Lecturess_6-7_Consequential_and_Deontological_Ethics.ppt

Lectures 6-7: Deontological &
Consequential Ethics

Consider these quotes:
“The remarkable thing is that we really
love our neighbor as ourselves: we do
unto others as we do unto ourselves.
We hate others when we hate
ourselves. We are tolerant toward
others when we tolerate ourselves. We
forgive others when we forgive
ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice
others when we are ready to sacrifice
ourselves.” ~ Eric Hoffer

“We can discover this meaning in life in
three different ways: (1) by doing a
deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and
(3) by suffering.” ~ Victor Frankl.

“ Never let your sense of morals get in
the way of doing what's right.” ~ Isaac
Asimov.
“When morality comes up against
profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” ~
Shirley Chisholm

“Actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure and the absence of pain.” ~
John Stuart Mill

Major Ideas:
 Virtue Ethics: An action is right iff it is what
the virtuous agent would do. 1. An action
is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would
do in the circumstances; 1a. A virtuous
agent is one who acts virtuously, i.e., one
who has & exercises the virtues. 2 A virtue
is a character trait a human being needs to
flourish or live well. What is essential is to
note the conceptual link between virtue &
flourishing (living well or eudaimonia).

Major Ideas:
 Deontological Ethics: An action is right iff
it is in accordance with a moral rule or
principle. A moral rule is one that is(a) laid
on us by God, (b) required by natural law,
(c) laid on us by reason, (d) required by
rationality, (e) would command universal
rational acceptance, or (f) would be the
object of choice of all rational beings.
What is essential is the link between right
action, moral rule, & rationality.

Major Ideas:
 Consequential Ethics: An action is right iff
it promotes the best consequences. The
best consequences are those in which
happiness is maximized. What is essential
to note is that it forges a link between
consequences & happiness.

Major Ideas:
Before we consider
consequential and
deontological
ethics, let’s explore
some other basic
terms that are
important to know:
Good ideas have good
consequences, bad ideas
have bad consequences.

Let’s now explore
Deontological
Ethics:

Deontological Ethics
We should choose actions based on their inherent,
intrinsic worth; evangelical approaches to ethics are
deontological because it presupposes Scripture as
revelation.
“Deontological” comes from the Greek word
“deon”, meaning that which is binding, in particular
a binding duty. So, you are bound to your duty.

Deontological Framework:
 An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in accordance with a
moral rule or principle.
 This is a purely formal specification, forging a link between
the concepts of right and action and moral rule, and gives
one no guidance until one knows what a moral rule is.

 Therefore, the links between right action,
moral rule, and rationality based upon
moral rule + given by God or required by
natural or laid on us by reason or required
by rationality or would command universal
rational acceptance or would by the object
of choice of all rational being—are all
essential aspects to any deontological
framework.

 So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise about that: A moral rule
is one that would have been historically:
A. Theistic:
1. Given to us by God;
2. Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);
B. Secular (though can still be connected to God):
1. Is laid on us by reason.
2. Is required by rationality;
3. Would command universal acceptance;
4. Would be the object of choice of all rational beings.

It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of
themselves because of the kinds of acts they are and
not simply because of their ends or consequences.
- The ends do not justify the means.
- A good end or purpose does not justify a bad
actions.
- You are duty-bound; binding is not dependent
on consequences, no matter if it is painful or
pleasurable.

For example:
1. You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be
faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive
person comes along.
2. You are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even
if it cost you a job.
Duty is not based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather
upon the obligation itself.

For example, a deontologist might argue that a
promise ought to be kept simply because it is right
to keep a promise, regardless whether the doing so
will have good or bad consequences.
In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we should
keep our promises only when keeping them results
in better consequences than the alternatives.

Overview of Ethical Systems: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
. To act morally you must be motivated exclusively
by rational commitment to the universal moral law or the categorical
Imperative: “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only,
that you can will at the same time be a universal law.”
Right actions flow out of right principles
To act
morally
requires the
power of
the will to
rise above
all natural
feelings and
inclinations.
This raises
us above
our natural
world.
To act
morally
requires the
rational
power to
recognize
absolute
moral laws
that
transcend
our natural
world.
Second form of
categorical
imperative:
“Act in such a
way that you
always treat
humans not
merely as a
means to an end
but also as an
end.”
Do the act that
is motivated
by the sincere
belief that
what you are
doing is the
right thing not
merely for
you, but for
anybody
seeking to act
properly in
any situation.

