Discussion Question:  Looking over the next five years, in your opinion, what will be the single greatest threat to the nation’s homeland security posture? Explain the reasoning for your selection.  How well does DHS’ Fiscal Years 2014-2018 Strategic Plan address this threat? Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. Lesson Week Eight – Risk, Threat and Consequence in the Future Predicting the future is an activity frequently fraught with uncertainty. Still, it is an activity that those of us who find ourselves within the homeland security enterprise must constantly engage in. Whether it’s those within the intelligence, the emergency response and emergency management communities, or those who might not be sure what role they play (such as academia or the business community), we all make decisions based upon what might occur in the future (whether that be the next moment, week, or years down the road). In addition, the input we provide and predictions we make impact others as well, whether that is our elected leaders who could utilize such information in their decision making process, or simply family members, coworkers, or students. Lastly, any steps taken moving forward must support the current National Preparedness Goal, which is: A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk. (DHS, 2015, p. 1) Therefore, a balancing act of sorts must be taken that keeps an eye on present responsibilities and commitments, while looking ahead to what the future might hold. So in this our final week of class, we will look at factors likely to affect risk, threat and consequences for our communities in the future.    In 2010, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) launched the Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI) as an ongoing effort to determine those factors that will impact risk factors in the nation as a whole and in our nation’s communities over the next 20 years.  The SFI has resulted in the publication of a number of documents.  Perhaps the most relevant to this current discussion is Crisis Response and Disaster Resilience 2030: Forging Strategic Action in an Age of Uncertainty. The information found within this report is a culmination of the efforts of literally hundreds of emergency management and homeland security professionals and practitioners. They admit that moving forward; there is both an increased complexity and decreased predictability related to the operating environment our nation will find itself addressing. Therefore, it would behoove us to seriously consider the issues they have highlighted and make needed changes where applicable. Forces of Change With the help of technology and other factors, the world in which we live is an extremely interconnected one..

1. Discussion Question: Looking over the next five years, in your
opinion, what will be the single greatest threat to the nation’s
homeland security posture? Explain the reasoning for your
selection. How well does DHS’ Fiscal Years 2014-2018
Strategic Plan address this threat?
Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided
to you in order to support your response. Your initial post
should be at least 350 words.
Lesson
Week Eight – Risk, Threat and Consequence in the Future
Predicting the future is an activity frequently fraught with
uncertainty. Still, it is an activity that those of us who find
ourselves within the homeland security enterprise must
constantly engage in. Whether it’s those within the intelligence,
the emergency response and emergency management
communities, or those who might not be sure what role they
play (such as academia or the business community), we all make
decisions based upon what might occur in the future (whether
that be the next moment, week, or years down the road). In
addition, the input we provide and predictions we make impact
others as well, whether that is our elected leaders who could
utilize such information in their decision making process, or
simply family members, coworkers, or students. Lastly, any
steps taken moving forward must support the current National
Preparedness Goal, which is:
A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required
across the whole community to prevent, protect against,
mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards
that pose the greatest risk. (DHS, 2015, p. 1)
Therefore, a balancing act of sorts must be taken that keeps an
eye on present responsibilities and commitments, while looking
ahead to what the future might hold. So in this our final week of

2. class, we will look at factors likely to affect risk, threat and
consequences for our communities in the future.
In 2010, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
launched the Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI) as an ongoing
effort to determine those factors that will impact risk factors in
the nation as a whole and in our nation’s communities over the
next 20 years. The SFI has resulted in the publication of a
number of documents. Perhaps the most relevant to this current
discussion is Crisis Response and Disaster Resilience 2030:
Forging Strategic Action in an Age of Uncertainty. The
information found within this report is a culmination of the
efforts of literally hundreds of emergency management and
homeland security professionals and practitioners. They admit
that moving forward; there is both an increased complexity and
decreased predictability related to the operating environment
our nation will find itself addressing. Therefore, it would
behoove us to seriously consider the issues they have
highlighted and make needed changes where applicable.
Forces of Change
With the help of technology and other factors, the world in
which we live is an extremely interconnected one. Whether this
is viewed on a community to community basis or on a global
scale, what affects and changes one government body,
geographic area or organization can quickly impact another.
Realizing this, these forces of change must be fully
acknowledged so that they can be accounted for and addressed
accordingly. To this end, the SFI identified a number of factors,
many found at the macro level that can significantly impact the
world around us. These factors have been placed into five
different dimensions - Social, Technological, Environmental,
Economic, and Political (STEEP). Within these dimensions,
nine different “drivers” were identified as being particularly
significant in the way our nation must approach future risks,
threats, and related consequences. These are shown in Figure 1,
as well as the manner in which they relate to one another. A
brief summary will now be offered concerning these drivers.

