Major Ethical Theories

Utilitarianism
Kantian ethics
Rights

A Major Misunderstanding
One must declare allegiance to
one ethical theory in order to do
ethics
Arguments undermining all known
ethical theories collectively make it
plain that there is no theoretical
basis for ethical thought at all

A Better Understanding
A & S, p. 9
Human life and behavior is
exceedingly complex
To be workable as a theory or model,
must be simpler than real life
Therefore, any one theory will have
gaps and blind spots but may be good
partial description of the moral life

A Helpful Metaphor?
Approach each ethical problem as a
job
Ethical theories are tools in your tool
box which you bring to the work
Part of job is picking the right tools
to perform that job well

Utilitarianism
Core Idea: Ethics should be
based on facts about the
results of our actions upon
human happiness and
suffering in the real world

Facts for Utilitarianism

What counts as human happiness or
unhappiness
Actual probability that a particular
action will produce a certain amount
or type of happiness or unhappiness

Utilitarianism as Ethics
Fact: Most of us act most of the time
as if we count for more than others

To be an ethical system,
utilitarianism must insist
that all count equally

Utilitarianism
Do what produces the
greatest net gain in
happiness over unhappiness
(the greatest good) for the
greatest number of people

Crude Utilitarianism
A&S, p. 14: All right to kill one
innocent person if organs would save
lives of five others
Ignores long term consequences
Ignores subtle consequences
Ignores ripple effects

Classical Utilitarianism
J.S. Mill, 1840-1860
All human values or disvalues can be
reduced to happiness or unhappiness,
and these can be measured
quantitatively (utilitarian calculus)
Objection: Different human values
seem to be of radically different
types, not simply different quantities

Preference Utilitarianism
E.g., Peter Singer
What is right is to perform the act
which maximizes the value
preferences that are achieved for
the greatest number of people (I.e.,
the most people possible get more of
what they value)

Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Do not show that it has no value
Instead show its natural and
necessary limits and weaknesses
(I.e., for what jobs it is less well
suited as a tool of inquiry)

Major Criticisms
One thought too many
Utilitarianism as too weak an ethical
theory

Utilitarians cant rent videos

Utilitarianism as too stringent an ethical
theory

Shogun Example
British sailor is being tortured alive
Japanese samurai stands in moonlit
garden and derives great
gratification (including sexual) from
listening to screams
Is what was done to British sailor
wrong?

Examples- cont.
Utilitarian father trying to decide
whether to rescue his child vs. any
child at random from an immediate
danger
Bernard Williams: Father has had
one thought too many to be an
ideally ethical person

Conclusion
Utilitarianism seems especially weak
in capturing some of our most basic
moral intuitions about:
The injustice of sacrificing the
interests of the few for the many
The moral relevance of special
relationships

Cant Rent Videos?

Utilitarianism as too stringent an
ethical system if taken literally (so
long as any human misery exists
anywhere in the world)
How far removed from our everyday,
average standard of behavior
can/should an ethical theory be?

Kantian Ethics
Core Idea: We can use our
reason to discern that some
actions are wrong based on
the nature of the action and
apart from its practical
consequences

Kant: What is ethics?

If you want to get more of Y, then
you should do X (hypothetical
imperative)

Do X (categorical
imperative)

Possible Sources for Ethics

(Kant)
FACTS
Changing, unstable
Yields only hypothetical imperatives

PURE REASON (Logic)

Eternal, universal
Gives rise to categorical imperative

Logic (pure reason)

Sam is unmarried
All bachelors are
unmarried

Categorical Imperative
Act so as always to treat others as
ends-in-themselves and never as
means only
Act so that you could will your
action to become universal law
Two ways to express the same basic
idea (Kant)

Why are two the same?

Could one will the opposite of treat
others as ends and never as means
only to be universal law?
If so, I should treat others as means
only
Then others should treat me as means
only
But I have willed this to be universal law

Why are two the same? (II)

But only an end-in-itself
(possessed of autonomous will) could
will something to be universal law
Therefore willing opposite leads to
logical contradiction
Therefore treat others as ends is
categorical imperative

Illustration: Tell the Truth

Should I tell a lie?
Can I will lying to become universal law?
If lying were universal practice, truth
would no longer have any meaning
But if truth has no meaning neither
does lying
Logical contradiction as universal law

Common Terminology
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist
ethical theory
Kantianism is a deontological (dutybased) ethical theory
For Kant, source of duty is the
concept of autonomy and rational will
(pure reason as source of ethical
duty)

Rights Theory
Dworkin: Rights as trumps
Nozick: Side constraints
Most of the time we are entitled to try
to maximize the good consequences
of our actions
A right takes priority over maximizing
the good (line you cant cross even to
get to a good place)

Two Ways to Cheapen

Rights
Invoke your rights whenever
anyone interferes with your getting
anything you happen to want
Be willing to rescind the rights of
others whenever they act in ways
that you happen not to like

Libertarianism
Distinguish:
Positive right: a right to have or
obtain something (other people have
to do something)
Negative right: a right to be free of
something (other people have to not
do something)

Libertarianism
State power may be used only to
protect negative rights
Any state power to protect positive
rights is wrong, because it must
violate someone elses negative
rights to be free of seizure of
property

Critique of Libertarianism
Right to trial by jury
Requires that numerous services be
provided and that various institutions
have to be established
Most of these require support in terms
of salaries, maintenance costs, etc.
A great deal of tax money is needed

Critique of Libertarianism
This means a right to trial by jury is a
positive right
BUT: usually viewed as a negative
right, I.e. right to be free from unfair
imprisonment or punishment
Does whether it is positive or
negative determine how important
or how basic it is?

Critique of Libertarianism
Some positive rights may be absolutely
vital and well worth protecting
Some negative rights may be
unimportant or superficial and may not
be worth protecting
Some redistribution of resources
among people in society is an
inevitable function of the state