Ethics Practice Questions Flashcards
‘There is a significant difference between not acting to prolong a life and acting to end a life.’ Discuss
Do intentions matter?
Fletcher’s situation ethics, consequentialist, would argue that they do not. Every action is undertaken according to the specific circumstance and, in such a situation, the end result of active vs passive is the same. Conversely, Aquinas’ doctrine of double effect takes intentions into account, thus it is clear that natural law would differentiate between the two. For natural law, the act of killing breaks the primary precept, whereas the act of not saving does not
James Rachels argues that in fact passive euthanasia is worse as it extend the process of dying, increasing suffering
Sanctity vs quality of life:
Christians such as Aquinas view life as sacred and any act toward ending life is interpreted as compromising God’s plan — sanctity > quality. However, Fletcher would argue that the quality of life should take precedence, as it would not be loving to let someone suffer indefinitely, and he basis his ethics on agape. Moreover, the Hebrew Scriptures has examples where the sanctity of life may be questioned (God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) and secular society places sanctity below quality — Kevin Smith stated decision about euthanasia must be made ‘without idle threats of supernatural damnation’
Plantinga: dangerous to violate sanctity of life ethic
Autonomy and the right to die:
As with quality vs sanctity, time periods must be taken into account. Early doctors such as Hippocrates wrote ‘I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone’, rejecting autonomy and possible founding the Hippocratic Oath. However, modern thinkers often reject this. JSM: ‘Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. God created humans imago dei which, for Irenaeus, constitutes self-determination
However Peter Singer notes that this desire for control is how we turn away from the sanctity of life ethic — ‘slippery slope’; virtue ethicist MacIntryre argues that humans who kill in one situation (euthanasia) are more prone to kill in others
What is more useful in the context of business ethics — Kantian ethics or utilitarianism?
Corporate social responsibility (wider duty than merely to shareholders):
Milton Friedman believed that it was in fact unethical to do anything OTHER than ensure profit for the shareholders
Kant would condemn this, as the CI focused on the formula of the end itself and using employees and environment to maintain profit qualities as ‘mere means’. Bentham’s act utilitarianism could interpret the greatest utility as maximising profit due to the subjectivity of the consequentialist approach. Yet Mill’s rule utilitarianism would distinguish ‘lower’ goods such as avarice and ‘higher’ goods such as broader interests of society
Whistle-blowing:
Norman Bowie declared ‘whistle-blowing’ as violating a ‘prima facie’ duty to one’s employer, but qualified it acceptable if it serves the greater good
Utilitarians would agree — act utilitarianism would weigh the good and harm to stakeholders, thus at times breaking the rule might be acceptable (although rule utilitarians would feel that companies should follow rules at all times and this inevitable leads to the greatest ‘higher’ good). Kantian ethics emphasises universalisability of qualities such as honesty — employers expected to comply with law and common god (however, we also have a duty to our employer) — breaking the law tends to break the formula of the end
Approaches to ‘good ethics is good ethics’:
Kantian ethics might appeal to fast-paced business environments as it pre-determines ethical decisions, however the extent it can fit with decisions often made out of self-interest if limited — Kant’s demands of the Kingdom of Ends (actions acceptable to all) would give business competitive disadvantages (bad business). Act utilitarianism might condone zero-hour contracts and underpaying employees as customers would enjoy cheaper products, and they are the majority. Whilst utility can be difficult to quantify and thus cumbersome for fast-paced businesses, it can clearly be interpreted such that good ethics is good business
How convincing are claims that people have an innate sense of right and wrong?
