Applied Ethics Flashcards
Which theory would advocate for crime and punishment in name of deterrence ?
Utilitarianism
Which theory would advocate for retribution in terms of crime and punishment ?
Kantian ethics
Explain how utilitarianism can be applied to the issue of crime and punishment (12)
CRIME -
As a purely CONSEQUENTIALIST and HEDONISTIC theory, act u may say it is morally acceptable to break the law is the consequences from this crime would bring overall happiness. in line with PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY - greatest happiness for greatest number.
E.g. Stealing from a big chain supermarket to feed the poor- chain would not suffer a great loss - stealing could be justified in act U grounds.
However
RULE U
Upholding laws to not steal may produce more overall happiness long term with no upset caused with people stealing. Nobody stealing in general = Maximises happiness
Punishment - panopticon system.
- should cold more in pain than what you can gain from the crime
-deterrence. Putting people off committing a crime would create consequential long term happiness in the future.
Act U may advocate for extreme punishment to create a society put off crime, less crime and therefore long term happiness.
It may therefore advocate for the death penalty , the ultimate punishment, to put people off committing a crime.
Social pressure - may execute someone for social pressure as it would bring overall happiness to society.
Rule u - may be against death penalty as it may not maximise happiness in the long term causing more pain to society than happiness with society living in fear rather than happiness
E.g.
Stalin’s killing of 10% of male party members
Preference u - advocate for death penalty if society had the preference for it. Social pressure !
Overall - crime and punishment can be generally justified in the name of the principle of utility
Explain a kantian response to the issue of crime and punishment (12)
CRIME
1st formulation - act in a way in which our actions can be universalised without contradiction.
Committing a crime e.g. Stealing with the maxim “it is okay to steal on occasion” cannot be universalised without contradiction. If this was universalised this would undermine social order and the law therefore providing a contradiction.
The first categorical imperative would therefore rule out breaking social order as if universalised , social order would be undermined.
Also by acting, a kantian would believe you are effectively recommending your action to everyone else. Therefore by not breaking the law, you are recommending adherence to social order - acting to reach the ideal kingdom of ends
Punishment -
Not DETERRENCE
Kant, the father of human rights, presents value on human rights and his SECOND FORMULATION states not to use people merely as a means to an end. A kantian may therefore not be able to justify a punishment for the purpose of deterrence as you would effectively be using someone as a means to an end even if this end was to prevent more suffering.
A kantian would advocate for a type of punishment to adhere to the law, if nobody was punished and this was universalised, this would undermine the law
Kant’s rigid focus on autonomy could be used to justify a retributive approach to punishment.
Kant stressed the autonomous and ration nature of human adults. These adults, according to Kant should expect retribution for the crimes that they rationally committed and should accept soul responsibility for them. This could justify a kantian advocating for treating criminals how they treated others e.g. If they took someone’s freedom, someone’s freedom should be taken from them.
This logic could justify a kantian justification if the death penalty. If a rational adult killed someone , they should expect a retributive response.
However a kantian may not advocate for the death penalty of severe punishment for a mentally ill person committing a horrific crime as it could be stated that they committed this crime with lack of rationality and autonomy.
Overall, Kant would not advocate for crime
But would advocate for retributive punishment for rational individuals
Explain how virtue ethics would approach the issue of crime and punishment (12)
CRIME
GENERALLY- virtue ethics may articulate that a virtuous and moral person should not commit crimes that prevent the flourishing of others. Also, generally going against the law could be argued to be generally not adhering to the virtues of honestly and loyalty - so committing a crime could prevent your own flourishing.
However Aristotle does not provide strict rules for action with an agent centred ethics.
He may advocate for committing crimes in extreme circumstances if in line with phronesis - it is sometimes necessary to go to extremes to utilise phronesis
E.g. If you lived in an oppressive terror state , it may be moral, rational and in line with phronesis to break this government’s laws
PUNISHMENT
PROPORTIONS - virtue ethics would advocate for using proportional punishments in individual situations e.g virtue for virtue and vice for vice.
Proportional punishments may be judged by using phronesis in line with the doctrine of the mean - to calculate the proportional response.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
- no clear stance
FOR - utilise the virtues of loyalty and justice. Could be judged as proportionally moral to the crime committed from using phronesis in line with the cardinal virtue of loyalty to the people affected by a person’s crime and adherence to the desire to get justice for them. If capital punishment seems in line with phronesis and generally in line with cardinal virtues , it could be justified under VE
Also it could be said that a flourishing society mag need to proportionately remove those who desire to prevent others from reaching eudaimonia .
