Backward-Looking Reasons.

Utilitarianism makes the past irrelevant, and so

it seems flawed. The fact that someone committed a crime is a reason to
MIDTERM EXAM ETHICS
punish him. The fact that someone did you a favor last week is a reason for
3A.2 The Revolution in Ethics you to do her a favor next week. The fact that you hurt someone yesterday
is a reason to make it up to him today. These are all facts about the past that
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a powerful argument for a novel are relevant to determining our obligations.
conception of morality.
3B.5 Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone?
Morality, he urged, is not about pleasing God, nor is it about being faithful to
abstract rules; instead, it is about making the world as happy as possible. We must treat each person’s happiness is equally important. This has
troubling implications. One problem is that the requirement of “equal
Bentham believed in one ultimate moral principle, the “Principle of Utility.” concern” places too great a demand on us; another problem is that it
That principle requires us, in all circumstances, to “maximize happiness”— disrupts our personal relationships.
in other words, to produce the greatest total balance of happiness over
unhappiness, or of pleasure over suffering. The Charge That Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding.

Principle of Utility was so radical, consider what it leaves out of morality: It Faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard would require you to give
says nothing about God, nor does it speak of abstract rules “written in the away your wealth until you’ve made yourself as poor as the people you’re
heavens.” helping. Utilitarianism seems unable to recognize the “supererogatory”
moral category.
Morality is not viewed as obedience to a list of ancient proclamations. Or as
the utilitarian Peter Singer (1946–) puts it, morality is not “a system of The Charge That Utilitarianism Disrupts Our Personal Relationships.
nasty puritanical prohibitions . . . designed to stop people [from] having
In practice, none of us is willing to treat everyone equally, because that
fun.” Rather, ethics is about the happiness of beings in this world, and
would require giving up our special ties to friends and family. We are all
nothing more.
deeply partial where our family and friends are concerned.
3B.2 The Classical Version of the Theory
When you are impartial, you miss out on intimacy, love, affection, and
Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: friendship. At this point, Utilitarianism seems to have lost all touch with
reality.
(a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the
action; nothing else matters. 3B.6 The Defense of Utilitarianism

(b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the Together, these objections appear to be decisive.
greater or lesser happiness of individuals.
 Utilitarianism seems unconcerned with both justice and individual rights.
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets
 Moreover, it cannot account for backward-looking reasons.
“equal consideration.”
 If we lived by the theory, we would become poor, and we would have to
An action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of happiness
stop loving our family and our friends.
over unhappiness.

3B.3 Is Pleasure All That Matters?

Most philosophers have therefore abandoned Utilitarianism.
The question "What things are good?" is different from the question "What
actions are right?" and Utilitarianism answers the second question by Some philosophers, however, continue to defend it. They do so in three
reference to the first. different ways.

Right actions are the ones that produce the most good. But what is good? The First Defense: Contesting the Consequences.
The utilitarian reply is: happiness.
Most of the arguments against Utilitarianism go like this:
But what is happiness? According to the classical utilitarians, happiness is
a situation is described; then it is said that some particular (vile!) action
pleasure. Utilitarians understand “pleasure” broadly, to include all mental
would have the best consequences under those circumstances; then
states that feel good.
Utilitarianism is faulted for advocating that action.
The thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate good—and pain the one
These arguments, however, succeed only if the actions they describe really
ultimate evil—has been known since antiquity as Hedonism.
would have the best consequences. Would they? According to the first
We value things other than pleasure. defense, they would not.

For example, we value artistic creativity and friendship. These things make Theories like Utilitarianism are supposed to apply to all situations, including
us happy, but that’s not the only reason we value them. situations that are merely hypothetical. Thus, showing that Utilitarianism
has unacceptable implications in made-up cases is a valid way of critiquing
G. E. Moore (1873–1958), have compiled short lists of things to be regarded
it. The first defense, then, is weak.
as valuable in themselves. Moore suggested that there are three obvious
intrinsic goods—pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment— and so The Second Defense: The Principle of Utility Is a Guide for Choosing Rules,
right actions are those actions that increase the world’s supply of these Not Acts.
things.
The new version of Utilitarianism modifies the theory so that individual
3B.4 Are Consequences All That Matter? actions are no longer judged by the Principle of Utility.

To determine whether an action is right, utilitarians believe that we should Instead, we first ask what set of rules is optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint.
look at what will happen as a result of doing it. This idea is central to the In other words, what rules should we follow in order to maximize
theory. happiness?

