This Ppt about the concept of Moral and Consequence by Immanuel Kant and the concise notion of human dignity, Categorical imperative by storytelling approach.
Topic: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY
Contents:
A. Historical Origin
Early beginning of human civilization
• The word of the king is the law
Deontological
Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning “To be obligated” or simply “duty”
B.Kants’ Major Contribution to Deontological Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Avid defender of deontological theory
• Contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics
C.The Good Will: The Core of Kant’s Ethics
Morality of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects
Kants’ ethics primarily based on good will
Duty must be done out of pure reverence to the moral law
D.Duty over Inclination
“A person is only acting morally only when he suppresses his feelings and inclinations and does that which he is obliged to do”
Inclination
means doing the things that one’s feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists.
Example:
Helping your neighbor to fix her flat tire.
• Three possible reasons of helping:
1) Expectation of the reward-immoral
2) Pity-immoral
3) Duty-moral
1 is done out of desire to get a reward and 2 is done out of emotion thus, the acts are considered immoral. On the other hand, 3 is done out of obligation and this makes the act moral.
E.Duty is Superior to Happiness
“Our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and avoidance of pain as the utilitarian’s claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our desires”
Example:
1) Lying
2) Breaking promise
The above examples are immoral actions not because it can create bad consequences but because these are wrong in itself.
F.The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle
We must universalize our moral judgement
G.The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)
Also known as ’Principle of Ends’
Concerns respect for the dignity of persons
Rational beings are ends in themselves
Do not treat others as means
H.Autonomy of The Will (Kingdom of Ends)
“For without personal autonomy, Morality becomes an impossibility”
Autonomous will
The will becomes autonomous when the genuinely moral actions are chosen:
• Freely
• Rationally
• By The Self (Autonomously)
Kingdom of ends
It is a moral universe of the moral beings in which:
• Respect for Intrinsic Worth
• Respect for Value of All Persons
is exercised by everyone.
Deontological Theories And Moral AutonomyAswin A V
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.[citation needed]
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[3] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[4] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it in c. 1826 to mean more generally "the knowledge of what is right and proper".[5] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie "ethical code", in the context of professional ethic
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTERESTunselfish, that you give up .docxhyacinthshackley2629
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTEREST
unselfish, that you give up your happiness to the selfishness of someone else, or that
the person demanding it has just never thought it out.
'W'hatever the reason, you're not likely to convince such a person to stop his
demands. But it will create much less pressure on you if you realize that it's bis self-
ish reason. And you can eliminate the problem entirely by looking for more com-
patible companions.
To find constant, profound happiness requires that you be free to seek the grat-
ification of your own desires. It means making positive choices.
If you slip into the Unselfishness Trap, you'll spend a good part of your time
making negative choices-trying to avoid the censure of those who tell you not to
think of yourself. You won't have time to be free.
If someone finds happiness by doing "good works" for others, let him.
doesn't mean that's the best way for you to find happiness.
And when someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he's
upset because you aren't doing what be selfishly wants you to do.
Srunv QursroNs
1,. Browne claims that when we behave unselfishly we, more often than not, sacrifice our
own happiness. Do you agree? 'Why'or why not?
2. Browne says that everyone is selfish because we all do what we believe will make us feel
good. Critics of egoism such as James Rachels claim that what makes an act selfish or
unselfish is its obiecf, not simply that it makes you feel good. If you are the sort of
person who feels good when you help others, then you are unselfish. If you feel good
only wben helping yourself, then you are selfish. Discuss the issue that divides Rachels
and Browne, and assess their respective positions.
That
only
Egoism and Moral Skepticism
James Rachels
James Rachels (194I-2003) was Universiry Professor of Philosophy a
the Universiry of Alabama. He is the author of several books, includin
The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1.986), Created from Animal:
The Moral Implications of Darwinism (1990), and Can Ethics Prouid
Answers? And Otber Essays in Moral Philosopby (1997).