3. (Figure 1: FEMA, Crisis response and disaster resilience 2030,
2012)
Social and Technology
It should come as no surprise that our society’s reliance upon
technology will certainly accelerate moving forward; affecting
all facets of life. However, such an increased use and
prevalence of technology produces new-found risks as well.
Where individuals now depend upon technology to make simple
calculations or communicate with one another, so it is on a
broader scale as well. For instance, computer systems now
control vast amounts of our nation’s critical infrastructure. This
not only increases vulnerabilities on a system-wide basis, but
raises the potential for attacks upon the cyber environment as
well. Conversely, such innovations in technology change the
profiles of our communities as a whole’ “communities of place,
interest, believe, and circumstance, which can exist both
geographically and virtually” (FEMA, 2012, p. 7). Thus, our
nation’s population as a whole is changing in a number of ways;
age, ethnicity, where they reside, how they interact with one
another, and what they expect from government. All of these
factors can on one hand enhance the preparedness and resiliency
of its citizens, while at the same time making them more
susceptible to a host of ever-evolving threats and hazards.
Environmental
Issues such as pollution, fresh water supplies, and the reduction
of certain natural resources are all matters of concern related to
our environment. However, there is one overarching issue that
seems to be at the forefront of such discussions and will remain
so moving forward, and that is common change. No doubt, there
are both supporters and dissenters of this issue within the
science community, political arena, as well as a host of others
to have an opinion regarding this topic. Yet, as it relates to the
disciplines of homeland security and emergency management,
there is an awareness and acceptance that such changes in our
climate are expected to “increase the severity, frequency, or

4. scale of extreme weather events, droughts, floods, sea level rise,
precipitation patterns, and the spread of life-threatening
diseases” (FEMA, 2012, p. 8). The end results include likely
increase in the magnitude of these types of events, their
magnitude, which in turn, will have a dramatic impact upon the
resiliency of local communities, or lack thereof.
Economic and Political
Obviously, the United States and its homeland security efforts
are primarily concerned with addressing those issues that take
place within its borders. Yet, it is recognized that issues that
transpire around the world have a direct impact on what takes
place on the domestic front as well. Interdependencies on
governance and how these political changes evolve (i.e. Brexit),
limited budgets, restrictions on available resources and related
issues can produce a variety of negative results. For instance,
the supply chains that are developed on a global basis could
become threatened, which could then have a direct and dramatic
impact upon our nation’s critical infrastructure and the many
essential services it provides. Also, even though many
developing regions around the world have seen economic and
other forms of growth in recent years that have enhanced their
levels of preparedness and resiliency, others still require
international relief and assistance, where the United States is
certainly impacted by such demands for such aid as well.
So in considering these various dimensions and forces of
change, it would also appear that risk populations within our
communities will likely grow and change in composition. Our
communities will have increasing numbers of elderly and non-
English speaking citizens, and migratory populations inside our
geographic areas of responsibility will likely increase as well.
As we look at risk as a measure of threat and consequence,
these population changes will increase the likelihood of
negative consequences of any disaster event that might
occur. To mitigate these consequences, public officials will
need to expend greater resources than ever before to ensure the

5. safety of these populations during critical incident.
Constraints on resources required to lessen the impact of the
consequences of disaster events will continue to grow. These
constraints will be experienced in terms of increasing needs,
such as those caused by changes in community demographics,
and experienced in a decrease of resources. This will result in
overall increases in gaps between what is needed to lessen the
impact of identified risk, and what is available to do so. New
ways of resource management and resource allocation will be
needed to deal with these gaps.
There will likely be increases in disparities between
communities in terms of resources, and thus in terms of risk and
consequences. Wealthier communities and states will have
increasingly better infrastructure, more aware citizens, and
stronger mitigation measures countering possible disaster
consequences. In comparison, those states and communities
with fewer resources may not fare as well.
The concept of whole community will continue to grow. It will
become increasingly integrated into the disaster resiliency
postures of our communities. Individual citizens will be asked
to play greater roles in being prepared for disaster events to
help counter disaster consequences, and private sector
businesses will be asked to do the same. How they respond will
be a strong determining factor in the effectiveness of future
mitigation efforts.
Therefore, it is apparent that the landscape for risk assessments
will obviously change significantly over the next couple of
decades. As has been discussed throughout this lesson, this will
be due to an increase in the complexity of the environment in
which community emergency managers and homeland security
practitioners operate, as well as a decrease in the predictability
of their operational environment. There will likely be more
disaster events, coupled with new and unfamiliar threats.
Technology will provide more information than ever before to
process and consider in the analysis of risk, and perhaps less
time to process it. Public expectations of government at all

