Reasoning & Problem SolvingLecture 13

Moral Arguments

By David Kelsey

Moral Evaluations

• Value claim (also called value judgments): – non-factual claims that assert that some moral property is instantiated in some object or action or

event.

– Examples of value claims:

• A moral argument is one which asserts as its conclusion a value claim.– Example:

• a woman’s right to control what happens to her body

Moral vs. nonmoral &Moral vs. immoral

• The word ‘moral’: has 2 distinct meanings.

• Vs. Non-Moral:

• Vs. Immoral:

• In this class we will use the word ‘moral’ in the sense that is opposed to ____________

Deriving Moral Value Judgments

• We cannot derive or infer a value claim from merely factual claims.

– Elliot’s father example: we might argue that Elliot’s father depends upon Elliot so Elliot ought to take care of his father.

– The problem:

• Where does the ought come from?

• So if we are trying to infer a value claim, at least one of the supporting propositions must be a value claim.

– So to justifiably infer that Elliot should take care of his father:

• from Elliot’s father depends upon Elliot we need a moral principle that links the 2 claims.

• What principle would work?

Critiquing moral reasoning

• What if we come across a moral argument we disagree with?– If you agree with the facts but disagree with the conclusion then what

should you try to show false?

• Showing a moral principle false: how do you show a moral principle false?

• Say you hear this argument:

– Abortion is unnatural. Thus, it ought not be practiced.

– How do we show this argument is unsound?

A note aboutRelativism

• Moral relativism: A very popular view in ethics is moral relativism.– Confusion: often times, the following 2 claims are confused:– 1. What is believed to be right and wrong may differ from group to group, society to

society, or culture to culture.– 2. What is right and wrong may differ from group to group, society to society, or culture

to culture.

– Which claim is Moral relativism?

• Problems with MR:– Aren’t there some moral principles that are universal or nearly so?– True and False: – No correct answers: – Settling Disagreements: – It is counterintuitive.

Ethics: it’s three areas

• The Discipline of Ethics can be divided into three sub-disciplines, which together comprise it wholly.

• They are:– Diagram of the structure of Ethics:

Normative Ethics

• Normative Ethics:– Is it first, second or third order ethics?

– Here we aim to find the answer to the question:• ‘What ought I do?’ Or ‘What is the right thing to do?’

– Here we look for a moral principle.• What’s a moral principle?

– Here we also aim to construct general guidelines for the making of a moral judgment.

• Question: What is a moral judgment?

Applied Ethics

• Applied Ethics:– Is it first, second or third order ethics?

– Here we look to specific cases in which we must determine what the right action or the permissible action is.

• We can then apply a moral principle to the specific situation. So what we need is a moral principle to guide our action. We will discuss this in a few slides.

– Here we ______ moral judgments.

Meta-ethics

• Meta-ethics– Is it first, second or third order ethics?

– The study of the nature of ______________.

– Here we ask: • What are moral judgments?

– Here we analyze the concept of a moral judgment.

• For example:

Normative ethics

• Normative Ethics: aims to provide a set of guidelines for making moral judgments.

• In this class we will look at four such sets of guidelines.

• They are:– Divine Command Theory

– Utilitarianism

– Deontology

– Virtue Theory

Divine Command Theory

• Divine Command Theory: morality and moral duties are set by God.– God has certain commandments he gives.

– Followers of this view derive their understanding of his commandments by interpreting religious texts such as _______________.

• The difficulty of Interpretation:– How should ‘Thou shalt not kill’ be interpreted?

• Hard cases:

• A Paradox:

– Is what is right as such because God deems it so?

– Did God deem what is right as such because it is so?

Mill

• John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)• He was the greatest 19th century defender of Utilitarianism.• He was a child prodigy.• Defended women’s suffrage.

Utilitarianism

• The greatest happiness principle:– Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,

– wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

• Or:– Always do whatever will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest ________.

Utilitarianism:it’s two parts

• Any version of Utilitarianism (including Mill’s version) is composed of two other views:

– Consequentialism:• We determine whether an act is right or wrong by looking at it’s ____________.