EGorsM AND MoRAr sKEprlcrsM From A Neut lntroduction to Philosophy by James Rachels. Edited by
Steven M. Cahn (Harper and Row, 1,971,). Copyright @ 1971, by Steven M. Cahn. Reprinted by
permission of Steven M. Cahn.
of someone else, or that
ch a person to stop his
t realize that it's his self-
'looking for more com-
L be free to seek the grat-
>ices.
good part of your time
rose who tell you not to
or others, let him. That
remember that he's only
r to do.
ften than not, sacrifice our
we believe will make us feel
hat makes an
^ct
selfish or
J. If you are the sort of
unselfish. If you feel good
: issue that divides Rachels
rfessor of Philosophy at
several books, including
,), Created from Animals:
and Can Ethics Prouide
v $997).
ry James Rachels. Edited by
r M. Cahn. Reprinted by
JAMES RAcHELS: EGorsM AND MoRAL sKEprrcrsM 1S9
Psychological egoism is the view that h.
This Ppt about the concept of Moral and Consequence by Immanuel Kant and the concise notion of human dignity, Categorical imperative by storytelling approach.
Topic: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY
Contents:
A. Historical Origin
Early beginning of human civilization
• The word of the king is the law
Deontological
Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning “To be obligated” or simply “duty”
B.Kants’ Major Contribution to Deontological Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Avid defender of deontological theory
• Contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics
C.The Good Will: The Core of Kant’s Ethics
Morality of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects
Kants’ ethics primarily based on good will
Duty must be done out of pure reverence to the moral law
D.Duty over Inclination
“A person is only acting morally only when he suppresses his feelings and inclinations and does that which he is obliged to do”
Inclination
means doing the things that one’s feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists.
Example:
Helping your neighbor to fix her flat tire.
• Three possible reasons of helping:
1) Expectation of the reward-immoral
2) Pity-immoral
3) Duty-moral
1 is done out of desire to get a reward and 2 is done out of emotion thus, the acts are considered immoral. On the other hand, 3 is done out of obligation and this makes the act moral.
E.Duty is Superior to Happiness
“Our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and avoidance of pain as the utilitarian’s claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our desires”
Example:
1) Lying
2) Breaking promise
The above examples are immoral actions not because it can create bad consequences but because these are wrong in itself.
F.The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle
We must universalize our moral judgement
G.The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)
Also known as ’Principle of Ends’
Concerns respect for the dignity of persons
Rational beings are ends in themselves
Do not treat others as means
H.Autonomy of The Will (Kingdom of Ends)
“For without personal autonomy, Morality becomes an impossibility”
Autonomous will
The will becomes autonomous when the genuinely moral actions are chosen:
• Freely
• Rationally
• By The Self (Autonomously)
Kingdom of ends
It is a moral universe of the moral beings in which:
• Respect for Intrinsic Worth
• Respect for Value of All Persons
is exercised by everyone.
Deontological Theories And Moral AutonomyAswin A V
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.[citation needed]
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[3] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[4] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it in c. 1826 to mean more generally "the knowledge of what is right and proper".[5] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie "ethical code", in the context of professional ethic
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTERESTunselfish, that you give up .docxhyacinthshackley2629
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTEREST
unselfish, that you give up your happiness to the selfishness of someone else, or that
the person demanding it has just never thought it out.
'W'hatever the reason, you're not likely to convince such a person to stop his
demands. But it will create much less pressure on you if you realize that it's bis self-
ish reason. And you can eliminate the problem entirely by looking for more com-
patible companions.
To find constant, profound happiness requires that you be free to seek the grat-
ification of your own desires. It means making positive choices.
If you slip into the Unselfishness Trap, you'll spend a good part of your time
making negative choices-trying to avoid the censure of those who tell you not to
think of yourself. You won't have time to be free.
If someone finds happiness by doing "good works" for others, let him.
doesn't mean that's the best way for you to find happiness.
And when someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he's
upset because you aren't doing what be selfishly wants you to do.