Here are three arguments that attack the theory at just this point. Individual acts are then assessed according to whether they abide by these
rules. This new version of the theory is called “Rule- Utilitarianism,” to
Justice. Utilitarianism is incompatible with the ideal of justice. Justice
distinguish it from the original theory, now commonly called “Act-
requires that we treat people fairly, according to the merits of their
Utilitarianism.”
particular situations. (H. J. McCloskey)
In shifting emphasis from the justification of acts to the justification of rules,
Rights. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that
Utilitarianism has been brought into line with our intuitive judgments.
may not be trampled on merely because one anticipates good results. On
Utilitarianism, an individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if enough However, a serious problem with Rule-Utilitarianism arises when we ask
people benefit from the trampling. whether the ideal rules have exceptions. Must the rules be followed no
matter what? What if a “forbidden” act would greatly increase the overall
Utilitarianism has thus been accused of supporting the “tyranny of the
good?
majority”:
This study sourceifwas
thedownloaded
majoritybyof100000848055979
people wouldfrom
take pleasure inonsomeone’s
CourseHero.com rightsGMT -05:00
05-31-2022 21:12:20
being abused, then those rights should be abused, because the pleasure of The rule-utilitarian might give any one of three answers.
the majority outweighs the suffering of the one.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/69566177/MIDTERM-EXAM-ETHICSdocx/
 First, if she says that in such cases we may violate the rules, then it looks like Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because they tell us
she wants to assess actions on a case-by-case basis. what to do provided that we have the relevant desires.
Second, she might suggest that we formulate the rules so that violating Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on having particular
them never will increase happiness. desires. The form of a moral obligation is not “If you want so-and-so,
Finally, the rule-utilitarian might stand her ground and say that we should then you ought to do such-and-such.” Instead, moral requirements
never break the rules, even to promote happiness. are categorical: They have the form “You ought to do such-and-
such, period.”
The Third Defense: “Common Sense” Is Wrong.

This defense is given by hard-nosed and unapologetic utilitarians.

How can we be obligated to behave in a certain way regardless of
our goals?
The First Response: All Values Have a Utilitarian Basis.
Kant - Just as hypothetical “oughts” are possible because we
Utilitarianism is not incompatible with common sense; on the contrary, have desires, categorical “oughts” are possible because we
Utilitarianism justifies the commonsense values we have.
have reason capacity. Categorical oughts, Kant says, are derived from
Apart from the utilitarian explanation, common sense duties would seem a principle that every rational person must accept: the Categorical
inexplicable. What could be stranger than saying that lying is wrong “in Imperative.
itself,” apart from any harm it causes? And how could people have a “right
to privacy” unless respecting that right brought them some benefit? “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.”
The Second Response: Our Gut Reactions Can’t Be Trusted when Cases Are
Exceptional. 4A.4 Kant’s Arguments on Lying

Why do we immediately and instinctively believe it to be wrong to bear false According to Kant, then, our behavior should be guided by universal
witness against an innocent person? The reason, some say, is that laws, which are moral rules that hold true in all circumstances. Kant
throughout our lives we have seen lies lead to misery and misfortune. Thus, believed in many such exceptionless rules.
we instinctively condemn all lies.
Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someone’s life. Should you
However, when confronting unusual cases, such as McCloskey’s (where lies do it?
that increase happiness), perhaps we should trust the Principle of Utility
more than our gut instincts. Anscombe - Perhaps your maxim would be: “I will lie when doing so
would save someone’s life.”
The Third Response: We Should Focus on All the Consequences.
Case of the Inquiring Murderer - Under these circumstances, most of
When we’re asked to consider a “despicable” action that maximizes
happiness, the action is often presented in a way that encourages us to us think, you should lie. After all, which is more important: telling the
focus on its bad effects, rather than its good effects. truth or saving someone’s life?

If instead we focus on all the effects of the act, Utilitarianism seems more Kant’s reply - This argument may be stated in a general form: We are
plausible. tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because in
some cases we think the consequences of honesty will be bad and
Concluding Thoughts
the consequences of lying will be good. However, we can never be
Our “common moral consciousness,” many considerations other than utility certain about what the consequences will be—we cannot know that
seem morally important. But Smart is right to warn us that “common good results will follow. The results of lying might be unexpectedly
sense” cannot be trusted. bad.
4A.2 The Ethical Issue involving Harry Truman and Elizabeth Response to Kant - The argument depends on an unreasonably
Anscombe pessimistic view of what we can know. Sometimes we can be quite
Harry S. Truman will always be remembered as the man who made confident of what the consequences of our actions will be, in which
the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. case we need not hesitate because of uncertainty.