• Discuss Causes & effects

– Hedonism:• This tells us what makes for a better or worse _________.

• Good: what promotes _________.

• Bad: what promotes _________.

Consequentialism

• Consequentialism: To determine whether or not an action is right: – weigh the good consequences of doing the action against the bad consequences of

doing it.

– And do the same for refraining from performing the action.

– Do whatever will have the best overall _____________.

• Sorting good from bad: Thus, to determine whether or not an action is right:– One must be able to sort the good consequences from the bad consequences.

• Defining the good then the Right: Thus, Consequentialist moral theories, like Utilitarianism,

– first define the good.• For a utilitarian this is __________.

– Then they define the right. The right thing is whatever produces the most of whatever is good.

• So for a utilitarian the right thing is what produces the most of what?

Consequentialism

• Other ways to define Consequentialism:– Between two actions, perform the one that has better consequences.

– The end justifies the means.• The consequences of an action can justify the action itself.• Thus, if harming someone will somehow cause more good overall than

bad, one ought to do what?

Hedonism

• Hedonism:– says that a good thing is one that adds to the sum total of human happiness.

• Happiness:

• Unhappiness:

– Hedonism & Happiness:

• What makes something, anything and not just life, good is the amount of happiness it produces.

– Happiness is the only non-derivative good:

– Other things like money, knowledge, fulfilling personal relationships, etc. are _________________.

Problems for Utilitarianism

• 1. Hedonism is degrading: – if a pig can live a life completely satisfied, while a morally concerned and thoughtful man like

Socrates cannot ever be so satisfied, isn’t the life of the pig preferable?– Reply: there are different kinds of pleasures. Higher pleasure include any use of the mind such as

reflection. Lower pleasures are those not associated with the mind.– Any amount of higher pleasure is preferable to any amount of lower pleasure.

• 2. Problems with the Utilitarian calculation: – Who do we include in our calculation: all those whose interests are effected; only those of our

immediate family, our local community, our state…What about the interests of animals…What about future generations???

– How do we even calculate pleasure and pain? Could we assign numeric values to them? What about finding a numeric value for your pain vs. mine?

– Reply: Estimations in our calculations will do the job.

• 3. Utilitarianism is too demanding: – if we really followed Utilitarianism we would have to leave our lives to go help cure world hunger.– Reply: We know what will produce our own happiness better than what will produce the happiness of

others.

More problems for Utilitarianism

• 4. Utilitarianism ignores the distinctness of persons:– It asks us to make trade off’s between people? Could you for example justify killing

one person in order to save others?

• 5. Utilitarianism and Promises:– For a Utilitarian, you ought to keep a promise if and only if doing so will produce more

please and less pain than not keeping it. Is this really why we keep a promise though?

• 6. The scapegoat:– A Utilitarian wouldn't have a problem blaming an innocent person for a crime he didn’t

commit if it were, for example, to prevent a riot or…

The fatal flaw of Utilitarianism

• The problem with Utilitarianism: – a Utilitarian would tell you to kill an innocent if it meant the production of more

pleasure than pain.

– The real problem: the Utilitarian puts the good before the right

• As long as you do this, critics argue, no act is always morally wrong.

• Some critics argue that the only way to solve this problem is to put the ______ before the ________.

– Moral theories that do this are called _________________.

DeontologicalTheories

• Right Before Good: Rather than put the good before the right, Deontological moral theories put the _____________.

– Deontological theories do not:• first specify some good and then determine what is right by asking what will

maximize that good.

– Instead, Deontological theories:• Determine what is right through some other method, • and direct you to do it irrespective of the action’s _________________.

– But Deontological theories don’t think consequences don’t matter.• They think consequences are not the only thing that matters.• So morality sometimes requires you to take actions that may not have the best

____________.

Deontologists

• Deontologists like rules.– A rule tells us whether an action is right or wrong just on the basis of what kind of

action it is, rather than on the basis of its consequences.

• For example, ‘Never kill the innocent’.– Would this be a good rule?

• Or the Golden Rule: ‘Act the way you would like everyone to act’.– What about this one?

