Alternatives To Utilitarianism

Question 1

the integrity objection

Answer 1

agency is always some particular person’s agency; or to put it another way, there is no such thing as impartial agency, in the sense of impartiality that utilitarianism requires

Question 2

Jim and the Indians example

Answer 2

Jim is given a choice: kill one Indian and the others will live, or refuse, and all will be killed.

highlights the issue of means as opposed to ends - the correct conclusion can still be wrong if attained in the wrong manner

Jim is a causal condition for the death of the indians but not necessarily to blame

Question 3

define negative responsibility

Answer 3

if you are responsible for anything then you are equally responsible for things you allow or fail to prevent
can quickly become irrational - each individual in a developed country is not individually responsible for the death of people in the developing world

Question 4

Demandingness of impartiality

Answer 4

it would seem that utilitarianism demands the dissolution of the self and forces us to alienate ourselves from eachother in pursuit of impartiality
not a convincing anti-utilitarian argument as complext interpersonal relationships have great value

Question 5

Problems of ordinary morality

Answer 5

Underlying sense that there is a limit to what morality can require of us

It prohibits behaviours which would increase overall good - restrictions arise from rights of the individual

The threshold for exceptions is finite and thus relatively low - only tempers pursuit of good minimally - no guarentee it will result in less extreme actions than utilitarianism

Question 6

Define ‘ordinary morality’

Answer 6

generally excepted rules of practise that seem to be intuitive to most individuals
the reason to do good in essence always stands, but the reason is not always sufficient grounds for requirement

Question 7

Advantages of ordinary morality

Answer 7

They are views which are held pretty widely already
it tempers the relentless pursuit of the best consequences by granting exceptions:
Forbids us from violating special obligations to family or institutionally defined roles

Question 8

Define ‘moral minimalism’

Answer 8

the belief that even the moderate position of conventional morality is too demanding

Question 9

The problem of ordinary morality and moderation

Answer 9

Ordinary morality is conceived of in the space between moral minimalism and utilitarianism and thus sacrifices the ideological purity of either extremes - justifying it collapses into internal incoherence

extreme moral views to not exclude special obligations - we just have to allocate the resources not tied up in this obligation to promote utility

if things can be good but not good enough to require their execution then there is no reason to do good just to prevent bad

Question 10

Define ‘moral pluralism’

Answer 10

Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect. Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when faced with competing viewpoints. They analyze issues from several moral points of view before deciding and taking action

Question 11

How a utilitarian can be a moral pluralist

Answer 11

The extremity of utilitarianism does commit us to do whatever is necessary to promote overall good, doesn’t dictate what good is. Therefore it is possible to give independent weight to several factors

Question 12

Benefits of moderate moral positions

Answer 12

Doesn’t disagree with the extreme conceptions of good but rather how much we are required to commit to it
moderate would argue that the extreme view undercuts an individuals capacity to do good in the long term because the agent is exhausted or impoverished (this is a misunderstanding of thep pursuit of utility)

Question 13

Using moral intuition to justify conventional/ordinary morality

Answer 13

Doesn’t work - doubtful we have any pretheoretical intuition thus cannot be foundation of any theory

Question 14

Problem of minimalism

Answer 14

no moral justification

Question 15

How moderate morality conceives of evil as a means to greater good

Answer 15

‘the moderate’s intuition is that we have misconceived our relation to evil, if we will enter into partnership with it for whatever purpose. It is the nature of evil that we should avoid it. It is the nature of evil that we should simply never turn our mind to bringing any about’ The Limits of Morality (Shelly Kagan)

Question 16

Problem of ‘contractualism’

Answer 16

requires a scenario in which the individual is ignorant of his position in society and thus doesn’t advocate for rules which favour any individual groups (same impartiality issue as utilitarianism)
- not a deal breaker

Question 17

Define ‘pro tanto’ reason

Answer 17

A pro tanto reason is one that always has force, but this force can be countered, and overridden, in various ways; a given act can be supported by a pro tanto reason even though that act is not morally required

Question 18

Define ‘non-consequentialism’

Answer 18

Type of normative ethical theory that denies rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the consequences of our acts

Question 19

define ‘teleology’

Answer 19

emphasis on consequences as measure of good or bad

Question 20

define ‘deontology’