6. levels, which is already high, will only increase. Elected
leaders will be expected to adequately prepare for whatever
disaster might be anticipated on the rise, while at the same time
fall under increasing pressure to solve problems immediately
following such an event. So where does our nation and its
leaders currently stand regarding the threats and hazards that it
feels are worthy of consideration and the expenditure of its vital
resources? Some light can be shed on this issue by looking at
some current documents focused upon such issues. First, we can
look at the current National Security Strategy which “outlines
priorities based on a realistic assessment of the risks to our
enduring national interests and the opportunities for advancing
them” (Obama, 2015, p. 5). The four overarching priorities and
underlying goals needed to achieve them are as follows:
National Security Strategy
Security
· Strengthen Our National Defense
· Reinforce Homeland Security
· Combat the Persistent Threat of Terrorism
· Build Capacity to Prevent Conflict
· Prevent the Spread and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
· Confront Climate Change
· Assure Access to Shared Spaces
· Increase Global Health Security
Prosperity
· Put Our Economy to Work
· Advance Our Energy Security
· Lead in Science, Technology, and Innovation
· Shape the Global Economic Order
· End Extreme Poverty
Values
· Live Our Values
· Advance Equality
· Support Emerging Democracies
· Empower Civil Society and Young Leaders
· Prevent Mass Atrocities

7. International Order
· Advance Our Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific
· Strengthen Our Enduring Alliance with Europe
· Seek Stability and Peace in the Middle East and North Africa
· Invest in Africa’s Future
· Deepen Economic and Security Cooperation in the Americas
Taking this a step further, a review of the most current missions
developed by the Department of Homeland (DHS) offers
additional insight regarding its posture related to what it
considers to be current and future areas of concern. As noted in
the most recent Quadrennial Review, DHS acknowledges that
“as the threats and hazards we face change, the way we and our
partners and stakeholders carry out our missions must change as
well” (DHS, 2014, p. 15). So it is obvious that the following
missions and supporting goals also speak to the need to adapt to
the dynamic, ever-changing landscape that is homeland security.
DHS Strategic Plan
Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security
· Prevent terrorist attacks
· Prevent and protect against the unauthorized acquisition or use
of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials and
capabilities
· Reduce risk to the nation’s critical infrastructure, key
leadership, and events
Secure and Manage our Borders
· Secure U.S. air, land, and sea border and approaches
· Safeguard and expedite lawful trade and travel
· Disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and
other illicit actors
Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws
· Strengthen and effectively administer the immigration system
· Prevent unlawful immigration
Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace
· Strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure

8. against cyber attacks and other hazards
· Secure the federal civilian government information technology
enterprise
· Advance cyber law enforcement, incident response, and
reporting capabilities
· Strengthen the cyber ecosystem
Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience
· Enhance national preparedness
· Mitigate hazards and vulnerabilities
· Ensure effective emergency response
· Enable rapid recovery
Conclusion
Our communities face an unprecedented amount of both risk and
opportunity for mitigation in the years ahead. Just a generation
ago, few of the greatest challenges facing our nation today, such
as terrorism, climate change, and biological events were seldom
considered as significant risks to our communities. Today, they
are the topics of many routine conversations whenever risk,
consequences and mitigation measures are discussed. Although
cyber-attacks and homegrown terrorism may be at the forefront
of the ever-growing list of threats our nation must contend with,
they will certainly not be the last and will be replaced with
others that will deserve our attention. How our various levels of
government, the private sector, non-governmental organizations,
and ordinary citizens move to prepare for these issues will also
continue to evolve. Yet, one of the few certainties we can see as
we attempt to peer into the future is that innovation,
cooperation, partnerships, and the whole community will be
necessary to ensure the resiliency of our communities in the
face of disaster events.
References
Department of Homeland Security. (2014). 2014 Quadrennial
homeland security review. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
Department of Homeland Security. (2015). National

9. preparedness goal. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012) Crisis response
and disaster resilience 2030: Forging strategic action in an age
of uncertainty. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Obama, B. (2015). National Security Strategy. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.
12/04/17
1
Introduc0on to Philosophy
Theory of Value 1
Theory of Value
• Theory of Value is about things which
are good or bad, right or wrong,
concerning issues related to how one ought to
behave and to what
makes life valuable
• Broadly, thereare two types of issues we
are going to discuss:
1. Are statements of value, like ‘You ought to
do this’, because ‘it is good
to do this’ and ‘This person is a good person’
and ‘Pleasure is good’,
true/false, or are they not the kind of things which
can be true/false?
If no, you are subjec,vist.