Immanuel Kant

• There are many deontological theories but by far the most influential was that presented by Immanuel Kant.

• Kant was born in Konigsberg in 1724 in what was then Germany.• He lived in Konigsberg his entire life and he was never married.• Widely regarded as one of the most influential and important philosopher’s of all

time.

Kant’s picture

• Personhood: Kant’s moral theory stems from his view of personhood.– For Kant, a person is just an agent.

– An agent is rational:

• To be rational is to be capable of guiding one’s own behavior on the basis of reasons, directives and principles.

– So to be rational is to act for reasons or by principle.

• What are reasons and principles?

– Will: the capacity an agent has to act for reasons, to follow laws.

• It is a power within us.

Kant’s freedom of the will

• Freedom: – A person is free when bound only by her own will and not by the will of another.

– We can be commanded only by our own wills.

– Freedom as a first cause:

• Freedom (and rationality) consists in seeking to be the first cause of one’s actions wholly and completely through the exercise of one’s own _______.

• Her actions then express her own will.

• The authority of the principles binding her will is then also not external to her will.

• Kant then give us the ________________ as this binding principle.

The Categorical Imperative

• Binding our will: So the Categorical imperative is supposed to bind our wills.

– Binding us to being rational: The CI binds our wills by binding us to being free & rational.

• So It provides us with a how to guide to being rational.

The Categorical Imperative

• Not Hypothetical: Kant called his Supreme principle of morality the Categorical Imperative, which he said was to be distinguished from a hypothetical imperative.

– A Hypothetical imperative: is conditional on some want or desire.• For example, ‘If you want to go to heaven do X’.

• Doesn’t depend on desires: A categorical imperative does not depend on your wants or desires

– it simply commands you to do X, ___________.

Putting the right before the good

• Since the categorical imperative is categorical:– It commands you to act irrespective of the consequences of your actions.

• This is what it means for Kant’s theory to put the _______ before the _______.

The Categorical Imperative

• So what is the categorical imperative?– Different formulations: One can’t give a quick and easy answer to this

question because Kant gives a number of different formulations of the categorical imperative.

• We will focus on the one known as the formula of the end in itself.– Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own

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

The Formula of the End in itself

• The Categorical Imperative: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,

– ________________________________.

• Means vs. Mere Means: Kant does not say that you should never use another person as a means!

– We do this all the time.• Examples.

– He says never treat them as a mere means:• So if we treat someone as a means make sure to treat them as an end in

themselves: respect them as an agent with ends of her own.

What’s wrong with punishing an innocent person for Kant?

• An objection to Utilitarianism: Recall that one objection to Utilitarianism is that – it could permit or even require you to punish an innocent person in order to

prevent a riot and thereby save many other lives.

– What’s wrong with this according to Kant?

The Good Will

• The Good will: Kant thought that “the only thing good without qualification is a good will”.

– To be good without qualification is to be good in and of ___________.

• Acting for the sake of duty: Kant thought that for one to act for the right reasons he must act always for the sake of duty.

– One acts for the sake of duty when:

• she performs some action X and her reason for performing x is merely that it is what the moral law prescribes her to do.

• The good person: What makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is determined by the moral law

Kant’s theory in action

• Costco Example, False Promises & other examples:

To sum up

• So the big picture for the Kantian looks like this:– Following the Categorical Imperative gets you the following:

• 1.

• 2.

• 3.

– But following the categorical imperative isn’t enough:• To be a truly good person you must do what the categorical imperative tells you

to do just because it is Right.

Problems for Kant’s Theory

• So why we can’t just opt out of rationality:

– Why not live like the animals?

• Plausible responses:

– It’s rational to be rational? Can we say this though?

• Another problem:

– Kant’s view of morality stems from the notion of a person.

– Why should this be our starting point?

Problems for Kant’s theory

• Acting for the sake of the moral law:– makes the agent seem cold and heartless.

– Say you go to visit your friend in the hospital. • She is very sick. So you bring her some flowers and a get well card. You say

hello and chat with her for a while. Then you stay for a bit while she sleeps…

– She asks you why you came. If you have a good will what has to be your answer?