Answer 20

Morality is not only based on what we bring about

Question 21

General non-consequentialist ideas

Answer 21

People are an end in themselves, worthy of respoect independent of our contribution to maximising good

act cannot be justified if an agent is utilised as a mere means

if someone acts in a bad way, they may forfeit some but not all of their individual rights

allows for supererogatory actions - those which are good but not required of us

an individual is thought to be inviolable and protected by a negative right not to be harmed, even if the harm would help to maximize the good (trolley problem)

our moral obligation is the respect people and do as much good as that requires

constraints are victim focused and rights based

Question 22

non-consequentialism and negative responsibility

Answer 22

killing and letting die are morally different - letting die always needs an “accomplice” to achieve death in the way that killing does not.

The moral distinction between killing and letting die, hence, is connected to the idea of separate persons with entitlements (relative to certain pertinent others at least) to what makes them separate persons

Question 23

Explain the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ - trolley problem example

Answer 23

When (a) we redirect the trolley, we merely foresee the death of the one person; when (b) we harvest the organs for transplant, we intend the one person’s death; and when (c) we push the innocent bystander into the trolley’s path, we intend his involvement and foresee his death. Hence, (a) is permissible and (b) and (c) are not.

It does allow several reprehensible actions so long as we forsee but do not intend the death of those involved (ie: detonate a bomb to stip trolley)

Question 24

Define the ‘principle of permissible harm’

Answer 24

an act is permissible if (i) a greater good or (ii) a means that has a greater good as its non-causal flip side causes a lesser evil. However, it is not permissible for an act (iii) to require lesser evil (or someone’s involvement leading to lesser evil) as a means to a greater good or (iv) to directly cause a lesser evil as a side effect when it has a greater good as a mere causal effect unmediated by (ii)

Question 25

Describe Foot’s Gas Case

Answer 25

Suppose that by directing gas into a room, we can save five people. However, their breathing when they would otherwise be dead alters the air flow in the room, redirecting germs that then kill an innocent person.

Question 26

The paradox of deontology

Answer 26

The claim that we may not violate someone’s rights in order to minimize violations of comparable rights

Question 27

Define ‘prima facie’

Answer 27

A prima facie duty is a duty that is binding (obligatory) other things equal, that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties - not morally relevent factors

Question 28

Define ‘actual duties’

Answer 28

binding duties which cannot be overidden

Question 29

Distinction of right and optimific for non-consequentialists

Answer 29

we ought to do right acts because they are right, if they are also optimific that’s great but not morally important

Question 30

‘Proof’ of our obligation to respect the rights of others / duties

Answer 30

(1) A right of A against B implies a duty of B to A.
(2) A duty of B to A implies a right of A against B.

(3) A right of A against B implies a duty of A to B.
(4) A duty of A to B implies a right of A against B.

Question 31

Problems with proof of rights / duties

Answer 31

The first part seems unquestionably true

The issue with the rest arises from our duties to animals and infants, neither of which are currently moral agents - infant has potential to reciprocate in future?

while only moral agents have duties, the possession of a nature capable of feeling pleasure and pain is all that is needed in order to have rights

what about human beings with mental deficiencies that prevent them from reciprocating their moral duty - do they deserve rights? obviously !

Question 32

The case of animals (rights and duties)

Answer 32

Some say that rather than having duty too animals we have duty concerning them - by treating them inhumanely it could lead us to a pattern of behaviours which makes us street humans inhumanely which infringes on their rights

PROBLEM: IF we consider animals deserving of rights in and of themselves (as we should) - we have a duty to them, but they do not have a duty to use since they are moral patients

Question 33

Problem with seperating deontology and consequentialism

Answer 33

Utilitarianism may appear to have an explanation but eventually collapses to good for goodsake - same as deontology

what is the difference between the act and the consequence - consequence of telling a lie is that a lie has been told which is bad - but WHY?

Decision procedure not so different - criterion of correctness only distinction

REMEMBER: rules of thumb in consequentialist = not good in and of themselves – make good consequences, deontological – action good in and of itself

Question 34

Can Consequentialism and deontology (rights) be reconciled

Answer 34

Suggested that consequentialism could be used once the threshold of duties is cost (but this doesn’t reconcile the principles)
Both have equal propensity for immorality in the sense deontology allows you to cause bad stuff and consequentialism allows you to do bad stuff for a greater good