethical Theory Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Ethics Contractarianism Natural Law Relativism Divine Command Ethics

ConsequentialismThe rightness/wrongness of an action

is determined by its consequences

ConsequentialismExample: utilitarianism

The right action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number (maximizes social utility)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

THESE GUYS AGAIN!

ConsequentialismAnother example: ethical egoism

The right action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness of the agent (maximizes the agent’s utility)

Two Ethical Egoists

Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

DeontologyThe rightness/wrongness of an action is

determined by inherent features of the action itself, or by an inherently valid rule

DeontologyIf an action is of the wrong kind, it is

forbidden, no matter how good its consequences are

Rejects both Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism

“The end doesn’t justify the means.”

DeontologyExample: Kantianism

Right actions must be universalizable and must treat rational agents as ends, not mere means (trade-offs forbidden)

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Kant’s Deontology Universalizability: must be

possible to will the principle of your action for everybody without inconsistency.

Lying violates universalizability because lying presupposes and exploits a general practice of telling the truth

Kant’s Deontology Ends, not mere means: don’t

treat rational agents (others or yourself) as mere objects to be used or exploited.

Personhood is the basis of ethical value and can’t be subordinated to other values.

Mustn’t sacrifice the few even to benefit the many.

Virtue EthicsThe rightness/wrongness of an action is

determined by the character traits it expresses

Emphasize what kind of person you should be

Virtue EthicsExamples: Aristotelianism, Confucianism

Aristotle

(384-322

BCE)

Confucius

(551-479

BCE)

Virtue EthicsVirtue-ethicists tend to side with deontologists

against consequentialists – though not always

ContractarianismThe rightness/wrongness of an

action is determined by whether rational people do, or under appropriate conditions would, agree to it

Example: John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance

(about which more later on)

Natural LawA body of legal or quasi-

legal precepts that: are based in human

nature, not convention can be ascertained by

human reason set the standard for,

and take precedence over, manmade laws

Natural Law “One may well ask: ‘How can you

advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ …

Natural Law “… Now, what is the difference between the

two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

– Martin Luther King, Jr.,Letter from Birmingham Jail

Natural LawNatural law theories

1. often combine deontology & virtue ethics

2. are sometimes theologically based (Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Martin Luther King) …

Natural Law… but not necessarily so

(Hugo Grotius, Lysander Spooner)

Natural Law… but not necessarily so

(Hugo Grotius, Lysander Spooner)

Example of a Natural Law Theory

The doctrine of double effect (Aquinas) –

If an action has two results, one good one bad, it’s permissible only if a) the good outweighs the bad [consequentialist component] and b) the bad is only foreseen, not intended [non-consequentialist component]

Actions individuated by their intentions

Example of a Natural Law Theory

So collateral damage OK (civilian deaths foreseen but not part of plan)

Dresden/Hiroshima not OK (civilian deaths part of plan)

Too strict for many consequentialists

Too permissive for many deontologists

RelativismThe rightness of an action depends on the

approval of some person/group/culture.

Allows conflicting moralities: such-and-such is right for group A (because group A approves of it) but wrong for group B (because group B disapproves of it).

Relativism(What most philosophers regard as) bad

arguments for relativism: relativism will make us tolerant (but the

Nazis were relativists) cultures disagree about moral values (but

they disagree about scientific facts too) ethical disagreements can’t be settled (but

what’s wrong with reflective equilibration?)

Divine Command EthicsWhat makes an action right is

the fact that God commands it.

(As opposed to the view that God commands things because they are right already.)

A form of relativism?

Divine Command EthicsProblems for divine command theory:- A perfect being would have good reasons

for whatever she commands – but DCE seems to make that impossible

- Is it possible to praise God if DCE is true?- God must already be good before she

commands, so goodness isn’t reducible to divine commands

Divine Command EthicsDefense of divine command

theory:How could God be subject to moral standards he didn’t create?

Reply: the standard of morality might be God’s nature rather than God’s will

(Thomas Aquinas, c. 1225-1274)

Ethical Theories and Ethical Standing

What has ethical standing?

- individuals?

- communities?

- non-human animals?

- plants?

- the non-living environment?

Ethical Theories and Ethical Standing

Kantianism: rational agents only

(cruelty to animals bad only because it tends to make you the sort of person who’ll be cruel to people)

Contractarianism: only those beings that can enter agreements

Ethical Theories and Ethical Standing

Utilitarianism: those beings who can feel pleasure or pain (“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” – Jeremy Bentham)

Virtue ethics: whatever beings a virtuous person would care about!

Divine Command: whatever beings God cares about!

Applying Reflective Equilibration to Ethical Theories

Case study: Utilitarianism

Advantage: simplicity (analogy with superiority of Newtonian over Aristotelian mechanics)

Disadvantage: potential conflict with existing norms

Simplicity in Science:Aristotle vs. Newton

Apple falls, moon doesn’t: why?

Aristotle: two kinds of matter with different principles of motion.

Terrestrial matter has a naturally vertical motion; celestial matter has a naturally circular motion

Simplicity in Science:Aristotle vs. Newton

Newton: same laws of motion apply to both.

Simplicity: if two theories explain the same phenomena equally well, the one that posits fewer explanatory principles is better.

Simplicity in Ethics:Utilitarianism

We ordinarily think beneficial results are one ethical consideration among others.

Utilitarianism offers to explain the same range of ethical phenomena equally well by appealing solely to consequences.

This would make it a superior theory – if in fact it explains them equally well.

Does it?

A Question for Next Time!