Type of ethical theories

It is customary to divide ethical theories into two groups usually called

1. Teleological Utilitarianism 2. Deontological Immanuel Kant

Type of ethical theories

A third kind of ethical theory is one based on the concept of virtue Aristotles ethics is the best example of theory of this kind

Teleological Theories
The word "teleology" is derived from the Greek word "telos" that means "ends. In this theory, you would consider the ends, or the outcomes of your decision One of the most common branches of this theory is utilitarianism

Teleological Theories
Teleological theories hold that the rightness of actions is determined solely by the amount of good consequences they produce. Actions are justified on teleological theories by virtue of end they achieve ,rather than some features of the actions themselves.

 This theory can be utilized in decisionmaking by first identifying what the dilemma entails and several alternative choices to solve it. Next you would predict what consequences would be associated with each alternative.

 You would then choose the solution that you believe would bring about the best possible consequence for the situation. Remember, in this theory "the means justify the ends."

Deontological Theory (Duty)

The word "deonto" means "duty" in Greek. A person using a deontological theory would consider the basic duties and rights of individuals or groups and act in accordance with those guidelines You would make a decision based on what you consider your moral obligations or duties.

 Your action will be guided by a set of moral principles or rules.

Deontological Theories
Deontologists typically hold that certain actions are right not because of some benefit to ourselves or others but because of the nature of these actions or rules from which they follow. Thus bribery is wrong ,some say by its very nature ,regardless of the consequence.

 UTILITARIANISM Greatest Happiness Principle The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon the consequences. (the END Justifies the MEANS)

KANTIAN VS. UTILITARIAN

KANTIAN ETHICS Supreme Principle of Morality The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon universal laws of action (the END never Justifies the MEANS) It is all about DUTY

Virtue ethics
In virtue ethics the judgment or the character of the person is considered the most basic guide to decision-making The person makes moral decisions based upon which actions would make one a good person.

 Virtue-based ethical theories place much less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. These character traits will, in turn, allow a person to make the correct decisions later on in life.

The creators of classical utilitarianism were

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832

Bentham believed that we should try to increase the overall amount of pleasure in the world.

The principle of utility

The principle requires that consequences be measured in some way so that the pleasure and pain of different individuals can be added together and the results of different courses of action compared . Bentham assumed that a precise quantitative measurement of pleasure and pain was possible, and he outlined a procedure that he called hedonistic calculus (hedonistic = pleasure)

 The procedure is to begin with any one individual whose interest is affected : Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side , and those of all the pains on the other . The balance ,if it be on the side of pleasure ,will give good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interest of that individual person ; if on the side of pain ,the bad tendency of it on the whole.

 If this process is repeated for all other individuals whose interest are effected , the resulting sum will show the good or bad tendency of an action for the whole community

A good example of utilitarianism is: Say there is a train coming toward a group of 5 people tied to the tracks and you're standing by the lever to make the train go onto a different path that is heading towards yourself. A utilitarian would pull the lever to make the train head in his/her direction. Killing one person creates a greater amount of good than killing 5 people

Utilitarianism
The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good to the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is a based on maximising utility or happiness.

A good act increases happiness or reduces pain.

A bad act increases suffering or reduces happiness.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system, which means it is concerned with consequences.

Bentham theory is open to some rather obvious objections The thesis of hedonism (pleasure) : critics at the time complained that pleasure is too low to constitute the good for human beings and pointed out that even pigs are capable of pleasure , which lead to the charge that utilitarianism is pig philosophy fit only for swine.

Mills Version He attempted to develop a more defensible version.

John Stuart Mill 1806-1873

Greatest happiness principle , holds that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness , wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness Believed that happiness, not pleasure, should be the standard of utility.

 Mill claimed , by holding that the human beings are capable of enjoying higher pleasures than those experienced by swine.

Because human beings, but not pigs , can enjoy the arts and intellectual pursuits .

Utilitarianism
Utilitarian theory hold that the rightness of actions is determined solely by the amount of consequences they produce.

Our obligation , or duty , in any situation is to perform the action that will result in the greatest possible balance of good over evil.

Utilitarianism
The right thing to do, in any situation, is whatever would produce the best overall outcome for all those who will be affected by your action. An action is right if and only if produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone

The morality of an action is determined solely through an assessment of its consequences and nothing else

The morally right action, the one we ought to perform, is the one that produces the greatest overall positive consequences for everyone.

Cost and Benefit

Really utilitarianism is asking us to do a cost/benefit (or suffering/happiness) calculation for every decision we make.

For any given action, we must calculate:

How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well as positively (hedons) How intensely they will be affected

Similar calculations for all available alternatives

Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of utility (hedons minus dolors)

Utilitarianism
The greatest happiness for the greatest number 1. The right thing to do is whatever would have the best overall consequences. 2. Which consequences matter? Whats important is human welfarewe want people to be as well-off as possible. 3. Each persons welfare is equally important.

Utilitarian principle
1. Consequentialism : The principle holds that the rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences . 2. Hedonism : Hedonism is a the thesis that pleasure and pleasure is ultimately good .

