Ethics

Ethics and ethical theories

Unit 1

Marco EL. Guidi

Positive vs. normative discourse● True / false● Good / bad● (Beautiful / ugly)● Positive statements:

● Existence, attributes ...● Description, interpretation, analysis ...

● Normative statements:● Duties, rights, rules, laws …● Prescription, regulation, ...

Hume’s is / ought distinction

David Hume (1711-1776)

Also known as “Hume’s guillotine”

Hume’s is /ought distinction● A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), book III, part I,

section I:● “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I

have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”

Aristotle’s map of philosophy

PHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY

theoretical practical

LogicPhysics

Natural historyMetaphysics

Morals(government of one’s person)

Economy(government of the “house”)

Politics(government of the city)

Positive vs. Normative: proofs● Positive discourse:

● Verification, falsification

● Normative discourse:● Argumentation, comparison

Living traditions in contemporary ethics

● Normative ethics: ● How ought I to live?● What ought I do?

● Main approaches:

● Natural Law● Kantian Ethics● The Social Contract

Tradition● Egoism● Deontology● Ethic of Prima Facie

Duties● Virtue Theory● Rights● Consequentialism● Utilitarianism

Natural Law(Stephen Buckle 1991)

● There is a(n unchanging?) normative order that is a part of the natural world

● Origin: Aristotle, the Stoics● For Aquinas the natural law is natural because

it is in accordance with human nature, and this nature is a rational nature

● The law-like character of natural law is a function of its rationality → Law = “an ordinance of reason for the common good”

● Natural theology and natural law

Natural Law● Modern natural law tradition (Grotius,

Pufendorf, Hobbes, Locke):● Divine providence is infinitely good → order of

the world (God is a clock-maker)● Two types of laws:

● physical (deterministic)● moral (requiring voluntary acceptance)

● Dualistic notion of law: ● diritto naturale● diritto positivo


● Modern variant: secular theory of human rights● Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace (1625)● Pufendorf, On the Law of Nature and Nations

(1672)● Moral domain: a body of individual rights● Right as the moral quality of a person● Morality as the result of human transactions

between independent moral agents (contracts, consensus, rational choice)

● Separateness of persons


● Problems:● “If moral duties depend on my having freely

accepted them, why cannot I renege on them when I find it convenient to do so?”

● Irreducible diversity of human beliefs → pluralistic view of human goods /ends → no criterion for human goods above and beyond the preference of actual human individuals (Bentham: “caprice”)

● Two ways out:– Insisting on the separateness of persons and

distinguishing the possession and justification of rights from any overarching human good (Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia)

– Weighting individual preferences (preference utilitarianism)

Kantian Ethics(Onora O’Neill 1991)

● Human morality derives from reason● Groundwork of the

Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

● Critique of Practical Reason (1787)

● The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)


● We cannot do without an idea of ourselves as agents and as moral beings

● Human freedom = capacity to act autonomously → is not part of the natural world

● Causality and freedom apply in separate domains● Knowledge is restricted to causality● Morality is restricted to freedom

● Central question: “what ought I do”?


● Principles of ethics constructed according to rational procedures

● Minimal question:● What maxims could be adopted by a plurality of

agents without assuming anything specific about the agents’ desires and social relations?

● Moral principles ought to be universally valid● Categorical imperative:

● “Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be a universal law”


● Example: ● false promising is wrong not because of its

consequences, but because it cannot be willed as a universal principle.

● Acting according to morally worthy principles is acting out of duty

● Duties:● Perfect: they hold for all agents in all their actions with

all possible others – (refraining from false promises, coercion, violence)

● Imperfect: less complete and lacking counterpart rights– We cannot help all others in all needed ways, nor can we

develop all possible talents in ourselves


● Formulations of the Categorical imperative:● We ought to to treat “humanity on our own person

or in the person of any other never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end”

● → Demand for respect for persons● To use another is to treat her as a thing and not as

an agent● It implies doing something to which the other cannot

consent– Example: deceivers make it impossible for their victims to

consent to their projects


● Criticisms:● Formalism (the categorical imperative is purely

formal)● Rigorism (no account for cases)● Abstraction (too abstract principles to guide action)● Conflicting grounds of obligation (the set of

principles identified by Kantian ethics may come into conflict. Example: fidelity and helpfulness)

Contemporary deontology(Nancy Davis 1991)

● Acting morally involves the self-conscious acceptance of some rules that place limits on the pursuit both of our interests and of the general good

● Deontology vs teleology (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1971): ● Teleology (consequentialism):

– The good is defined independently from the right– The right is defined as that which maximises the good

● Deontology: – the right is not to be defined in terms of the good– The good is not prior to the right– The fact that an act promotes the good does not imply

that the act is right (C, Fried, Right and Wrong, 1978)

Contemporary deontology(Nancy Davis 1991)

● To act rightly means that we must refrain from doing things that may be ex-ante said to be wrong

● Acts are right or wrong according to some “deontological constraints”: rules, laws, prohibitions, limitations, proscriptions, norms, etc.