– Is this the right answer?

Aristotle

• Lived from 384-322 B.C.• A student of Plato who surpassed his master.• Thought to be the greatest philosopher ever.• Writings include:

– The Nicomachean Ethics, Metaphysics, Categories, Physics and many others.

• Developed virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics

• Right Action: – for Aristotle, some action X is the right thing to do if and only if X is what a virtuous

person would do in those circumstances.

– But what would a virtuous person do?

• A virtuous person is virtuous or lives by and according to the _________.

Virtues

• A virtue is a kind of excellence of character.

– Virtue and Function: A virtue is “the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well.”

• A virtue is a state in which a man functions properly…

Examples of Virtues

• Some of the virtues include:

– Courage. When one is fearful or confident

– Pride (regarding one’s honor and dishonor)

– Good tempered (with regard to anger).

– Others?

The virtues

• Virtues and the soul: – Virtues are a way the soul is (being states of character,)

– They must be in the right kind and in the right quantity.

Excess and defect

• Excess and Defect: It is in the nature of things to be destroyed by excess or defect.

– “Both excessive and defective exercise destroys the strength, and similarly drink or food which is above or below a certain amount destroys the health, while that which is proportionate both produces and increases and preserves it. So too is it, then, in the case of temperance and courage and the other virtues.” (579)

The mean and the doctrineof the mean

• Intermediate: Every virtue is an intermediate between some excess and defect.

– So acting virtuously is acting according to the mean. Never too much excess, nor too much defect with regard to a state of character.

– “an intermediate between excess and defect…that which is equidistant from each of the extremes…neither too much nor too little.”

– “For instance, if ten is many and two is few, six is the intermediate…” (581)

The Doctrine of the Mean:Examples

• So every virtue is the mean between some excess and some defect. For example:

– Courage the mean between rashness and cowardliness

– Pride: the mean between empty vanity and undue humility

– Good temperament: the mean between irascibility and in-irascibility

– Truthfulness: the mean between boastfulness and mock-modesty

– Friendliness: the mean between flattery and quarrelsome.

The virtuous agent

• The Virtuous agent: For Aristotle, being a virtuous agent isn’t just doing the virtuous thing.

– One must get pleasure in acting justly for an action to count as a just act at all.

The second requirement

• Another requirement: And being a virtuous agent is more than merely doing the virtuous thing and gaining pleasure in her doing the virtuous thing.

• Resisting the appetitive soul: to be virtuous, one’s appetitive soul, that part of the soul which brings about desires and impulses that pull one away from acting rationally, mustn't lead one away from doing the virtuous thing.

• The virtuous agent is neither continent nor incontinent. – The continent man: does the virtuous thing, although he had some impulse or desire

to do otherwise.

– The incontinent man: doesn’t do the virtuous thing just because he follows the appetitive soul.

• So your motivation must be pure!

Education &Training

• Training & Education: To be a virtuous agent takes training and education. – “Hence we ought to be brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato

says, so as both to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought; for this is the right education.” (579)

• Experience: Being virtuous takes experience in the real world. Putting oneself in situations where she learns to act virtuously.

– Experience is the teacher

• Habit: Being virtuous is acting virtuously out of habit.

Objections to Virtue Ethics

• First objection: – Virtue ethics is too vague and unclear to be action guiding.

– Virtue ethics tells us to do whatever the virtuous agent would do.

– But how are we supposed to understand what a virtuous agent would do if we aren’t ourselves virtuous agents?

• The response:– Rules that include the virtues:

The Second objection:Demandingness

• The second objection:– The demands that virtue ethics makes are too high:

• No one can live up to them, except maybe Mother Theresa or Jesus.

– To be truly virtuous one must:• 1.• 2.• 3.

• Who could ever live up to these standards?

The third objection

• The final objection: Conflicting virtues:– Won’t there be cases, such as moral dilemmas, in which the requirements of different virtues conflict

because they point in opposing directions?– What do we do when virtues conflict?– Examples:

• The response:– Such conflicts will always be merely apparent ones.