Using the atomic bomb on one or two Japanese cities might bring the 4A.5 Conflicts between Rules
war to a speedy end. Suppose we believe that it is always wrong both to intentionally kill
Truman was at first reluctant to use the new weapon. The problem an innocent person and to let people suffer horribly with no
was that each bomb would obliterate an entire city—not just the compensating benefits.
military targets, but the hospitals, schools, and homes. Women, At this point, the health-care workers faced a grave dilemma: either
children, old people, and other non-combatants would be wiped out euthanize the remaining critical-care patients or let them suffer until
along with the military personnel. they die. There was no third option. Conditions in the hospital were
Elizabeth Anscombe, who died in 2001, was a 20-year-old student at horrendous; evacuation was impossible, and many of the patients had
Oxford University when World War II began. been close to death even before the hurricane hit. So one of the
“absolute” principles had to be violated: either innocent people had
“For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends,” to be killed, or needless suffering had to occur. (In practice,
she wrote, “is always murder.” To the argument that the bombings investigators later came to believe that more than twenty patients
saved more lives than they took, she replied, “Come now: if you had had been euthanized. One doctor, Anna Pou, was arrested on four
to choose between boiling one baby and letting some frightful counts of second-degree murder, but eventually, all the charges were
disaster befall a thousand people—or a million people if a thousand is dropped.)
not enough—what would you do?”
Don’t such dilemmas prove that there are no absolute moral rules?
Anscombe’s point was that some things may not be done, no matter The argument is impressive but limited. It can be levied only against a
what. It does not matter if we could accomplish some great good by pair of rules; two rules are needed to create the conflict. Yet there
boiling a baby; it is simply wrong. might still be just one absolute rule. For example, even given the
4A.3 The Categorical Imperative experience in New Orleans, never intentionally kill an innocent
human being could still be a rule that holds in all circumstances. So
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) could, never let people suffer horribly with no compensating
Kant observed that the word ought is often used non morally: benefits. However, both rules could not be absolute. A choice had to
be made.
If you
 source
This study waswant to become
downloaded a betterfrom
by 100000848055979 chess player, you
CourseHero.com ought 21:12:20
on 05-31-2022 to GMT -05:00
study the games of Garry Kasparov.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/69566177/MIDTERM-EXAM-ETHICSdocx/ 4A.6 Kant’s Insight
 If you want to go to college, you ought to take the SAT.
 Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on rational agents Treat people “as an end” means, on the most superficial level,
simply because they are rational; in other words, a person who treating them well.
rejected this principle would be guilty not merely of being immoral
Main ideas:
but also of being irrational.
1. Jeremy Bentham- “all punishment is mischief: all punishment i
Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—if it is true that
itself is evil”
you ought (or ought not) to do such and such, then there must be a
2. Retributivism – punishment is justified as a way of “paying
reason why you should (or should not) do it.
back” the offender for his wicked deed.
Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all 3. Retributivism – on Bentham’s view , a wholly unsatisfactory
times. This is a requirement of consistency, and Kant was right to idea, because it advocates the infliction of suffering without
think that no rational person may deny it. any compensating gain in happiness.
There are rational constraints on what we may do. Punishing person has several benefits:
Rules, even within a Kantian framework, need not be absolute. All 1. Provide comfort and gratification to victims and their families.
that Kant’s basic idea requires is that when we violate a rule, we do 2. By locking up criminals, or by executing them, we take them
so for a reason that we would be willing for anyone to accept. off the street
3. Reduces crime by dterring would be criminals
4. A well designed system of punishment might help to
QUIZ MODULE 3 rehabilitate wrongdoers.

1.Utilitarian is primarily concerned with the consenquences of our Kant argues that punishment should be governed by 2 principles:
actions. (TRUE
1. People should be punished simply because they have
2.In utilitarianism actions are evaluated on (actual) consenquences. committed crimes and for no other reason
2. Punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the
3.Utilitarianism is the ethical view that rights play the central role in
crime
determining whether an action is right or wrong. (FALSE)
4.Philosophers associated with utilitarianism. (John Stuart Mill and
Jeremy Bentham)
5. Utilitarianism is primarily concerned with the greatest happiness of
few individuals like those in charge of running the state. (FALSE)
6.Not one of the objections against utilitarianism . (THERE IS NO
OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF MORALITY)
7.Rule utilitarianism is a response to which objection. (THERE IS NO
INTRINSIC WRONGNESS OF ACTIONS)
8.Utilitarianism provides justification for animal rights. (TRUE)
9.Rule Utilitarianism is a response to which objections? (it sometimes
requires us to commit injustices)
10. Utilitarisanism requires us to give a higher value to the happiness
of our friends and family than to strangers. (FALSE)
11. Utilitarisans requires that the agent not consider his own
happiness (FALSE)
12. Utilitariansim is able to recognize superrogatory actions done
beyond the call of duty like giving to charity (FALSE)
4B.2 KANT’S CORE IDEAS
1.Kant – human beings occupy a special place on creation
2. Human beings have intrinsic worth or dignity that makes them
valuable above all price.
3.Animals are means to an end. That end is the man. Human beings
as ends meant that people are irreplaceable.
2 facts
1. People have desires, things that satisfy those desires can have
value for people.
2. People have an intrinsic worth, dignity because they are
rational agents, that is, free agents capable of making their
own decisions, setting their own goals and guiding their
conduct by reason.
The only way that moral goodness can exist is for rational creatures to
act from goodwill that is, to apprehend what they should do and act
from a sense of duty.
Kant’s second fromulation of Categorical Imperative
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
that
This ofsource
study another, alwaysbyas100000848055979
was downloaded an end andfromnever as a means
CourseHero.com only” 21:12:20 GMT -05:00
on 05-31-2022

https://www.coursehero.com/file/69566177/MIDTERM-EXAM-ETHICSdocx/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)