Emotivists believe that there can be no know, fixed moral truths:
Ayer saw 3 forms of judgement: logical (analytical), factual (synthetic) and moral, with the latter being unverifiable, instead mere expressions of emotion (‘boo-hurrah theory’). Stevenson developed this, linking moral statements to attitudes and beliefs rather emotions, influences by culture. Thus senses of right and wrong are clearly extrinsic
However, Alasdair MacIntyre rejects emotivism premises, suggesting that they describe an unpleasant world where people seek to impose their views on people. Also, emotivism doesn’t explain how we distinguish moral feelings from other feelings (Ayer would argue they are equally meaningless)
Naturalist are absolutists, arguing that moral evil and good are observable truths and facts, unchanging according to external influences and individuals:
F H Bradley wrote that our duties are universal, teaching us to ‘identity others and ourselves with the station we fill; to consider that as good’. Theological naturalist like Aquinas link right and wrong to divine will, whilst hedonic naturalists like Bentham to utility
However, emotivism and empiricist David Hume argued that morals are derived from sentiment rather than observation — Hume’s Law states one cannot go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’, as the ‘ought’ comes from feelings rather than observation
Phillipa Foot challenged Hume, arguing that our perception of right and wrong come from observation; moral evil is a ‘kind of natural defect’
Intuitionists claim that we do innately now right from wrong, yet this is different from scientific observation:
G E Moore believed good to be an undefinable yet recognisable thing — attempts to define good in terms of an actions commits the naturalistic fallacy: ‘good is good, and that is the end of the matter’ — link to yellow analogy
H A Prichard believes reason and intuition takes place during moral thought and W D Ross spoke of prima facie duties which override others according to the individual — intuition identifies these duties and reason determined our judgement (contrasting naturalists, thus explains clashes of duties)
Critically compare Aquinas’ and Freud’ views on conscience
On guilt — the conscience telling a person they have done wrong:
According to Aquinas, synderesis indicates that when things are not right, guilt results which helps God reconcile with a person by extinguishing the guilty through God’s grace — optimistic view of guilty. Freud’s view instead focuses on the disruption that guilt causes: he viewed guilt as a result of internal conflict of the mind — struggle between the id and the super-ego. This inner turmoil can lead to worse actions (Nietzsche: ‘conscience, is not, as you may believe, ‘the voice of God in man’; it is the instinct of cruelty, which turns inward once it is unable to discharge itself outwardly’). Aquinas’ only negative view of guilt is when it arises from invincible ignorance, as misplaced guilt can disrupt relations with God
On moral decision-making:
For Freud, moral choices are those which balance the id and the super-ego, whereas Aquinas’ thesis involves the application of ratio, synderesis and conscientia to make decisions that avoid evil (Freud rejects a black and white approach). Aquinas wrote in the 13th century, long before behavioural sciences — modern moral insights and framed by more than theology
However, whilst Aquinas might seem exclusively philosophical, he was aware of the disruptive potency of emotion and ‘sensuality’, which could deter actions away from the good (links to psychoanalytic Oedipus complex and Malinowski’s views against Freud)
Does Fletcher’s rejection of moral absolutes make situation ethics too individualistic and subjective?
John Macquarrie argues that the subjectivity and individualism of SE is a ‘vice’ and incurable; Fletcher would reject the notion that all absolutes are rejected, as he makes goodness relative to agape
Deplored by many Christian moralists for abandoning absolutes: Aquinas’ natural law contain clear absolutes in accordance to the divine and natural law within the precepts. By contrast, fletcher exalts agape love in his six propositions to emphasise that actions are right if they have the most loving outcome and emphasises teleology in four working presuppositions — despite drawn from Jesus, rests too much on one’s own interpretation and thus undermines God’s divine law
However, SE is practical because of its individualism:
In the context of euthanasia, Fletcher’s four working presuppositions are practical — pragmatism, relativism, positivism, personalise amalgamate to advocate the most loving outcome depending on the situation — every situation is different so individual approach necessary. By contrast, Aquinas; primary precept to preserve life at all times takes no account of levels of suffering by doing so — Kevin Smith deplores ‘idle threats of supernatural damnation’ when making such decisions
By comparison to deontological ethical systems, SE is of a necessary subjectivity:
As with utilitarianism, moral goodness is determined by the end-results (teleological), contrasting Aquinas and Kant’s duty-based ethics, rejecting extrinsic goodness and focusing on duty and intentions. By contrast, Fletcher believes actions can only be extrinsically good
Does natural law provide a helpful method of moral decision-making?
