Module 2 Overview Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics Welcome to Module Two.  Ever since ancient times, philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Immanuel Kant believed that ethics must be based on reason.  Although you may have some doubts as to the perfect reliability of reason, most philosophers have held it as a more reliable guide to ethics than emotions, as reasoning provides more objectivity than emotion can.  The first half of this module will focus on the impact of reason and emotion on ethical issues, including Kantian ethics and its emphasis on ethical reasoning.  The second half of this module will discuss Utilitarian theory and its role in ethics. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this module, you should be able to: 1B explain the qualities of pleasure. 1C discuss the impact of emotion and reason on ethical issues. 5A discuss Kantian ethics. 6A explain the uses and criticisms of utilitarian theory. Module 2 Reading Assignment Waller, B. N. (2011).  Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.).  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 4 and 5. Course Login Instructions If you are a first time user: Please register your Pearson Online Solution s Student Access Code.  You can find your Student Access Code in the AAU Course Registration e-mail that came with your text. If you are a returning user: Please visit the Access Code Registration page to log in.  You must log in every time you access this course.  If you are not logged in, you will not be able to access the premium resources. NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources you access with the link above, is not recommended. Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 2. Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 2. Lecture Notes Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics Chapter 4 Lecture Notes: Ethics and Reason Reasoning about Ethics It is clear that we can engage in some level of reasoning about ethical issues, though the exact nature and extent of such reasoning is a contested issue. Although there may be some doubts about the reliability of our reason, most philosophers have favored it over emotions or pure intuition. We cannot deny that emotions may influence our moral decision making, but, as the violinist example from Judith Thomson demonstrates, it seems clear that we do in fact reason about ethics.   If we accept that we can reason about ethics, then we may want to examine the nature of the moral conclusions one reaches. Either the conclusion is a hypothetical (or conditional conclusion) or it is a categorical conclusion. A hypothetical conclusion has the form “if you desire some outcome x, then do y”. The truth or falsity of the conclusion depends in part on your desiring some outcome. On the other hand, categorical conclusions command absolutely as in “do x”—no ifs, ands, or buts.   Elements of Kantian Ethics Kant claims that reason can establish fundamental and unconditional ethi ...

1. Module 2 Overview
Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics
Welcome to Module Two. Ever since ancient times,
philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Immanuel Kant
believed that ethics must be based on reason. Although you
may have some doubts as to the perfect reliability of reason,
most philosophers have held it as a more reliable guide to ethics
than emotions, as reasoning provides more objectivity than
emotion can. The first half of this module will focus on the
impact of reason and emotion on ethical issues, including
Kantian ethics and its emphasis on ethical reasoning. The
second half of this module will discuss Utilitarian theory and its
role in ethics.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
1B
explain the qualities of pleasure.
1C
discuss the impact of emotion and reason on ethical issues.
5A
discuss Kantian ethics.
6A
explain the uses and criticisms of utilitarian theory.
Module 2 Reading Assignment
Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and
contemporary issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 4 and 5.
Course Login Instructions
If you are a first time user:
Please register your Pearson Online

2. Solution
s Student Access Code. You can find your Student Access Code
in the AAU Course Registration e-mail that came with your
text.
If you are a returning user:
Please visit the Access Code Registration page to log in. You
must log in every time you access this course. If you are not
logged in, you will not be able to access the premium resources.
NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources
you access with the link above, is not recommended.
Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 2.
Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 2.
Lecture Notes
Ethics, Reason, and Utilitarian Ethics
Chapter 4 Lecture Notes: Ethics and Reason
Reasoning about Ethics
It is clear that we can engage in some level of reasoning about
ethical issues, though the exact nature and extent of such
reasoning is a contested issue. Although there may be some
doubts about the reliability of our reason, most philosophers
have favored it over emotions or pure intuition. We cannot deny

3. that emotions may influence our moral decision making, but, as
the violinist example from Judith Thomson demonstrates, it
seems clear that we do in fact reason about ethics.
If we accept that we can reason about ethics, then we may want
to examine the nature of the moral conclusions one reaches.
Either the conclusion is a hypothetical (or conditional
conclusion) or it is a categorical conclusion. A hypothetical
conclusion has the form “if you desire some outcome x, then do
y”. The truth or falsity of the conclusion depends in part on
your desiring some outcome. On the other hand, categorical
conclusions command absolutely as in “do x”—no ifs, ands, or
buts.
Elements of Kantian Ethics
Kant claims that reason can establish fundamental and
unconditional ethical truths in the form of categorical
principles; in particular, he maintains that pure reason can
establish the “categorical imperative” that we should always act
in such a way that we can will that our acts should be a
universal law. Kant also offers a second formulation of the
categorical imperative, which holds that we should always treat
people as ends in themselves and never as a means only. Both
these versions of the categorical imperative are derived from
pure reason, and they are indifferent to the outcomes of