10. If yes, thereis a next ques0on: How are such
statements true/false?
If because of reality, then you are a
realist
If because someone determined it so,
then you are a
conven,onalist
> God: Divine Command Theory
> Society: Ethical Rela,vism
> Individual: cf. Existen,alism
Theory of Value II
2. What makes valuable/good ac0ons good?
Ø We are going to discuss threeviews:
a. U,litarianism: an ac0on is good if and only if
it
maximizes the amount of pleasure/absence of
pain or distress in society.
b. Kan,anism: an ac0on is good if you could
turn it
into a ra0onal law
c. Aristotelianism: an ac0on is good if it
contributes to or flows from your well-
func0oning as a human being
Subjec0vism
• Statements of value are neither true nor false
• Perhaps they are more like expressions of
liking/disliking?
(emo0vism)
• Some ini,al argumentsfor subjec0vism:

11. Ø There is a lot of disagreement on value -
therefore value is
subjec0ve
Ø What is true or false describes what is the case;
but a value
statement does not describe what is the case, but what
ought to be
the case – therefore value is subjec0ve
Only works if one assumes that only what is the
case can be true/false
– can be a fact
Ø What is true or false describes natural proper0es;
but according to
the meaning of value statements, they do not
describe natural
proper0es – therefore value is subjec0ve
Only works if one assumes that only natural
(observable) proper0es
can be described in true/false statements – only
they appear in facts.
12/04/17
2
Some ‘Stronger’Arguments for
Subjec0vism
1. There is no reasoning in ethics, while

12. thereis in science, because
thereis nothing really to reason about
Ø But thereis a lot of reasoning in ethics, at
least to check consistency
2. There are no observa0ons in ethics, while
thereare in science,
because thereis nothing really thereto observe
Ø But we do make ethical observa0ons, at
least of par0cular cases
3. Disagreement in ethics cannot really be
solved, for thereis no path
towards agreementone can agree about, while in
science thereare
ways of ul0mately finding out (and if not, it does
not ma_er)
Ø Sober’s cri0cism: one can fail to see the truth in
ethics because of,
say, self-interest or self-decep0on > so theremight
be truth, even if
thereis no path to agreement
Ø But in ethics, failure to see ‘the truth’
can only have consequences if
otherpeople disagree, while in science failure to
see the truth leads
one to expect impossibili0es. So a`er this argument
the burden is
upon those who want to maintain that thereis some
truth/falsehood
to ethical statements – they have to showhow
that can be.
The Strongest Argument for
Subjec0vism

13. • In order to explain us having beliefs about
ma_ers of science, we
need to postulate facts for our beliefs to be about.
Ø Ul0mately, what facts thereare determines our beliefs
(even if our
beliefs are partly mistaken)
• Dowe need to postulate facts to explain our beliefs
about ma_ers
of value, so that our beliefs are about these
facts?
Ø It does not seemso: our value beliefs can be
explained by appeal to
our ‘natural responses’, our upbringing, our
experience, but we do
not need ethical facts.
[[Sober’s cri0cism: we need to dis0nguish between
two types of explana0on for our ethical
beliefs:
a. Par0cular ethical facts are not needed to explain
par0cular ethical beliefs about them.
b. General ethical principles do explain the content
of our par0cular ethical beliefs, and that theory
of value is true which explains that content
best.]]
Evalua0on of Subjec0vism
• The argumentsin favor of subjec0vism do
seemto pointto

14. a real difference between truth/falsity in the case of
‘normal’ knowledge and what holds in the case of
ethical
beliefs.
• S0ll, the sugges0on of subjec0vism is that
we may believe
anything we like about ma_ers of ethics –
that seems false,
however:
Ø Despite disagreement, thereis also a lot of
agreement
about value, also between socie0es
Ø Ethical beliefs are crucially shared, and play an
important
role in our delibera0ons on social ac0on; thus
they cannot
be merely subjec0ve – they must at least be inter-
subjec0ve
4/13/17
1
Introduction to Philosophy
Theory of Value 2
Recapitulation
• Subjectivism is the view that thereare no facts of