Srunv QursroNs
1,. Browne claims that when we behave unselfishly we, more often than not, sacrifice our
own happiness. Do you agree? 'Why'or why not?
2. Browne says that everyone is selfish because we all do what we believe will make us feel
good. Critics of egoism such as James Rachels claim that what makes an act selfish or
unselfish is its obiecf, not simply that it makes you feel good. If you are the sort of
person who feels good when you help others, then you are unselfish. If you feel good
only wben helping yourself, then you are selfish. Discuss the issue that divides Rachels
and Browne, and assess their respective positions.
That
only
Egoism and Moral Skepticism
James Rachels
James Rachels (194I-2003) was Universiry Professor of Philosophy a
the Universiry of Alabama. He is the author of several books, includin
The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1.986), Created from Animal:
The Moral Implications of Darwinism (1990), and Can Ethics Prouid
Answers? And Otber Essays in Moral Philosopby (1997).
EGorsM AND MoRAr sKEprlcrsM From A Neut lntroduction to Philosophy by James Rachels. Edited by
Steven M. Cahn (Harper and Row, 1,971,). Copyright @ 1971, by Steven M. Cahn. Reprinted by
permission of Steven M. Cahn.
of someone else, or that
ch a person to stop his
t realize that it's his self-
'looking for more com-
L be free to seek the grat-
>ices.
good part of your time
rose who tell you not to
or others, let him. That
remember that he's only
r to do.
ften than not, sacrifice our
we believe will make us feel
hat makes an
^ct
selfish or
J. If you are the sort of
unselfish. If you feel good
: issue that divides Rachels
rfessor of Philosophy at
several books, including
,), Created from Animals:
and Can Ethics Prouide
v $997).
ry James Rachels. Edited by
r M. Cahn. Reprinted by
JAMES RAcHELS: EGorsM AND MoRAL sKEprrcrsM 1S9
Psychological egoism is the view that h.
9.5 Moral TheoriesAll moral claims are grounded in some moral th.docxransayo
9.5 Moral Theories
All moral claims are grounded in some moral theory. It is the nature of such claims that they are based on a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
The table below lists a handful of the moral theories you are most likely to encounter in ethical arguments today. It’s important to note that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Moral theories give you general guidelines, but you still usually have to apply moral reasoning in individual cases to test them out. For example, none of these theories explicitly claim that killing is wrong. The theories are more about how you would ground your claim that killing is wrong.
Moral theories are also not mutually exclusive. The argument that killing is wrong could be grounded in all of these theories.
Whether they know it or not, everyone has a moral theory. It is inescapable. Even if their moral theory is that there are no morals, that still represents a moral theory. But not all moral theories are equal—some hold up to critical thinking better than others.
You may see wisdom in all of these perspectives, or you may strongly identify with a single one. Regardless, it's important for you to recognize the potential weaknesses in any moral theory you favor, and it's helpful for you to understand why others find legitimacy in the moral theories they employ.
Theory
Criticisms
Kantian Ethics
· Immanuel Kant put forth the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act on moral principles that you would be willing to turn into universal laws mandating that everyone act the same way.
· This is a version of the question, “How would you like it if everyone did that?”
Any two people who want to get married should be able to.
· This theory is so absolute that it sometimes goes against moral common sense.
It’s wrong to kiss my spouse because I would not like it if everyone kissed my spouse.
Utilitarianism
· The morally right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
· The only thing that matters is the consequences of the action, not the intentions behind the action (the ends justify the means).
· Ignores people’s rights, duties, and intentions.
· Could be used to justify an act that most would consider morally wrong because it inflicts harm on one person unjustly, even if it brings great happiness to many others.
It’s okay to steal money from my neighbor and take my family on a vacation, because then my whole family would be happy, and only my neighbor would be harmed.
Ethical Egoism
· Doing whatever is best for your own interests or would make you happy.
· This is not necessarily the same thing as doing whatever you want in the moment, because that might not be in your best interests in the long term.
· Can be used to justify terrible actions.