4. particular actions. Kant maintains that reason and only reason
can establish absolute principles of moral law and that
following the moral law requires a special effort of free will.
Criticism of Kantian Ethics
Kant’s ethics is sometimes criticized for not dealing effectively
with moral conflicts confronted in our actual world. Since the
application of the categorical imperative results in absolute
moral rules, there is the problem of what action to take in cases
where two moral rules conflict. Also, the emphasis on reason
results in the exclusion of certain things from moral
consideration. Animals and the mentally impaired appear to lack
any moral standing under Kant’s theory, as they lack reasoning
abilities. Finally, there is the objection to its complete
exclusion of feelings from ethics. Clearly, however, Kant’s
ethics establishes a clear landmark of rationalist ethical theory.
Chapter 5 Lecture Notes: Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian ethics emphasizes the consequences of our actions.
For utilitarians, the important consequences are obvious:
pleasure and suffering. The right act is simply the act that
produces the greatest balance of pleasure over suffering.
Though the formula is simple, the calculations may be complex.
We must consider the consequences not just for all humans, but
for any being capable of feeling pleasure or pain. It is not only

5. the immediate consequences that matter, but long-term effects,
as well. It is also important to emphasize that my pleasure or
pain does not matter any more or less than anyone else’s
pleasure or pain. Utilitarianism is not a form of egoism.
Utilitarianism is an example of a teleological theory of ethics.
“Teleological” comes from the Greek work telos, meaning end
or goal – thus, according to utilitarianism, it is the goal or end
result of an action that makes it moral or not. Another way to
describe utilitarianism is that it is a consequentialist theory,
since an action is considered right or wrong depending on the
outcome it produces. Utilitarianism is not the only
consequentialist theory, but it is part of the most fundamental
divide in ethics, namely, that between teleological theories and
the deontological theories of philosophers such as Kant.
Act versus Rule
There are some important divisions among utilitarian theorists.
Act-utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham maintain that for every act
we consider, we should determine whether it is right or wrong
by calculating its consequences. Rule-utilitarians, such as J. S.
Mill, hold that we gain great utilitarian value from certain
practices, such as keeping promises, which would be lost if we
calculated every individual act strictly by consequences. For
example, if we broke our promises to gain a slightly greater

6. pleasure balance, we would destroy the valuable practice of
promise-keeping. Thus our practices should be evaluated on
their utilitarian merits, but acts falling under those practices
should not.
Quality versus Quantity
A second important distinction between Bentham and Mill is the
difference between qualitative pleasure and quantitative
pleasure. Bentham believed that all pleasures are equal; that a
“pushpin is a good as poetry.” Thus, according to Bentham, the
pleasure one gets from winning $2 on a lottery scratcher would
get the same consideration in utilitarian calculation as the
pleasure one gets from watching their child be born, and ten
people winning would outweigh the pleasure of one person’s
child being born. Mill, in contrast, maintained that there are
differences in qualities of pleasures, and those quality
differences must be figured in to our utilitarian calculations. In
Mill’s view, it might be worth sacrificing a larger quantity of
inferior-quality pleasure to secure pleasures of much higher
quality.
Criticism of Utilitarianism
A basic criticism of utilitarian ethics focuses on its
psychological plausibility. Critics claim that it is false
that humans' key goals are experiencing pleasure and avoiding

7. pain; thus, the supposed empirical foundation of utilitarianism
fails. Although utilitarian ethics may be quite useful for
questions of public policy, it also provokes furious opposition
from those who regard it as a corruption of ethics.
Required Audio:
Media Index. Please listen to the Audio to Go (located under
Course) listed below.Consequentialist Ethical Theories
Nonconsequentialist Ethical Theories
NOTE: If you are having difficulty accessing the above
material, please click on the PHI 107 Pearson Instructions.
Required Video:
Please watch The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in
Clay. Think about what this famous metaphor is saying about
the effect of reason on our general outlook.
Required Web Resources:
Please take this time to examine the following articles regarding
Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. Be sure to pay particular
attention to the ideas of duty and good will, along with the
various formulations of the categorical imperative when reading
the article on Kant, and the Classical Approach section in the
Utilitarian article.
Kantian Ethics
Utilitarianism
Required Presentations:
Chapter 4

