Social and Professional Issues 5 Flashcards
rightness depends on consequences
Consequentialism
rightness depends at least in part on a formal moral rule or principle
Deontology
- There are no objective moral truths – only an individual’s feelings or preferences;
- “What I feel is right is right. What I feel is wrong is wrong.”
Ethical Subjectivism
Criticisms about Ethical Subjectivism
- only exercise of power
- harm others it if feels right to them
- arbitration is possible
All (not some) moral values are nothing more than cultural customs and laws
Cultural Relativism
Criticisms about Cultural Relativism
- Naturalist Fallacy
- no distinguishing difference between reformers and criminals
- can’t explain moral progress
- suspicion/mistrust to other cultures
- not for pluralistic cultures
- blind conformity
Doing the —— is doing what you are morally obligated to do (not doing bad)
moral minimum
going beyond your obligations
Doing good
Following the law is not the same thing as acting morally
- Laws can be immoral
- Laws can provide insufficient direction
- Laws can be ambiguous
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
- Blind egoism
- Instrumental egoism
- social relationship perspective
- social system perspective
- contractual perspective
- mutual respect and universal perspective
everyone ought to do what is in his or her own rational self-interest
Ethical Egoism
Criticisms about Ethical Egoism
- Justifies any self-interested action
- Selfishness is usually associated with immorality, altruism with morality
Utilitarianism
- Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1831)
- The morally right act for an agent A at a time t is that act available to A at t, that will maximize the total amount of good in the world (that will have the best consequences).
- “The greatest good for the greatest number”
Hedonistic Utilitarianism
- Pleasure and the absence of pain are good
- Pleasure is any sensation you would rather have than no sensation at all; and pain is any sensation you’d rather not have than no sensation at all.
Advantages of Utilitarianism
- Neautralistic
- Realistic
- Non-metaphysical
- Non-elitist
- Determinate in principle
treats everyone in the same way
Neutralistic
it’s based on real psychology. It works with people as it finds them and organizes society so that they being that way actually has good consequences for everyone.
Realistic
it doesn’t make goodness/badness right/wrongness some sort of weird qualities. What in the world is “a natural right?”
Non-metaphysical
it counts all sentient creatures. And all types of pleasures equally
Non-elitist
in principle, you can use the hedonic calculus to get an actual answer to the question of “what should I do in this case?”.
Determinate in principle
The Hedonic Calculus
- Determine Intensity x duration
- Determine Probability
- Calculate Total = (intensity x duration) x Probability
It’s a subjective criterion – “Pushpin is as good as poetry”, the source of pleasure doesn’t matter
Bentham
There is an objective quality to different pleasures that should also be factor into our calculations, Quality comes from what people would choose if they had access to all possible pleasures
J.S. Mill
Market view
Policy experts manipulate the economy to attempt to improve the outcome beyond the capacities of a purely free market
Administrative view
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
- It’s too difficult to apply
- people care more than just pleasure
- we cannot reduce human goods into quantifiable units
- no non-arbitrary limit to how far into the future we should consider consequences
- intention is important in determining moral status of action
- justifies act that seem to be plainly wrong
Always act according to the rule that would produce the most utility in the world (vs. “act” utilitarianism)
Rule Utilitarianism
Always act so as to maximize satisfaction of people’s preferences (vs. “Hedonistic” Utilitarianism)
Preference Utilitarianism
One way to think of a right is as a trump against the claims of the general welfare.
Rights and duties
are rights to aid – entitlements to be provided with something (Right to due process of law in the Philippines, to free education, to healthcare coverage, etc
Positive rights
are rights to non-interference (A right not to be killed, have your property stolen, raped)
Negative rights
if you have a right not to be killed, then I have a duty not to kill you.
Rights hook into correlative
Moral actions follow from the right moral principles
Kantianism
are conditional, rather than categorical/absolute
Hypothetical imperatives
All moral rules must rest on a
categorical imperative (CI)
To find out whether a moral principle is ok to act from, you see if it’s compatible with the
Categorical Imperative (CI)
“Never treat a person merely as a means to an end, but always treat them as an end in themselves”
2nd formulation of Categorical Imperative
“Act only according to that maxim that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (a rule that applies to everybody)
1st formulation of Categorical Imperative:
The Categorical Imperative Steps
- Step 1: Formulate a sincere and rational maxim (a subjective principle of action that states what you propose to do, and why)
- Step 2: Universalize the maxim to everyone, past, present and future. (everyone, as if by a law of nature, does A in C in order to achieve E)
- Step 3: Imagine the world that would result from conjoining all the laws of physics, psychology, sociology, etc. with the law you made in Step 2
- Step 4: Test the maxim
In the social world of (3) would it be possible to achieve your end by means of the action you proposed in 1?
The contradiction in conception test
Could I consistently will that this social world actually exist?
The Contradiction in the Will test
If a maxim of action fails the CI tests, it is —– to act on that maxim! AND that means that not to do that thing is a moral duty.
nOT permissible
Criticisms of Kantianism
- absolutist and inflexible
- maxims which seem to be ok, fail the CI test
- no positive formula for constructing maxims
- The whole approach of basing morality on rationality, rather than feelings is mistaken.
We ought to act in ways that do not cause needless harm or injury to others
The Principle of Nonmaleficence
We should act in ways that promote the welfare of other people
The Principle of Beneficence
We should act in such a way as to bring about the greatest benefit and the least harm
The Principle of Utility
focuses on having a good character – tells you what kind of person you ought to be
Virtue Ethics
It is action-guiding in the sense that it recommends that you become the kind of person that will do what is right – perhaps instinctively
Virtue Ethics
How do you become virtuous?
Develop the sort of habits or instincts that a virtuous person has through good upbringing, education, reflection, experience, and effort
What habits or instincts are these for virtuous people?
Those that your “moral exemplars” poses
Benevolence, compassion, honesty, charity, sincerity, sympathy, respect consideration, kindness, thoughtfulness, loyalty, fairness, etc.
Moral Virtues
Rationality, intelligence, tenacity, capability, patience, prudence, skillfulness, shrewdness, proficiency, etc
Practical/non-moral virtues
Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
- Different cultural groups have had different, sometimes conflicting, opinions on what constitutes a virtue. If Virtue Ethics has no universal basis, it leads to an undesirable cultural relativism
- Virtue Ethics may praise certain character traits, but this provides us with no or insufficient practical guidance about which specific actions to perform