Ethical Altruism
· Doing whatever is best for others or would bring the greatest amount of happiness to people besides yourself.
· Some.
Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism - A-Level Religious Studies .... Moral relativism - 175 Words - NerdySeal. Moral Relativism Essay - To what extent, if any, is moral relativism a .... Moral Relativism and Objective Moral Values Free Essay Sample on .... Explain what is meant by moral relativism - A-Level Religious Studies .... Essay On Moral Relativism. Free Why People Accept Moral Relativism And Why Philosophers Reject .... Cultural Ethical Relativism Essay Relativism Anthropology. Moral Relativism. Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism. Assess the strengths the .... Explain moral relativism essay. Moral Relativism Vs. Moral Objectivism Essay Example 600 Words .... Moral amp; Cultural Relativism Essay Example Topics and Well Written .... What is meant by Moral Relativism? - A-Level Religious Studies .... moral relativism and situation ethics - A-Level Religious Studies .... What Is Moral Relativity olympiapublishers.com. Online Essay Help amazonia.fiocruz.br. PDF Moral Relativism. Need help do my essay argument against moral relativism - aegaa.x.fc2.com. Moral Right and Moral Relativism. Peter Kreeft Quote: Moral relativism says morality is relative, not .... Moral relativism essay. Moral Relativism Essays: Examples, Topics .... Ethical relativism essay. Arguments against ethical relativism. Arguments For and Against .... Ethical Relativism, Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes Example. Moral Relativism: Ruth Benedict on Conventionalism. Philosophy Evaluate Rachels Claims against Cultural Relativism Essay .... Week 1 Morality Introduction Argument Relativism. 12th Grade - Humanities - Moral Relativism. Relativism and Morality Assignment Example Topics and Well Written .... Moral relativism essay - Get Help From Custom College Essay Writing and .... Moral relativism essay - Reliable Writing Help From HQ Writers. Relativism Relativism Morality Free 30-day Trial Scribd Moral Relativism Essay Moral Relativism Essay
The Good News, newsletter for June 2024 is hereNoHo FUMC
Our monthly newsletter is available to read online. We hope you will join us each Sunday in person for our worship service. Make sure to subscribe and follow us on YouTube and social media.
The Chakra System in our body - A Portal to Interdimensional Consciousness.pptxBharat Technology
each chakra is studied in greater detail, several steps have been included to
strengthen your personal intention to open each chakra more fully. These are designed
to draw forth the highest benefit for your spiritual growth.
The Book of Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile.
What Should be the Christian View of Anime?Joe Muraguri
We will learn what Anime is and see what a Christian should consider before watching anime movies? We will also learn a little bit of Shintoism religion and hentai (the craze of internet pornography today).
Exploring the Mindfulness Understanding Its Benefits.pptxMartaLoveguard
Slide 1: Title: Exploring the Mindfulness: Understanding Its Benefits
Slide 2: Introduction to Mindfulness
Mindfulness, defined as the conscious, non-judgmental observation of the present moment, has deep roots in Buddhist meditation practice but has gained significant popularity in the Western world in recent years. In today's society, filled with distractions and constant stimuli, mindfulness offers a valuable tool for regaining inner peace and reconnecting with our true selves. By cultivating mindfulness, we can develop a heightened awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and surroundings, leading to a greater sense of clarity and presence in our daily lives.
Slide 3: Benefits of Mindfulness for Mental Well-being
Practicing mindfulness can help reduce stress and anxiety levels, improving overall quality of life.
Mindfulness increases awareness of our emotions and teaches us to manage them better, leading to improved mood.
Regular mindfulness practice can improve our ability to concentrate and focus our attention on the present moment.
Slide 4: Benefits of Mindfulness for Physical Health
Research has shown that practicing mindfulness can contribute to lowering blood pressure, which is beneficial for heart health.
Regular meditation and mindfulness practice can strengthen the immune system, aiding the body in fighting infections.
Mindfulness may help reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity by reducing stress and improving overall lifestyle habits.