AGAINST
VE - may appeal to the virtue of forgiveness and state that we should not use capital punishment but forgive people for their crimes. Keeping them alive would also allow them the possibility to reform and develop their character and have the possibility to flourish.
Overall, Aristotle is unclear on being specifically for or against capital punishment however he would advocate for proportional punishments and crimes in line with phronesis for individual situations
What is just war theory ?
1Just cause - resistance to aggression 2 not for material gain 3 declared by a legitimate authority 4 last resort 5 likelihood of success 6 benefits outweigh the costs
How might virtue ethics approach the issue of war (12)
Aristotle’s virtue ethics arguably fits broadly with JUST WAR THEORY (JWT)
Phronesis may be in line with the rational nature of JWT and could be used to judge aspects of just war theory e.g. To Judge the likelihood of success.
However Aristotle may advocate for breaking the terms of just war theory as Aristotle does not advocate for strict rule based ethics but agent centred ethics. Although broadly similar, Aristotle may advocate for going to extremes to utilise phronesis.
Therefore going to war not declared by a legitimate authority may be in line with phronesis and may be deemed moral according to aristotle e.g. If you had an oppressive dictator in higher power and launched into a civil war.
EUDAIMONIA - Aristotle may be in line with JWT in the clause - resistance to aggression. Aristotle may advocate for going to war to stop an authority preventing the flourishing of others e.g. Hitler destroying the moral character of young Germans in the hitler you by embedding viscous traits in them and preventing the flourishing of the Jewish population
JUST IN BELLO
Aristotle may advocate for correct conduct in war by using phronesis in line with the doctrine of the mean. This would be used to calculate proportional use and proportional violence in individual situations
The virtues , loyalty (Cardinal) , discipline and obedience may be useful in war .
Typically Vicious traits however such as ruthlessness however may be necessary to develop in extremes when phronesis demands
How might a kantian approach the idea of war (12)
Kantian ethics could arguably be in line with at least some aspects of just war theory.
Kant states that the most moral war is a war of self - defence - a criteria of just war theory.
The first formulation could certainly be in line with JWT’s stance on material gain as the maxim “I will wage a war for material gain not to achieve peace” cannot be universalised without contradiction. If it was universalised then the very nature of social order would be undermined providing a logical contradiction with everyone fighting eachother for material gains.
Kant’s second formulation would also advocate against going to war for material gain. This is because Kant would argue against using soldiers to fight a war for material gains this would effectively be using them as a means to an end - to gain something for yourself or your country. Kant may have advocated against the fauklands war - using soldiers for the purpose to claim territory rather than to liberate a country in terror - in which you would not gain anything.
For Kant, the purpose of a war should always be to achieve peace. In fact Kant said it would be INCONCEIVABLE to will a maxim that cannot lead to peace as the only reason to wage war is to end war and return the world to peace. This may be in line with going to war as resistance to aggression- to create peace , perhaps to liberate people from an autonomy - suppressing dictator.
Kantian ethics focuses on personal duty, he also however believed that this should be applicable to the state. Just as individuals should follow strict and dutiful rules to avoid an immoral unworkable state of nature and conflict Countries should work together with the goal of achieving PERPETUAL PEACE and preventing war and conflict- perhaps to create the Kingdom of ends. This kantian idea foreshadows the creation of a UN type system.
Kant also advocates for national sovereignty in the same way he advocates for individual autonomy arguing that a nation should be able to determine their own affairs. Kant may therefore not advocate for joining a civil war in another country as this would interfere with the country’s right to NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
How might a utilitarian approach the idea of war ? (12)
an act utilitarian would advocate for going to war on the basis of the principle of utility- if it would maximise happiness for the greatest number. Act u may therefore interfere in freeing a country from an oppressive dictator e.g. North Korea guaranteeing greater happiness.
However act u would not be in line with just war theory as this hedonistic theory would not have necessarily have to go to war for a last resort, to resist aggression or follow any of the clauses if happiness was maximised. Act u may therefore advocate for pre-emptier strikes if it would bring about greater happiness for the most amount of people.
Further, a war could be fought on the basis of material gain if happiness was maximised. It may therefore advocate for the rest of the UK enslaving Scotland to take their oil as happiness would be maximised for the greatest number.