● NB: agent should act rightly even when they foresee that this will result in greater harm (non-consequentialism)● Example 1: harming an innocent person to save the life of 5

other persons (→ no impartiality)● Example 2: saving a life by lying to an evil agent, when the

lie will prevent the loss of life by deceiving him and dissuading his intention to kill (no prevention of wrongdoing)

● Problem: what makes wrong acts wrong?

Prima facie duties● William D. Ross, The Right and the Good (1930):

pluralism vs monism (of either Kantians and Utilitarians)

● We have a prima facie duty to help others, to keep promises, etc. These things matter morally. If we follow a certain duty, our action is right to that extent. To each case its relevant prima facie duty: no a priori hierarchy

● We often know what are our prima facie duties, but we can never know what are our duty proper (one we ought overall to do)

● The truth of a principle can be discovered only in moral experience.

Virtue Theory(Greg Pence 1991)

● Aims at describing types of character we might admire.

● Elisabeth Anscombe (“Modern Moral Philosophy”, 1968) and Alsdair MacIntyre (After Virtue, 1981): duty cannot become an end in itself, separated from the kind of person we desire to be, and the meaning we attribute to our life.

● Utilitarianism and Kantianism: a faceless moral agent● Ancient Greek foundations: Socrates, Plato and

Aristotle → virtues (traits of character) are the subject of ethics

Virtue Theory(Greg Pence 1991)

● Question: can an ethical theory which eliminates principles and is entirely based on character do all the work of ethics?

● You can be honourable, courageous, noble, appropriate, good, in taste, and fight for a wrong cause (example: a Confederate officer)

● Virtue ethics is perfectionist (maximum development of what makes human human, Thomas Hurka 1993), and the main examples of perfectionist theories are incompatible with modern moral equality● Greek philosophers were perfectionists and favourable to

slavery and to aristocratic government (the so-called Athenian democracy was not democratic!)

● Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideal of Übermensch is inegalitarian

Rights(Brenda Almonds 1991)

● Inalienable rights of individuals: declarations of rights● Natural Law roots● Ronald Dworkin (Taking rights seriously, 1977): rights

as moral facts, used as “trumps” in moral disputes● Example, the right of an heir against confiscation for the

common good● Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974):

rights as side-constraints (setting limits on the actions of government)

● Rights are in favour of potential oppressed


● Rights as:● Claims (to have something: it creates a

corresponding duty)● Powers (to distribute something, to affect the rights

of other people)● Liberties (by not imposing a burdensome

requirement on individuals, like giving evidence against a spouse)

● Immunities (being protected from the actions of others, as the right to join a union that cannot be forbidden by the employer)


● How can rights be justified?● Social contract: Hobbes, Locke , Rousseau →

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)● Utility (J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861): but not the

ultimate goal● They are exigent in themselves

Consequentialism(Philip Pettit 1991)

● The first question in a moral theory is what is good or valuable.

● A moral theory has two components:● A theory of the good● A theory of the right

● Consequentialism: whatever values we adopt, the proper response to those values is to promote them (teleological)● a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome.

● Non- Consequentialism (deontological): there are values we should honour in every circumstance, independently of the effects

Consequentialism● Types of consequentialism:

● Egoism (see below)● Altruism (Auguste Comte)● Racism● Nationalism● Specism● Pluralism / Rule consequentialism (Amartya Sen)● Egalitarianism ● Collectivism● Utilitarianism


● Criticism: 1.consequentialism potentially induces individuals to

do horrendous deeds (for the sake of the value which is pursued); nothing is absolutely forbidden

2.No right is a constraint to action.3.No distinction between permissible, obligatory and

supererogatory options4.Impersonality5.Individuals incessant calculators


● Objections:1.Deontology also recommends horrible deeds2.No consequence is considered when deciding the

rightfulness of actions3., 4. and 5. Distinction between justification and

deliberation● A general defence: methodological virtue of

simplicity● Non- consequentialists argue that some values

must be honoured (loyalty, respect) but other values must be promoted (safety, security, prosperity)

Egoism(Kurt Baier 1991)

● Psychological egoism: every individual is an egoist; apparently altruistic behaviour is ultimately egoistic (Helvétius)

● Egoism as a means to common good: Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Is it always possible? → some ends are conflicting

● Rational egoism: it is rational to act according to self-interest

● Ethical egoism: it is moral to act according to self-interest

Egoism● Types of ethical egoism:

– Libertarianism– Individual anarchism (Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own

(Der Einzige und sein Eigentum), 1844)– Enlightened self-interest (Helvetius, J.-B. Say)– Neo-Hobbesian contractarian theory (David Gauthier,

Morals by Agreement, 1986): cooperating is strategically rational for individual utility

● Objection: this moral rule does not regulate conflicting interests

Documents

Ethics