Slide 5: Impact of Mindfulness on Relationships
Mindfulness can help us better understand others and improve communication, leading to healthier relationships.
By focusing on the present moment and being fully attentive, mindfulness helps build stronger and more authentic connections with others.
Mindfulness teaches us how to be present for others in difficult times, leading to increased compassion and understanding.
Slide 6: Mindfulness Techniques and Practices
Focusing on the breath and mindful breathing can be a simple way to enter a state of mindfulness.
Body scan meditation involves focusing on different parts of the body, paying attention to any sensations and feelings.
Practicing mindful walking and eating involves consciously focusing on each step or bite, with full attention to sensory experiences.
Slide 7: Incorporating Mindfulness into Daily Life
You can practice mindfulness in everyday activities such as washing dishes or taking a walk in the park.
Adding mindfulness practice to daily routines can help increase awareness and presence.
Mindfulness helps us become more aware of our needs and better manage our time, leading to balance and harmony in life.
Slide 8: Summary: Embracing Mindfulness for Full Living
Mindfulness can bring numerous benefits for physical and mental health.
Regular mindfulness practice can help achieve a fuller and more satisfying life.
Mindfulness has the power to change our perspective and way of perceiving the world, leading to deeper se
The PBHP DYC ~ Reflections on The Dhamma (English).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma Reflections for the PBHP DYC for the years 1993 – 2012. To motivate and inspire DYC members to keep on practicing the Dhamma and to do the meritorious deed of Dhammaduta work.
The texts are in English.
For the Video with audio narration, comments and texts in English, please check out the Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF2g_43NEa0
In Jude 17-23 Jude shifts from piling up examples of false teachers from the Old Testament to a series of practical exhortations that flow from apostolic instruction. He preserves for us what may well have been part of the apostolic catechism for the first generation of Christ-followers. In these instructions Jude exhorts the believer to deal with 3 different groups of people: scoffers who are "devoid of the Spirit", believers who have come under the influence of scoffers and believers who are so entrenched in false teaching that they need rescue and pose some real spiritual risk for the rescuer. In all of this Jude emphasizes Jesus' call to rescue straying sheep, leaving the 99 safely behind and pursuing the 1.
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way.pptxCelso Napoleon
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way
SBs – Sunday Bible School
Adult Bible Lessons 2nd quarter 2024 CPAD
MAGAZINE: THE CAREER THAT IS PROPOSED TO US: The Path of Salvation, Holiness and Perseverance to Reach Heaven
Commentator: Pastor Osiel Gomes
Presentation: Missionary Celso Napoleon
Renewed in Grace
HANUMAN STORIES: TIMELESS TEACHINGS FOR TODAY’S WORLDLearnyoga
Hanuman Stories: Timeless Teachings for Today’s World" delves into the inspiring tales of Hanuman, highlighting lessons of devotion, strength, and selfless service that resonate in modern life. These stories illustrate how Hanuman's unwavering faith and courage can guide us through challenges and foster resilience. Through these timeless narratives, readers can find profound wisdom to apply in their daily lives.
2. Rothbard vs. Mises
●Danny last week raised some very
interesting questions about Rothbard’s
ethics.
●Where do consequences, and in
particular economic consequences,
come into Rothbard’s ethics?
●I think that consequences have a place
in Rothbard’s ethics in two ways.
3. Consequences and Rothbard
●First, when Rothbard is considering the
various alternatives to self-ownership
such as slavery and universal
ownership by everybody of parts of
everybody else, he takes the fact that
the alternatives wouldn’t work as
conclusive reasons against them.
4. Consequences Continued
●Second, the basis of Rothbard’s version
of natural law is what human beings
need to flourish. “Flourishing” mans
“leading a happy life.”
●Consequences are thus integral to
Rothbard’s ethics.
5. Metaphysical Baggage
●One objection to Rothbard is that he
makes use of a controversial
assumption---people have essences or
natures. He speaks of natural
“tendencies” even though no conscious
goals are involved.
