Applied Ethics Flashcards
Utilitarianism Applied to Stealing
Act Utilitarianism: We should steal if it will cause more happiness/preference satisfaction for more people than any other action. E.g. Steal weapons from a violent person to keep others safe.
Rule Utilitarianism: We should follow those rules which on average create the greatest good for the greatest number, in the long run.
Empirical fact: Stealing usually causes more harm and fear (i.e. suffering and unhappiness) than not stealing. Therefore stealing is wrong. Some rule utilitarians may argue that the best rule has exceptions: E.g. Do not steal unless it is vital to preserve life (e.g. to avoid starvation).
Utilitarianism Applied to Simulated Killing
Act Utilitarianism: We should simulate killing only if it creates more happiness for more people than the alternatives. No one really dies in simulated killing, so it’s right/wrong because of its effect on the person simulating killing or the audience.
Empirical facts: Is simulated killing enjoyed? Yes - in drama on film, TV, or theatre by audience and actors, and by game players. Does it do any harm? This is controversial - some murderers played violent games obsessively - but it’s hard to prove that simulated killing causes violence. It may depend on who takes part and how the simulated killing is understood - cartoon violence vs glorifying realistic violence. Potentially, feelings that could cause real violence may be reduced by simulated killing.
Utilitarianism Applied to Eating Animals (!!)
Act Utilitarianism: We should only eat animals if it makes more people more happy than not. Who counts? Bentham: ‘The question is… can they suffer?’ and animals can suffer, so they count in the utility calculus. Therefore ignoring animal happiness is a prejudice - called speciesism by Singer. (Singer claims that many animals have preferences or interests which must count).
Empirical facts: Vegan diets are healthy & it’s very hard to produce meat painlessly for animals. But, farm animals exist to provide meat so if their lives are happy overall, it adds to total happiness.
Rule util: Would a rule for a vegetarian / vegan diet cause more happiness than an omnivore.
Utilitarianism Applied to Telling Lies
Act Utilitarianism: We should tell lies if it makes more people more happy than either telling the truth or saying nothing. E.g. Saying ‘You look fantastic!’ to encourage a very socially anxious but shabbily dressed person to come out with their friends if they’ll enjoy the occasion.
Rule Utilitarianism: We should follow those rules which on average create the greatest good for the greatest number, in the long run.
Empirical facts: Lying usually creates more unhappiness than happiness and having low levels of lying increases trust, making society happier. Therefore lying is wrong.
Kant applied to Stealing
First form of the categorical imperative: Stealing is wrong because we cannot will the maxim ‘Steal x (e.g. what I want but cannot afford)’ to be a universal law. Contradiction in conception: It is not possible for ‘Steal x’ to be a universal law because if everyone stole all the time, private property would cease to exist and then stealing it would be impossible (as stealing is defined as taking other people’s private property). So, we have a perfect duty not to steal.
Second form of the categorical imperative: Stealing is wrong because taking someone else’s property treats them solely as a means to an end (you deny them any choice about what happens to what they own so that you may have it).
Kant applied to Simulated Killing
First form of the categorical imperative: Simulated killing in drama or computer games may be willed to be a universal law - there’s no contradiction so it is morally permissible.
Second form of the categorical imperative: In simulated killing, no real person is being killed (we just pretend that a fictional character is killed), so no one is treated without dignity or solely as a means to an end. Simulated killing would only be immoral if it makes us less likely to have a good will. It could do this if simulated killing causes us to treat others without respect, treating them in a similar way to the characters in dramas/games. There is no strong evidence that it has this effect on most people.
Kant applied to Eating Animals
First form of the categorical imperative: ‘Eat meat’ can be willed to be a universal law without contradiction - so it is morally acceptable. Second form of the categorical imperative: Eating meat does not use anyone solely as a means to an end because according to Kant, an animal is not a person because animals are not rational. Kant argues that no one should treat animals cruelly because it might damage our good will and make us become cruel to people as well. Are animals rational? There is growing evidence of animal rationality, especially in chimpanzees, dolphins, many other mammals, and some birds. But do they act for reasons? If so, we shouldn’t eat them - we’d use them as a means to an end
Kant applied to Telling Lies (!!)
First form of the categorical imperative: Lying is wrong because we cannot will the maxim ‘Lie about x (e.g. where a potential murderer’s intended victim is)’ to be a universal law. Contradiction in conception: It is not possible for ‘Lie about x’ to be a universal law because if everyone lied all the time, no one would believe what they were told and it wouldn’t be possible to intend to deceive people by telling a falsehood.
Second form of the categorical imperative: Always treat people as an end in themselves never only as a means to an end. This means treating people with dignity/respect, which requires allowing them rational choices. Rational choices are free and informed. Lying makes this impossible as it deceives people. So lying is wrong.
Virtue Ethics applied to Stealing
Stealing is never the mean: So it is a vice - wrong. We won’t flourish/be happy by stealing - e.g. we will fear being caught and punished. Stealing shows an excess of desire for property (greed?).
The virtue of justice: Justice requires that we treat people as they deserve. E.g. We reward people for their work and talent. Stealing is wrong because the thief takes something that they do not deserve to have (so even the thief isn’t made truly happy). Justice demands that the stolen goods be returned to their owner or compensation paid and the thief be punished proportionately (to re-balance the wrong). Sometimes, taking people’s property is right (e.g. if they hoard food in a famine). We must use practical wisdom to work out when. But it’s not stealing in these cases, rather it is correcting other wrongs.
Virtue Ethics applied to Simulated Killing (!!)
Enjoying entertainment is part of a good life as long as it is enjoyed in the right way at the right time for the right motive to the right degree - only then is it virtuous (the mean). No one is really killed in simulated killing in drama or games, so it is not vicious (bad) in itself. Simulated killing would be morally bad if it gave us vices, i.e. bad traits of character. Is simulated killing part of the best life for human beings? There is little evidence that sim. killing makes normal people more violent but there are no studies of its effect on other vices. It would be a vice to take excessive pleasure in sim. Killing or to take sadistic pleasure in pretending to kill others or spend excessive time on it. It clearly isn’t necessary for having a good life. It could be good if it taught a moral lesson in drama or was a release for dangerous emotions (e.g. catharsis).
Virtue Ethics applied to Eating Animals
Aristotle: Animals are not rational, so cannot reach eudaimonia, so we may treat them as we wish including eating them.
Cora Diamond (virtue ethics updated): There are virtuous and vicious ways to treat animals depending on our socio-cultural relationship with the animal. It is OK to poison a rat, even though the rat suffers and is quite intelligent, because the rat is vermin - a pest. However, it is wrong to beat a pet dog (even if it’s less intelligent than a rat). What is good or bad depends on whether the animal is a pet or a pest - its role in our society.
So, eating meat may be virtuous, e.g. if we raise and slaughter our own pigs humanely. But it can also be a vice, e.g. if we eat meat that is industrially produced with low welfare standards. Practical wisdom tells us when it’s virtue or vice.
Virtue Ethics applied to Telling Lies
Honesty or truth telling is a virtue - telling the truth is usually the mean. Lying is a deficiency of truth telling, so it is a vice. It is possible to tell the truth excessively and this is also a vice (e.g. telling truths to embarrass or to be cruel), but that doesn’t mean that you should lie because saying nothing is also an option.
No absolute rules: Sometimes lying may be wise or even required, e.g. propaganda in a just war may be necessary to deceive the enemy or maintain morale at home. Or, honesty may clash with other virtues such as courage or compassion (e.g. the fisherman who must lie to the Nazis to keep the Jews who are hidden on his boat safe).
In these cases practical wisdom must be used to work out what is best.