15. the matter at all to make value
statements true or false
• Metaphysical arguments: the only real facts can only be
described (is, not ought)
or feature only natural properties
Ø But why could therenot be otherfacts, or
why could not real facts be described in
two ways, as natural and as not-natural?
• Argument from deep disagreement: ethical
disagreement cannot be settled in any
way, even though one can argue in ethics > is
most easily explained if thereare no
facts of the matter.
• Best argument: for most beliefs, the fact that we
have them is explained best by
reference to reality being so-and-so; for beliefs
about value, however, that does
not seemto be the case > the easiest explanation
thereseems that they are the
result of our ‘natural responses’, our experience,
our upbringing.
• All theseargumentsdo pointto a difference between
normal beliefs and beliefs
about value, but they are not enough to argue
for subjectivism
Ø If subjectivism were correct, thereshould be deep
disagreement about every

16. belief about value > subjectivism cannot
explain that thereis also deep agreement
about somevalues.
Ø Subjectivismcannot explain that it is crucial
for beliefs about value that they are
shared by at least somegroup.
Conventionalism
• The core idea of conventionalism is that there
are
facts about value, but that they are different from
facts in science, because they are facts made
facts by someone
ØThis can easily explain deep disagreement >
not
necessary to be subjectivist for that reason
ØThere are different versions of conventionalism,
dependingon who does the making: God, a
culture/society, or an individual
Divine Command Theory
• Something is good because God/gods make it
good
ØBecomes all the more attractive, the more
powerful one’s concept of a god is: ancient
Greek

17. goods were not held to be very powerful, but
monotheistic gods, having created the world,
can
become very powerful
ØThe more powerful a god is, the more difficult it
is to distinguish between the divine command
theory and realism > if a god has created
the
whole world, then everything is such that it is
so
because the god made it so.
4/13/17
2
Criticism of Divine Command Theory
• Criticism of Divine Command Theory assumes
that thereis
a real difference between normal facts and ethical
facts
• 1. There are many religions or many gods:
are they all
creating ethical facts?

18. • 2. If DCT were true, then the god(s) could have
made any
value statement true
Ø They would have acted without a reason
Ø They must have acted without a reason, because
if they
had had a reason, then the ethical fact would
have been
there, because of this reason, not because the
god(s) would
have made it a fact.
Ø This argument works against any conventionalist
theory.
Ethical Relativism
• Ethical relativism says that values are culture-dependent
(not merely situation-dependent)
Ø Not in the sense that cultures disagree about
values
Ø But in the stronger sense that values are
therebecause
they are adopted by a culture
• Problems with Ethical relativism:
1. Same problem as with DCT: cultures could
adopt any value

19. – it is completely arbitrary
2. It leadsto conformism: it is impossible to
criticize current
values
3. It does not justify the rule that one should not
interfere
with the values of another culture > why not
just
eradicate that culture?
Mitigated Ethical Relativism
• It seems possible to adopt a mixed account
of
value, according to which:
- there are facts determining for somethings
what is good
- For otherthings such facts are created by
society/group
Realism
• How could therebe ethical facts without them
being the
same type of facts as normal facts?
• It is possible to talk about ‘good’ and ‘bad’

20. in a descriptive
way:
Ø ‘This is a bad hammer’
Ø ‘My left eye is my good eye’
Here ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is related to a
function > somethingcan
be such that it can/cannot perform its function
Ø Artefacts have functions because human beings
give them
a function > created fact
Ø Natural things have functions because in evolution
these
things remained therebecause of providing an
advantage >
real fact
19/04/17
1
Introduc0on to Philosophy
Theory of Value 3
Recapitula0on I
• Subjec0vism claims that thereare no facts of the
maDer in ethics
Ø There is unresolvable disagreement in ethics,

21. and that
can best be explained by subjec0vism
Ø To account for the beliefs of people on value
maDers,
we do not have to appeal to facts about certain
ac0on:
‘natural responses’, upbringing, experience will do
• These argumentsdo showthat value facts either do
not exist, or are at least different from ‘normal’
facts
• Subjec0vism cannot explain ‘deep agreement’
Recapitula0on II
• Conven0onalism: thereare ethical facts, but
they are made
Ø Bygod(s): Divine Command Theory
Ø Byculture/society: Ethical Rela0vism
Ø Byindividual
• Main problem of Conven0onalism: it is
arbitrary what kind of values the god(s)/
society/the individual adopt (and if it is not
arbitrary, then the facts are not made so)
Realism
• In case of an ‘obviously good or bad thing’
many have the intui0on
that it is really obvious that it is good or