●Mises can get along without this
assumption. Isn’t this an advantage of
6. Problems for Mises
●I think that this is an advantage for
Mises over Rothbard. But there are
some disadvantages as well.
●One of these comes out if we think
about Danny’s excellent “parachuting
fallacy”. The fallacy is to think that
Mises can tell us in each particular case
why it is our interest to follow the rules
7. Parachuting
●I think it is correct that Mises doesn’t try to do
this. He is rather talking about general rules
that would make us better off if everyone
followed them.
●But this raises a question. What then is the
basis of moral obligation in particular cases?
Not, why is it in my interest now to act
morally, but what does it mean to say that I
now ought to do something?
8. Mises on “Ought”
●For Mises, there are no objective
“oughts”, other than hypothetical
oughts.
●We have been trained or conditioned to
feel guilty if we act in certain ways, but
there is nothing to “ought” other than
these responses that have been
inculcated in us.
●This strikes me as a wildly
9. Habermas and Apel
●Hoppe was a student of Juergen Habermas
who developed discourse or argumentation
ethics.
●Another German philosopher, Karl-Otto Apel,
came up with a very similar approach.
●These writers aren’t libertarians. Habermas
began as a Marxist associated with the
Frankfurt School. Although he has become
more moderate than he was in his younger
days, he is still well to the left-of-center.
10. A Fundamental Mistake
●Discourse ethics, as Habermas and
Apel develop it, is an attempt to
discover the rules of conduct toward
one another that people would
reasonably accept.
●It is not an attempt to show that certain
moral judgments are requirements of
logic, i.e, that if you reject AE, you are
11. Types of Reason
●When we talk about reason, we can mean:
●Logical consistency: Here, someone who
violates logical laws has gone against reason,
but not otherwise. Suppose, e.g., that
someone does something very much against
his interest, e.g., walk into moving traffic.
Unless you can show that doing this violates
a logical law, it isn’t irrational in the logical
sense.
12. Hume on Reason
●Hume was famously skeptical about the
possibility of showing that actions were
irrational in this logical sense:
●“Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the
destruction of the whole world to the
scratching of my finger.
13. Quotation Continued
●‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to
chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least
uneasiness of an Indian or person
wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little
contrary to reason to prefer even my
own acknowledg’d lesser good to my
greater, and to have a more ardent
affection for the former than the latter.”
14. Instrumental Reason
●Reason can mean something other than
logical consistency. It can deal with
whether your means will achieve your
ends.
●Given that I want x, I should do do y.
Mises uses this meaning of reason. He
argues that given the ends people have,
we should establish a free market.
15. Reason and the Good Life
●Another sense of reason goes beyond
instrumental rationality. Here, the claim is that
reason can establish the nature of the good
life for each person.
●Aristotle and Rothbard can be viewed in this
way.
●Ayn Rand thought that values depend on
each person taking his own life as the highest
value. Other values are instrumental to this
value.
16. Argumentation Ethics and
Reason
●AE uses a different sense of reason
from the ones discussed so far.
●Here the issue is, what would it be
reasonable for people to agree on,
under the requirement that they agree
on rules that apply to everyone equally.
●These rules express our respect for
persons.
17. AE and Reason, Continued
●The basic idea here comes from the second
version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This
requires us to treat every person as an end-
in-himself, not as only as a means.
●AE says that they way we do this is to reason
together about the norms that should apply in
our relations with each other.
●AE applies only to this part of morality. It
doesn’t apply to ethical issues that concern
how to lead a good life.
18. Two Mistakes to Avoid
●AE is not trying to answer the “what’s in it for
me?” question. It isn’t an attempt to argue
that it’s in our self-interest to observe the
rules it comes up with. That is a different
approach to morality.
●AE isn’t an attempt to say that you are
violating the laws of logic if you violate its
rules. As we’ll see, this leads to trouble later.
19. How to Get the Rules
●Habermas and Apel have an interesting
idea on how to find out what rules
people would agree on. They say,
doesn’t the process of trying to find out
the rules itself impose certain
requirements on us?