Williams

• Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was a British philosopher.• Was a great admirer of Mill, but not himself a Utilitarian.• Like Mill, however, he wanted to apply his philosophical views to form public

policy.

Applying our moral theories:Moral Dilemmas &Moral Diliberation

• So far we have looked at a few Ethical Theories, including both Utilitarianism and Deontology.

– Now we’ll look at how these theories can apply to specific moral situations.

– Moral dilemmas: are specific cases in which it is hard to tell what one ought to do.

• Use your intuitions about the dilemma to guide your choice of theory.

– The Williams Dilemma: In this class we will look at a specific moral dilemma.

• The dilemma will test our intuitions about whether ________ or ________ is the correct ethical theory.

George the Chemist

• George gets to choose between these actions:– A. working to make chemical weapons.

– B. Being unemployed.

• Their consequences:– A. George makes small amounts of _____________.

– B. Someone else makes large amounts of _____________.

• What should George do? What would you do?

Some things to notice

• George is in a tough position-that’s why it is a moral dilemma.– Changing the case to make things easier doesn’t help--that’s just

changing the topic.

– Changing the case to make things harder is ok.

Jim and Pedro

• Jim gets to choose between these actions:– A. Killing one of the villagers himself.

– B. Not killing anyone.

• Their consequences:– A. One villager gets killed and the rest _______________.

– B. Twenty villagers get killed.

• What should Jim do? What would you do?

Utilitarianismand the dilemmas

• In both of our dilemmas:– Option (a) (making weapons/killing the villager):

• leads to the best consequences available, but involves doing something morally repugnant.

– Option (b):• leads to less good consequences, but you get to have a clean conscience.

• Utilitarians seem to have to choose (a).

• Deontologists would choose (b).

Williams on negative responsibility

• Utilitarianism and Moral responsibility:– According to Williams, Utilitarianism entails the notion of negative

responsibility:• If I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for

things that I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things that I myself…bring about. (591) (596 also!)

– Thus, for a Utilitarian, should Jim refrain from killing the 1 Indian, he is morally responsible and so blameworthy for the deaths of the Indians Pedro kills.

– And should George not take the job, he is responsible for the increased weapons production of the new hire.

Williams on responsibility

• Williams and Moral Responsibility:– For Williams, Jim is only morally responsible for his own actions, not for

Pedro’s. So Jim can’t be blamed for what Pedro does.– And George is only morally responsible for his actions, not for those of

whoever will take the chemical weapons job if he doesn’t take it.

• Williams supports for this view is summed up on 597: …Instead of thinking in terms of supposed effects of Jim’s projects on Pedro, it is more revealing to think of the effects of Pedro’s projects on Jim’s decision…

How might the Utilitarian respond?

• The Utilitarian could deny premise 1: It’s selfish! – Isn’t it really just selfish to try to keep your own conscience clean by

allowing someone else to do something wrong?– Wouldn’t the villagers rather that Jim kill one of them than allow Pedro to kill

twenty?

• Williams response: A loss of personal Integrity!

– Utilitarianism entails that the projects and commitments with which a person is most deeply identified, those which make up who a person is, can be swept aside for the sake of the greater good.

• “…how can a man, as a utilitarian agent, come to regard as one satisfaction among others, and a dispensable one, a project or attitude round which he has built his life, just because someone else’s projects have so structured the causal scene that that is how the utilitarian sum comes out?

Personal Integrity

• A loss of personal integrity again:– It is the Utilitarians commitment to the sacrifice of one’s own projects, commitments,

goals and principles for the sake of the greater good, which lies at the heart of it’s attack on one’s own personal integrity:

• “It is absurd to demand of such a man…that he should just step aside from his own project and decision and acknowledge the decision which the utilitarian calculation requires. It is to alienate him in a real sense from his actions and the source of his action in his own convictions…but this is to neglect the extent to which his actions and his decisions have to be seen as the actions and decisions which flow from the projects and attitudes with which he is most closely identified. It is thus, in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity.” (Williams, pg 600)

• So maybe Utilitarianism is no good after all?