A rule utilitarian could advocate for going to war by applying the principle of utility to rules for action, considering if going to war would bring long term happiness. It could be said that enslaving Scotland for oil would not bring overall happiness but the threat of another war and an attack on the rest of the UK - bringing greater unhappiness. Rule u still would not have to adhere to any JWT conditions however if happiness was maximised in the long term.
Conduct in war
An act utilitarian would advocate for use of chemical weapons and torture if it maximised happiness. Bentham describes the idea of ‘rights’ as nonsense and would not view any warfare as intrinsically immoral. If the ends justified the means e.g. Brought greater happiness , an act utilitarian could justify things like napalm.
A rule utilitarian would justify any use of weaponary if it maximised happiness long term. America’s decision to drop bombs on Japan killing over 200,000 people could be justified on rule U grounds as it ended the war, bringing overall happiness where killing could have continued leading to more people to die. However a weak rule utilitarian may make exceptions in the circumstances of torture or chemical warfare
What would a utilitarian say on the matter of lying and deception (12)
Utilitarianism would advocate for lying and deceiving if it produced the consequence of bringing greater happiness. This is because utilitarianism is a hedonistic (only happiness has intrinsic value) and consequentialist theory. It follows the principle of utility - greatest happiness for greatest number. For example - if your friend had a eating distorted and asked if they looked fat and they did, to lie would bring greater happiness and would be less damaging to her health. It would therefore be moral to lie in this instance.
Rule utilitarianism applies the principle of utility to rules for action considering the long term consequences of your actions rather then their immediate consequential happiness. Rule u may therefore advocate for not lying as a society where everyone was truthful would maximise happiness with people living in a society of trust.
A weak rule u would advocate for some exceptions to this rule as ever lying could certainly lead to unhappiness in situations e.g. Not lying to an axe murderer at your door demanding the whereabouts of your friend could lead to greater unhappiness as you would be enabling the death of your friend.
It would be hard to know what the right ‘rule’ for lying should be.
A preference utilitarian would advocate for lying if it maximised the preferences of the greatest number of people. For example if your friend had a bad haircut and asked you about it and you lied, this could coincide with our general preference to receive compliments and to not hurt our friends feelings. However if we as a society valued and preferred honesty over lying talk, preference u may state lying to be immoral - against the preferences of the majority.
How would a kantian approach the issue of lying and deception (12)
Kant’s first categorical imperative directly rules out lying
The maxim “it is okay to lie” would provide a logical contradiction undermining the foundation of truth. This would cause us not to truth eachother and not believe a word a word anyone said. Kant would advocate for not lying to an axe murderer at your door asking where your friend was to adhere to your duty.
However it could be argued that a kantian could follow the maxim “it is only moral to lie when to save a life” which would preserve the foundation of truth except in very serious situations so people would believe eachother most of the time. A kantian may therefore be able to justify lying to the axe murderer.
However , Kant would not advocate for this interpretation. You would neglect your moral duty falling into the consequentialist trap - morality should be rigorous not empirical and relative.
If you lied to the murderer saying your friend was outside when you thought they were inside and they ran outside you would have moral responsibility for their death as opposed to when you told the truth and you wouldn’t have moral responsibility.
If axe murderer knew everyone would follow this rule, he wouldn’t believe you
Second formulation would advocate against lying and deceiving someone as by lying you would treat someone as means to an end- manipulating their beliefs for your own gain.
How would Aristotle approach the issue of lying and deception (12)
Firstly Aristotle presents a holistic theory judging you on your actions over time rather than determining your moral worth over if you told one lie.
This gives virtue ethics an regent centred theory more flexibility over the issue than the rule based theories.
Broadly, lying in general would be considered a vice in general with honesty being a cardinal virtue.
Lying can be considered both an excessive and deficient response broadly according to the doctrine of the mean so it would be more moral to tell the truth.
Aristotle may advocate for us to use our function of rationality - our distinct character trait that separates us from animals- to allow us to develop phronesis in line with our cardinal virtue of honesty to reach eudaimonia.
Phronesis is our practical wisdom - developed by using our rational capacity to habitually act morally.
Despite lying being generally seen as vice , it may be necessary to go to extremes to exercise our practical wisdom. To adhere to our instinctual rationality, we may have to lie in certain situations.
For example, lying to the nazis about the whereabouts of Jews would certianly be a rational thing to do in line with the virtues of caring for people and courage.
Lying may sometimes be a proportional response according to the doctrine of the mean
- axe murderer - prioritise the virtue of loyalty.
Deceiving someone for our personal gain would prohibit our flourishing and their flouritishinf