Positive view of human nature: key precept of synderesis links to Aquinas’ views on conscience, as our ratio and conscientia inclines toward the objective good; in all humans there is ‘first of all an inclination to do good’. Contrasts Augustine’s view re original sin and Freud’s secular view of conscience. However, is this too optimistic? Hobbes lived through English Civil War and saw human nature as ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’
Natural law is deontological, focusing on intrinsic rightness and wrongness of actions, based on behaviour that accord with the divine law extrinsic from human law: first 3 tiers of law, setting out a rule-based ethical system. However, it the idea of ‘fulfilling’ a telos too objective? In the context of euthanasia, SE focuses on personalism whereas Aquinas seems to disregard suffering
However, flexibility is offered in the form of the doctrine of double effect: intrinsic good is paramount being duty-based, thus a diverging end result is permissible if the intentions are pure, coinciding Kant’s categorical imperative which command universality of actions themselves
Helpful to religious believers as it is in accordance with divine law:
Humans have a ‘natural inclination to know the truth about God’; primary precepts include the worship of God and teaching the divine wisdom. Clearly this is more helpful than the more secular ethical system, including even Kantian ethics, and also contrasts secularist views of Freud and Dawkins, who view religion as ‘wish-fulfilment’
Should an ethical judgement about something being good, bad, right or wrong be based on the extent to which duty is served?
Kant finds a middle ground between secular and theological ethics:
In spite of the postulate of God and Kant’s commitment to Lutheran Church, his ethics sought to step away from Christianity. Kant reconciles Aquinas’ excessive focus on four tiers of law and Act Utilitarianism’s secularist hedonism to find a ground that might be acceptable to both religious believers and secularists; Kant looks inside the person to use reason to determine duty which is more acceptable to modern society than external supernatural forces — Pojman questions how we should consider those with lower levels of rational capacity; Kant promotes equality as value of human is ‘beyond all price’ as we are created to rational agents
Compare Kant’s deontological ethics with theological ethics to argue that he is too rigid and restrictive, especially with duty and CI.
Emphasis on duty is impractical: in context of business ethics, formulation of the universal law of nature and the end itself is too restrictive, as for business to survive they must make profit rather than solely focusing on CSR; utilitarianism’s flexibility is more suitable by retaining good ethics is good business, by rejecting duty — right and wrong should be based on utility rather than binding maxims. Also context of sexual ethics
Nevertheless, Kant emphasises the use of reason and the categorical imperative can be made flexible
How fair is it to claim that there are moe important goals that the mere pursuit of pleasure?
As a hedonic naturalist, Bentham claimed it is ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number that [is] the measure of right and wrong’. Bernard Williams saw utilitarianism to be attractive due to its secular and rational nature, exemplified by the hedonic calculus and the rejection of divine law through principle of utility. Yet Alasdair MacIntyre criticised the relentless pursuit of pleasure an immorally hedonistic — in practice, Bentham advocates capitalist exploitation to ensure profit — Nozick’s utility monster
Can be reconciled with rule utilitarianism, as Mill distinguishes higher pleasure from base pleasure; ‘human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites’. This reconciles consequentialism and deontology. Thus perhaps pursuit of higher pleasure coincides with human nature and is the most important goal. In practical ethics, also makes utilitarianism more egalitarian as rule utilitarianism avoids the ‘utility monster’ Nozick describes by describing material gain and avarice as a lower pleasure
Other pursuits: Singer’s preference utilitarianism deplores pursuits of mere pleasure, instead seeking to maximise first preference for the greatest number of people; ‘Killing a person who prefers to continue living is therefore wrong’ ceteris parabus and vice versa. Pursuit of interior duty with Kant’s categorical imperative clashes with exterior goods in pursuit of pleasure, and agape in Situation ethics appeals to Christian and secular moralists alike
