Exam 1 Flashcards
Bentham, an English moral philosopher and legal reformer, founded the doctrine of utilitarianism.
.
The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain.
utilitarianism
Utility
whatever produces pleasure or happiness, and whatever prevents pain or suffering.
Bentham: We are all governed by the feelings of pain and pleasure. They are our “sovereign masters.” They govern us in everything we do and also determine what we ought to do. The standard of right and wrong is “fastened to their throne.”
.
a prison with a central inspection tower that would enable the supervisor to observe the inmates without their seeing him.run by a private contractor (ideally himself), who would manage the prison in exchange for the profits to be made from the labor of the convicts, who would work sixteen hours per day.
Panopticon
The Runaway Trolley Case
(quotations are from Sandel’s book, pp. 21-24)
1. Some factual differences between version #1 and version #2 of “the runaway trolley” case:
a. In #1, I am the “driver” of the trolley car; in #2 I am an “onlooker.”
b. In #1, there is a sidetrack; in #2, there is no sidetrack.
c. In #1, there is one worker on the sidetrack who is killed; in #2, there is “a very heavy man” on a bridge overlooking the track who is killed.
..
“Why does the principle that seems right in the first case – sacrifice one life to save five – seem wrong in the second?” In short what is the moral difference between these cases?
a. It does seem cruel to push a man to his death, even for a good cause.
“But is it any less cruel to kill a man by crashing into him with a trolley car?”
b. In the pushing case (version 2) the heavy man hasn’t consented to being pushed onto the track; he didn’t choose to be involved.
“But the same could be said of the man working on the side track.” He hasn’t consented to being killed either.
c. In the “driver” case (version 1) you are not intending the track worker’s death, even though it is foreseeable?
“But the same is true in the pushing case. The death of the man you push off the bridge is not essential to your purpose. All he needs to do is block the trolley; if he can do so and somehow survive, you would be delighted.”
There are philosophers who would disagree with Sandel’s claim that in the “pushing” case you are not intending the death of the heavy man. In her account of the Doctrine of Double Effect in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Alison McIntyre writes that
“It would be wrong to throw someone into the path of a runaway trolley in order to stop it and keep it from hitting five people on the track ahead; that would involve intending harm to the one as a means of saving the five. But it would be permissible to divert a runaway trolley onto a track holding one and away from a track holding five: in that case one foresees the death of the one as a side effect of saving the five but one does not intend it.”
McIntyre also points out that some philosophers “deny that the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences has moral significance….” What if a soldier “throws himself on the grenade in order to shield his fellow soldiers from the force of an explosion?” Does it make sense to say that he does not intend “to sacrifice his own life in order to save the others,” that he “merely foresees that his life will end as a side effect of his action?” MacIntyre claims that “many have argued that this is an implausible description of the soldier’s action and that his action is permissible even if he does intend to cause his own death as a means to save the others.”
..
- Sandel then asks whether the two versions of the runaway trolley case should be governed by the same principle, namely, “we should sacrifice one life to save five.” After all “both involve a deliberate choice to take the life of one innocent person to prevent a greater loss of life.”
…
- Sandel claims that “it is not easy to explain the moral difference between these cases – why turning the trolley seems right, but pushing the man off the bridge seems wrong.”
Some moral dilemmas (such as the one in the “runaway trolley case”) come about as a result of conflicting moral principles or rules:
“we should save as many vs. “it is wrong to kill an innocent lives as possible” person, even for a good cause”
Here we must ask: “Which principle has greater weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances?”
,,,
Consequentialist theories of moral obligation claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of an individual action depends on the consequences of the action or the rule under which the action falls. Suppose Smith lies about Jones and, as a consequence, injures Jones’s reputation and Mary breaks her promise to Jane and, as a consequence, undermines Jane’s trust in Mary. The consequentialist thinks that Smith’s lying about Jones is wrong because it injures Jones’s reputation and Mary’s breaking her promise to Jane is wrong because it undermines Jane’s trust in Mary
…
The following statements convey a consequentialist point of view:
“It is morally right to keep a promise because it fosters trust between people.”
“It is morally right for me to show equal consideration for the interests of my employees because, in the long run, it serves my interests.”
“Cruelty to animals is morally wrong because it makes a person value other human beings less.”
Nonconsequentialist theories of moral obligation claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the consequences. Something other than the consequences makes the action right or wrong. The action may be wrong in itself, or wrong because it is unnatural, or wrong because it is forbidden by God, etc. If Smith’s act of lying is wrong, it is not wrong because it injures Jones’ reputation and if Mary’s act of breaking her promise to Jane is wrong, it is not because it undermines Jane’s trust in Mary. In principle, a nonconsequentialist must hold that an action may be morally right even though all of its consequences are bad and that an action may be morally wrong even though all of its consequences are good.
,,,,
The following statements convey a nonconsequentialist point of view:
“Lying is morally wrong because it is intrinsically evil, wrong in itself.”
“Stealing is morally wrong because it is forbidden by God.”
“Suicide is morally wrong because it is contrary to the natural inclination to preserve life.”
Clear examples of a nonconsequentialist theory are the divine command theory and the natural law theory. Probably the clearest example of a consequentialist theory is utilitarianism.
- Many people see a natural association between morality and religion. God’s law is thought to be the ultimate foundation of morality. The Ten Commandments are part and parcel of the Judaeo-Christian heritage.
The Divine Command Theory
“an action or kind of action is right or wrong if and only if and because it is commanded or forbidden by God, or, in other words, that what ultimately makes an action right or wrong is its being commanded or forbidden by God and nothing else.”
voluntaristic version of the DCT
“Does God command or forbid this action?” If He commands it, then it is the right thing to do; if He forbids it, then it is the wrong thing to do. His commanding it makes the action right; his forbidding it makes it wrong. No appeal to the consequences of the act is made here. The action is right or wrong irrespective of the consequences of the act. So the DCT is a nonconsequentialist theory of moral obligation.
,,,