8. Chapter 5
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 2
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University

9. Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
Directions: Please provide detailed and elaborate responses to
the following questions. Your responses should include
examples from the reading assignments. Each response should
be at least one half of one page in length and utilize APA
format.
1.According to Kant, when is an action morally praise-worthy?
2.Describe one of the criticisms often leveled against Kant's
theory.
3.Although the two versions of the categorical imperative
appear different, Kant contends that they are two ways of
stating the same thing. How does Kant support his claim?
4.What is the difference between a qualitative pleasure and a
quantitative pleasure?
5.What is the difference between a teleological theory and a

10. deontological theory of ethics?
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 3
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University
Author Note

11. This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
PART I:
Directions:The following problems ask you to evaluate
hypothetical situations and/or concepts related to the reading in
this module. While there are no "correct answers" for these
problems, you must demonstrate a strong understanding of the
concepts and lessons from this module's reading assignment.
Please provide detailed and elaborate responses to the following
problems. Your responses should include examples from the
reading assignments. Responses that fall short of the assigned
minimum page length will not earn any points.
1.Extraterrestrials arrive, and they are far superior to us in
intellect - the most brilliant human thinkers would be regarded
as severely mentally deficient among these profoundly rational
ETs, and their reasoning processes are far beyond ours: their
mediocre high school students offer mathematical insights that
astonish and awe our most advanced mathematicians. It turns
out that the ethical principles of these super-rational
extraterrestrials are very different from ours. Would a Kantian

12. conclude that we ought to adopt their ethical system, even
though we cannot really understand the reasoning process by
which they developed that system? Explain. Your response
should be at least one page in length.
2.Mr. Spock - of Star Trek fame - apparently feels no emotions.
Would that make him (in your view) more or less capable of
living a morally good life? Explain. Your response should be
at least one page in length.
3.Explain the difference between a rule-utilitarian and a
Kantian? Is there really a difference? Explain. Your response
should be at least one page in length.
4.There is a spot open in Professor Ponder's film class. Your
friends who have taken her class all rave about it: "I really
learned to appreciate the artistic potential of films by taking
Professor Ponder's class. Before taking the class I liked almost
every movie I saw. Now that I have learned from Professor
Ponder how to understand and appreciate the fine nuances of the
art of film-making, most of the movies I once enjoyed now
strike me as stupid and amateurish. But because of my new
appreciation of film, I now deeply enjoy a few great movies that
otherwise I could never have appreciated. I have gained a depth
of enjoyment from those few wonderful films I never dreamed

13. you could get from watching a movie. Of course, it's very rare
now that I enjoy going to the movies - most movies I see now
strike me as dreadful, even painful to watch. But on the few
occasions when I watch a really good movie - wow, that is a
great experience. Take Professor Ponder's class: it will change
forever your experience of going to the movies." If you think
that is likely to be your own result from taking Professor
Ponder's class, would you sign up? Explain. Your response
should be at least one half of one page in length.
5.Suppose you have recently inherited $10 million from a long-
lost relative. This inheritance, however, comes with a
stipulation: you must give $1 million of this amount to total
strangers. You can do this in any increment you choose – you
can give 1 million people $1, 1 person $1 million dollars or any
increment in between. What increment would you choose and
why? Which form of utilitarianism would your choice best
coincide with? Your response should be at least one half of one
page in length.
PART II: Essay
In an essay two to three pages in length, compare and contrast
act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism, then make an

14. argument for why you think one is better than the other. Your
essay should take the following form: an introduction where you
preview your essay’s content (i.e. “In this essay I will
discuss…”), present your thesis statement (i.e. “X is better than
Y because…”), a paragraph summarizing act-utilitarianism, a
paragraph summarizing rule-utilitarianism, an essay comparing
and contrasting the two, two paragraphs where you argue why
one is better, and a conclusion. Your summary and critiques
must be original and should include examples, analogies, etc.
PART III:Journal
Please describe what aspect of this week’s lesson you found
most interesting and why. What effect, if any, did it have on
your moral/ethical outlook? Your response should be at least
one half of one page in length.