22. bad > ‘Don’t you see?!’
> as if thereis a fact out therewhich
everybody should see, and as
if it is a mistake not to see >
Realism
• How could therebe ethical facts without them
being the same type
of facts as normal facts?
• It is possible to talk about ‘good’ and ‘bad’
in a descrip0ve way:
Ø ‘This is a bad hammer’
Ø ‘My leY eye is my good eye’
Here ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is related to a func)on
> somethingcan be such
that it can/cannot perform its func0on
Ø Artefacts have func0ons because human beings
give them a
func0on > created fact
Ø Natural things have func0ons because in
evolu0on thesethings
remained therebecause of providing an advantage >
real fact
19/04/17
2
Realism II

23. • Perhaps thereare also such facts in the case of
ethics > two possibili0es would be:
1. A society can only func0on if thereare certain
norms > thesenorms are good, as a fact
2. An individual of a species can only func0on if
it
engages in certain types of ac0ons > these
ac0ons are good, as a fact
> U0litarianism seems to be sympathe0c to
such a
view: being pleasurable can be seen as
involving
well-func0oning
Possible Objec0ons
• Dosocie0es and individuals have func0ons?
Ø Whether a society func0ons well with certain
norms
also depends on the circumstances, which might
change > do the facts change as well?
Ø What would be the func0on of a human
being?
- Being alive seems not enough for ethics
- Being ra+onal seems far too much
Ø Should we some0mesnot overcome our func0ons? >
for example: ea0ng meat may seemto belong to
our
well-func0oning, but is that good?

24. 4/20/17
1
Introduction to Philosophy
Theory of Value 4
Recapitulation
• Realism tries to combine:
- Value beliefs are different from ‘normal’ beliefs
(the
subjectivist point- so as to also explain the
possibility of
deep disagreement)
- there are real facts, not just facts created by
someone
• by deriving value from real facts about human
beings,
either human beings individually or in groups
(societies) >
on the basisof a function and a criterion for
functioning
well
• Does this strategy work for all values? It may
work for
justice, inter-personal relations, but perhaps not for
general
abstract principles of value or for relations with
non-
humans.

25. Theories about what makes actions
good
• We will discuss threeviews:
1. Utilitarianism: good is what leadsto the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people
2. Kantianism: good is what can be turned into
a rational law
3. Aristotelianism: good is what flows
from/contributes to human well-functioning
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism: an action is good because it
brings about the greatest happiness/well-
being/pleasure for the greatest number
ØOverriding
ØReally universal and equal
ØReason-involving in finding out what does
bring this about
4/20/17

26. 2
Utilitarianism and Calculating the
Greatest Good
• One standard objection against Utilitarianism:
How to compare different goods/pleasures?
How can we calculate the greatest good?
• John Stuart Mill (1806-73): pleasures are
different, but we can still compare them, at
least those of us who know the pleasures
involved
> Theyprefer the ‘higher’ kinds of pleasure
(of
the intellect) > they count for ‘more’
Utilitarianism and Fairness
• Utilitarianism does justice to the idea that in
many cases we value an action because of
its
consequences
> everybody counts equally > seems fair
• If the suffering of one person leadsto a
greater overall well-being, utilitarianism
prescribes that action
> utilitarianism thus does not seemfair
Rule Utilitarianism

27. • Utilitarianism tries to circumvent the problem of
fairness by
introducing rules:
> one should introduce rules, including ones for
fairness,
because they lead to a greater well-being for
the greatest
number of people
> the idea: infringement of the rule may on this
occasion
lead to more well-being, but not in the long run
Ø Does this solve all the problems? No, rules which
discriminate against minorities in support of the
happiness
of the majority are still possible > one needs a
stronger
principle to avoid that: John Rawls proposed the
‘veil of
ignorance’: rules should be formulated in
isolation from
knowledge who is going to profit from them
and who is at a
disadvantage > doing as if you don’t
know where in society
you will end up.
Utilitarianism and the Evalution of
Persons
• One consequence of Utilitarianism is that it is
irrelevant who is doing the action and certainly
irrelevant who the ones involved in the action are

28. ØIf, of two people, you can only save one, and one
is your child, then you do not have any reason to
save your childand not the other.
ØPeter Singer: if you have to choose between a
human being and an animal, you do not have a
reason to choose either.