●This is what they mean by discourse or
argumentation ethics
20. Another Mistake
●The claim they make is that argumentation for
this purpose, i.e., to decide on universalizable
rules, imposes certain norms.
●AE doesn’t cover every use of argument or
communication, e.g., trying to deceive
someone. It doesn’t cover Danny Sanchez’s
fable of the lion. The lion says, “I’m talking to
you because you are inedible.”
21. An Objection
●One objection sometimes advanced against
AE is that the norms it come up with apply
only to the process of argument itself. If, e.g.,
you have to recognize that everyone is a self-
owner when he argues, why does this apply
once you stop arguing?
●This misconceives what AE is trying to do.
The point is that the norms of argument
suggest what the general norms should be.
22. Hoppe’s Innovation
●Hoppe suggests that the AE norms
would be libertarian.
●Wouldn’t people accept the rule that
everyone was a self-owner? If someone
suggested that one group of people
should enslave others, this wouldn’t win
agreement. This is an important point.
23. Performative Contradictions
●To understand the next argument we
have to grasp the notion of a pragmatic
paradox or performative contradiction.
●This is different from a logical
contradiction, e.g., “HHH is both
German and non-German”.
●.
24. Quotation Continued
●A performative contradiction is a
statement that is false if you say it. E.g,
you could say “I am totally
unconscious”, only if you were
conscious, so your saying it shows the
statement is false. Note that the
statement need not be self-
contradictory. I could be unconscious:
25. Self-Ownership and
Performative Contradiction
●Is it a performative contradiction if you deny
that you own yourself? Suppose you say, “I
don’t own myself.” Could you say this only if
you do own yourself?
●Why is there supposed to be a performative
contradiction? The contention is that in order
to say something, you must have control over
your own body. But just what you are implying
if you deny that you own yourself is that you
don’t have such control.
26. A Bad Objection
●Some people have objected, “Maybe
you only need part of your body in order
to speak, so you are not guilty of a
performative contradiction unless you
deny that you own any part of yourself.”
●Both the original claim of performative
contradiction and this objection suffer
from the same mistake
27. What Is Self-Ownership?
●The statement “I own myself” is
deceptive in its form. It appears to be a
descriptive statement, one stating a
fact, like “I am an old man.”
●But it really isn’t descriptive. It’s a covert
ought-statement, something like, “I
ought to be the person who gets to
decide what to do with my body, not
28. Why Is This Relevant?
●If this is kept in mind, we’ll see what is
wrong with the claim that if you deny
you own yourself, you have fallen into a
performative contradiction.
●If someone denies that he owns
himself, he is saying, “It’s not the case
that I ought to be the person who
decides what to do with my body”.
29. Relevance Continued
●Then, if you say to this person, “But
you’re speaking!”, you haven’t pointed
to a contradiction.
●If you say, “It’s not the case that I ought
to be the person who decides what to
do with my body,” this is consistent with
the fact that you are deciding what to do
with your body.
30. William Wollaston
●Why might one think that there was a
contradiction?
●You might think that if I’m doing
something, this implies that I think I
have a right to do it , but this need not
be true. If a thief steals your wallet, he
need not in doing so implicitly claim to
own it.
31. Wollaston Continued
●The English philosopher William
Wollaston (1659-1754) argued that all
immorality rests on lies. A thief has
made the false claim, “This property is
mine.” This is the fallacy we have just
discussed.
32. Property
●This leaves intact the basic contention
that it wouldn’t be reasonable for people
seeking agreement on universal
principles to reject self-ownership.
●Also, it seems reasonable to think that
people might agree on a libertarian
homesteading principle. But why need
this be the only logically possible rule?
33. Property Continued
●All sorts of rules are logically possible.
What’s contradictory about saying, the
third person to own property acquires
it? This would not make property
acquisition impossible.
●Of course, the libertarian principle is
reasonable, but we shouldn’t make
stronger claims for it than are justifiable.