3. Maximalism : the right action is one that has not merely some good consequences but the greatest amount of good consequences

4. Universalism : The consequences to be considered are those of everyone.

Discussion points

How do you think a utilitarian would respond in the following situations and why?

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth 15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van worth 30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy.

Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled with people waiting to be rescued; there are five people on one rock and four on the other. Assume that you cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only one able to rescue either group.
Which group would a utilitarian rescue?

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is very contagious and has no known cure. The health board have locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected people are released. The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

Would a utilitarian agree with this action?

Discussion points

Now think again

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth 15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van worth 30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy.

A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities found out the truth about what had happened. They removed the van from the orphanage and sacked you because of the fraud. The orphanage was unable to find a replacement and has had to be closed down as a result.

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled with people waiting to be rescued; there are five people on one rock and four on the other. Assume that you cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only one able to rescue either group.

After you have rescued the group of five they begin to fight with each other about whose fault it was that they ended up stuck on a rock. As they argue it becomes clear that you have rescued a group of criminals who had been trying to steal a yacht from a family on holiday when it hit a rock and sunk. The group of four you didnt save were that family.

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is very contagious and has no known cure. The health board have locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected people are released. The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

The day after the 30 people had been wiped out to protect others a cure is found for the disease.

Is morality really as simple as utilitarianism makes out?

Can we be held responsible for consequences we cannot always predict and that may be as a result of other people? Can we really be expected to put aside our personal interests to always do what is best for the greatest number of people? Are intentions not as important as consequences when making moral decisions? Do utilitarians not leave moral decisions up to luck because we have to decide how to act and then wait to see what the consequences are to know if we have behaved in a morally correct manner or not? Who decides what is right and wrong for the greatest number of people?

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism
An action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for every one

Rule utilitarianism
An action is right if and only if conforms to a set of rules the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for every one

Act utilitarianism
This is based on the consequences of actions. If an action will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people then it is the correct moral action according to utilitarianism. For example, if 20 people were held hostage by four criminals, it would be correct for the police to kill the four criminals to save the 20 people. In other words, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Rule utilitarianism Many rules are made to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore following these rules is the right moral choice. For example, everyone obeys road traffic rules, like stopping at red lights, which makes the roads safer for everyone.

 Imagine the following scenario.

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?

 For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment

 For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

 In classical Utilitarianism an action is judged by the virtue of consequences of performing that action. As result , telling lie or breaking a promise is right if it has better consequence than any alternative course of action.
Utilitarian morality thus seems to place no value on observing rules such as Tell the truth or Keep your promise

 An act is right if and only if it conforms with a learnable set of rules, the adoption of which by everyone would maximize utility To make this a little clearer, a person might say: There are certain easy-to-grasp rules of action that, if everyone follows them, will make for the greatest balance of pleasure/happiness over pain (utility).

Of course, in certain cases it may easily be seen that breaking the rule leads to greater utility, but even here the act must surrender to the rule. This is because it is better (i.e. it increases utility) if everyone keeps the rule rather than if everyone considers it breakable in certain situations.

Concluding Assessment
Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy decisions, as long as a strong notion of fundamental human rights guarantees that it will not violate rights of small minorities.

Back up

Basic Insights of Utilitarianism

The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place. Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions We should do whatever will bring the most benefit (i.e., intrinsic value) to all of humanity.

The Purpose of Morality

The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all:
The purpose of morality is to guide peoples actions in such a way as to produce a better world.

Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions.

Fundamental Imperative
The fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is:
Always act in the way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. The emphasis is clearly on consequences, not intentions.

The Dream of Utilitarianism: Bringing Scientific Certainty to Ethics

Utilitarianism offers us a powerful vision of the moral life, one that promises to reduce or eliminate moral disagreement.
If we can agree that the purpose of morality is to make the world a better place; and If we can scientifically assess various possible courses of action to determine which will have the greatest positive effect on the world; then We can provide a scientific answer to the question of what we ought to do.

Section Two. Standards of Utility: A History of Utilitarianism

Happiness
Advantages
A higher standard, more specific to humans About realization of goals

Disadvantages
More difficult to measure Competing conceptions of happiness

Section Three. The Utilitarian Calculus

The Utilitarian Calculus

Math and ethics finally merge: all consequences must be measured and weighed. Units of measurement:
Hedons: positive Dolors: negative

Hedon is a term that utilitarians use to designate a unit of pleasure. Its opposite is a dolor, which is a unit of pain or displeasure. The term "hedon" comes from the Greek word for pleasure.

What do we calculate?
Hedons/dolors may be defined in terms of
Pleasure Happiness Ideals Preferences

For any given action, we must calculate:

How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well as positively (hedons) How intensely they will be affected Similar calculations for all available alternatives Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of utility (hedons minus dolors)

Example: Debating the school lunch program

Utilitarians would have to calculate: Benefits
Increased nutrition for x number of children Increased performance, greater long-range chances of success Incidental benefits to contractors, etc.

Costs
Cost to each taxpayer Contrast with other programs that could have been funded and with lower taxes (no program)

Multiply each factor by

Number of individuals affected Intensity of effects

How much can we quantify?

Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify than happiness or ideals Two distinct issues:
Can everything be quantified?
Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life (love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things (productivity, material goods) may get emphasized precisely because they are quantifiable. The danger: if it cant be counted, it doesnt count.

Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

Are a fine dinner and a good nights sleep commensurable? Can one be traded or substituted for the other?

How much can we quantify?

Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify than happiness or ideals Two distinct issues:
Can everything be quantified?
Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life (love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things (productivity, material goods) may get emphasized precisely because they are quantifiable. The danger: if it cant be counted, it doesnt count.

Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

Are a fine dinner and a good nights sleep commensurable? Can one be traded or substituted for the other?

66

Concluding Assessment
Utilitarianism suffers from more problems. But it remains a strong ethical theory because in principle at least one can simply calculate the right thing to do. One is given a clear guide to action. Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy decisions, as long as a strong notion of fundamental human rights guarantees that it will not violate rights of small minorities.

Let us imagine you are a doctor driving to a patient, a young mother who is about to give birth. It looks like she will need a caesarian section. It is late at night and you come across a car accident on the country road you are travelling on. Two cars are involved in the accident and both drivers are unconscious and have visible injuries. One of the men is the father of the child you are going to deliver, and the other man is very old. You do not know the extent of their injuries but in your opinion, without immediate medical help, one or both may die. You as a Utilitarian are now faced with one of three possible solutions: You help the young mother who's about to give birth. You help the young woman's husband. You help the old man. The outcome of felicific calculus would suggest: Attending to the mother first is your primary concern as the doctor. The death of both mother and child is almost a certainty if you do not act now, whereas the death of the men is uncertain. Furthermore, the pain of the mother is clearly greater than that of the men at this time. There is a greater richness and purity in saving the life of a young child who has, in all probability, a long happy life ahead. Meanwhile the extent and duration of the utility created by these two people is a clear likelihood. Attending to the young husband is the next priority. The pleasures of a new familyits intensity, duration, extent, richness, and purityare all clear probabilities. If, as the doctor, you attend him first his wife and child would in all probability die. The man would then experience pain. The pain experienced by the widowed husband is likely to outstrip any pleasure to be gained from continued life without his loved ones. Attending to the old man is the last priority. The duration and certainty of his future pleasure are questionable owing to his agehe has all but lived his life. This is sometimes known as the 'good innings' argument, according to which the older you are the less claim you have to life.[citation needed]

 Certainly, the doctor should not be limited to the three choices, though the whole purpose of the exercise rests on it being a closed universe. To maximize the felicific calculus, he should try to secure external help by calling another doctor to help the mother, and by asking people nearby and the emergency services to deal with the accident

 Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed.

 If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation specific to a case or generalized to rules

 Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult

 Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e. laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not.

Happiness
Advantages
A higher standard, more specific to humans About realization of goals

Disadvantages
More difficult to measure Competing conceptions of happiness

Pleasure
Advantages Easy to quantify Short duration Bodily Criticisms
Came to be known as the pigs philosophy Ignores higher values Could justify living on a pleasure machine

Lockheed in Japan
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was in very precarious financial situation . It had failed to get contracts with several European carriers. Lockheed had avoided bankruptcy in 1971. The survival of Lockheed was riding on the effort to sell the new L-1011 TriStar passenger jet to All Nippon Airways Japan .

 Carl Kotchian ,President of Lockheed visited Japan to sell the aircrafts. Shortly after landing in Tokyo , Kotchian met a representative of Marubeni corporation a trading company engaged to arrange a meeting with Kakuei Tanaka , the prime minister of Japan. The representative of Marubeni , Okubo , informed Kotichian that a pledge of five hundred million yen would be required to set up such a meeting.

 Kotichian was hesitant about making an irregular payment of this size to the highest official in Japanese Government. But he agreed to pledge the amount requested and the meeting was held with the PM . After a complex negotiations ,executives of ANA were on the verge of placing an order for six planes with an option to buy 8 more.

 Carl Kotichian received a telephone call from Okubo informing him that the sale was assured if he would do three things. Two of them were minor , but the third was a bombshell. Kotichian was asked to have $ 400,000 in Japanese yen ready the next morning. Of this amount $ 300,000 was to be paid to the president of ANA . The figure was based on $ 50,000 for each of six planes ordered.

 The remaining $ 100,000 was to be divided among six Japanese politicains . Kotichian protested but eventually the amount was paid. Kotichlian returned to companys headquarters in California amid general celebrations and apperently forgot about the pledge of five hundred million yen for prime minister Tanaka .

 Marubeni reprenstative Mr Okubuo informed that if he did not honor the pledge Lockheed never be able to do business in Japan again . And he hinted darkly that the president of Marubeni , who had made the offer to Tanaka ,would have to leave the country.

Strengths of teleological theory

They are in accord with much of our ordinary moral reasoning .

Teleological theories provide a relatively precise and objective method for moral decision making.

An Example
Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do? For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment. For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

 Imagine the following scenario.

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?

 For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment

 For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.