Basic Terms to Know:
1. Deontological Ethics: "rule or duty-based morality;
...emphasizes right action over good consequences“
2. a priori: "not in any way derived from experience or dependent
upon it"; concepts derived a priori are universal rules that
determine, in advance, the conditions for knowledge in a
particular domain
3. maxim: rule of conduct;
4. Hypothetical imperative: an action that is good only as a means
to something else;
5. Categorical imperative: an action that is good in itself and
conforms to reason; categorical imperatives act as universal rules
governing a situation regardless of circumstance

Summary:
 Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right iff it
is in accord with the Categorical Imperative (the
supreme principle of morality). Right actions
flow from right principles.
 From using our capacity to reason Kant believes
the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in
at least three ways; they are all equivalent with
the first formulation being the basis. Though
they bring out various aspects of the moral law,
they cannot tell us more than what the first
formula does.

Categorical Imperative:
 The CI does not depend on a logically prior condition though it
assumes the predisposition that one wishes to be rational and will
follow what rationally determined duty dictates (in contrast to
hypothetical imperatives which means that the consequent depends
upon the antecedent: If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of
human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic. Q.E.D., to be
irrational is to be inhuman. To be sure, there are perfect and
imperfect duties. Actions are characterized as perfect because they
follow directly from an application of the universalization of the
Categorical Imperative in contrast to imperfect duties that follow
from CI only after considering other factors (e.g., seeking our own
happiness). An imperfect duty is just as strong in its action guiding
force as a perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin highlights their
differences.

Three Formulations of the
Categorical Imperative:
 First formulation: “Act in conformity with the maxim and the maxim
only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.” This means
that what I consider doing, it must be something that I can will or
accept that all do (universal); it is replacing individual preferences
with purely universal terms.
 Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in that of another, always an end and
never as a means only.” In essence, every person has intrinsic
value and that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
 Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must act as if he
were through his maxim always a legislating member in the
universal kingdom of ends.” In other words, we have to will what is
consistent with the operations of the kingdom as a whole. In sum,
all people should consider themselves as both members and heads

Major Points to Consider:
1. What gives an act moral worth is our motives because we
can’t necessarily control the consequences of our act or/and
things do not always turn out as we want. He calls this
motive “the good will.” Therefore, we are responsible for
our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we
are held morally accountable.
2. What is the right motive is acting out of a will to do the right
thing; only an act motivated by this concern for the moral
law is right.
Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration:

3. Kant’s Shopkeeper illustration: A shopkeeper charges her customers a fair
price and charges the same to all. But what is the shopkeeper’s motive?
A. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves her own
best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.
B. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is because she is
sympathetic toward her customers, then this motive is still not praiseworthy.
C. If the shopkeeper’s motive is to do the right thing because it is the right
thing, then her motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that which is
morally right is praiseworthy.
We do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest,
inclination or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed
motives. However, we are certain that the motive is pure when we do what
is right regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.

4. In order for our action to have moral worth we must not
only act out of a right motivation but we must also do
what is right.
Right Motive Right Act
The motive and the act must be morally right!
We must not only act of duty (have the right motive) but also
“according to duty” or as “duty requires” (do what is right).

5. How we are to know what the right thing to do is to test our
motives and actions against the categorical imperative. If our
motive and acts meets the criteria of the categorical imperative
we are obligated to do it.
Right Motive
Right Act
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
“Oughts” that tell us what we
ought to do no matter what,
under all conditions, and are
universally binding
(categorical imperative).
1st form of Categorical
Imperative:
“Act only on that maxim
which can will as a
universal law.”
This means that what I consider
doing, it must be something that I
can will or accept that all do
(universal).

According the first formula:
According to the first formula: the agent
must be willing to eliminate all individual
reference from the maxim of her action.
The most significant exclusion from the
maxim is oneself. Therefore, in order to
pass the test of the categorical imperative
in the first formulation, one must be
prepared to go on willing even if it contains
no reference to oneself.

6. Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can
will or accept all do.
A law by its very nature has a degree of universality. Act only on
that maxim which you can will as a universal law.
Maxim: is a description of the action that I will put to the test.
As a rational being I can only will what is non-contradictory
7. How do I know what I can and cannot will as a universal practice?

8. First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative:
2nd form of Categorical
Imperative:
“Always treat
humanity, whether in
your own person or that
of another, never simply
as a means but always
at the same time as an
end.”
This means that every person has
intrinsic value & that humanity
is a limit or constraint on our
action.
1st form of Categorical
Imperative:
“Act only on that maxim
which can will as a
universal law.”
This means that what I consider
doing, it must be something that
I can will or accept that all do
(universal); it is replacing
individual preferences with
purely universal terms.

1st Categorical Imperative:
 1st Categorical Imperative is a decision procedure for
moral reasoning. 4 Steps:
1. Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reasoning
for acting as you propose.
2. Recast maxim as universal law of nature governing
all rational agents-all people will act upon.
3. Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in
a world governed by this law of nature.
4. Ask whether you would or could rationally will to act
on this maxim in such a world.

9. Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives:
2nd Categorical
Imperative:
“Always treat
humanity, whether in
your own person or
that of another, never
simply as a means but
always at the same
time as an end.”
This means that every person
has intrinsic value & that
humanity is a limit or
constraint in our action.
Explains how we ought to
treat ourselves.
Treat ourselves & other as
ends rather than merely as
means.
The moral conclusions
should be the same whether
we use the 1st or 2nd form of
the categorical imperative.

10. Third Formulation of the Categorical
Imperative: Hypothetical Kingdom of Ends
Key Points:
1. Think of ourselves as members of a society of beings
whose permissible ends are to be respected.
2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing the
maxims were natural laws, there would be a society
of that kind. In other words, we are obligated to act
only by maxims which would harmonize a possible
kingdom of ends.
3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
create incoherent or impossible states of natural
affairs when we attempt to universalize them;
We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that
promote unstable or greatly undesirable states of
affairs.
“Kant seems to assume that those who apply the categorical
imperative to their maxims will come out with answers that
agree when the maxims tested are alike.” J.B. Schneewind,
“Autonomy, Obligation, & Virtue,” pg. 338.
“All maxims as
proceeding from
our own law-
making ought to
harmonize with a
possible kingdom of
ends as a kingdom
of nature."
Grounding for the
Metaphysics of
Morals, 4:436/104.

Third Categorical Imperative introduces a
social dimension to Kantian Morality
The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the
maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible
kingdom of ends” (4:439).
It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions
to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down
universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that
those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members
equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence
must be treated always as an end in itself.
The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral
obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a
community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in
legislating these principles for their community.

Summary of first three categorical
imperatives:
 The Categorical Imperative requires that I act
only on maxims that I can will as universal law.
 The categorical imperative is supposed to give us a
test for maxims.
 Maxim is the is “subjective principle of an action.”
The principle of an action is that prescription from
which the action follows.
 If the maxim meets the test, the action that follows
from it has moral worth; if the maxim does not meet it,
the action does not have moral worth.

 1st Categorical Imperative requires
willingness to continue to the subscription
to the maxim of an action even if all
individual or singular reference is excluded
from it. Eliminating individual or singular
reference requires eliminating reference to
me. In other words, think of replacing
individual references with purely universal
terms.

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end.”
Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our
action, he presupposes that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection
with the first formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be
willing to eliminate all individual reference from the maxim of her action. The most
significant exclusion here is that of herself. Therefore, be prepared go on willing the
maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action
must be such that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity
as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in
his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first
formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the
agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore the
other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and

The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of
an action must be such that any other free and rational person can
adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting
our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting
our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by
the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede
the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means
is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are
those of coercion and deception.
For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my
class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I have
bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as
a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting
implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because
if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to
make a free and rational choice for that situation.

What is the connection between the
categorical imperative is the following:
 If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then I am acting
for reasons that it is not possible for everyone to share.
But to act toward people on the basis of reasons they
cannot possibly share is to use them, to treat them as a
mere means to my goals. In fact, all people should
consider themselves both members and heads because we
have a perfect duty not to act in maxims that create
incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs for it will
lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs.
See, the truly autonomous will is not subject to any
particular interest. Kant’s idea here is that one should not
treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.

10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties:
Imperfect Duties:
Are those duties that don’t whole
heartily conform to the
categorical imperative.
e.g., If I were an egoist and concerned
only about myself, no one could accuse
me of using other people; I would
simply leave them alone. But this
attitude & practice is inconsistent with
the duty to treat others as persons. As
persons, they also have interests and
plans, and to recognize this I must at
least sometimes and in some ways seek
to promote their ends and goals.
Perfect Duties:
Perfect duties are
absolutes &
necessary; they
conform to the
categorical imperative.
eg., We can and should
absolutely refrain from
making false or lying
promises.

The following are 4 examples
famously used by Kant.

1st example: Suicide
“Whenever continuing to live will bring
more pain than pleasure, I shall
commit suicide out of self-love.”
1. Suicide can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that
would be universal will.
2. Remember, suicide would be morally right if and only
if the person who is thinking about suicide can
consistently will that suicide be a universal law.

1st Example: Suicide:
 A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied of
life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask
himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take
his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action could
become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: 'From self-love I
adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is
likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It is asked then simply
whether this principle founded on self-love can become a universal
law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature of which
it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose
special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would
contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of nature;
hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature
and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme
principle of all duty." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles of the
Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)

2nd example: Lying & Not Keeping Promise:
“Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow
the money and promise to repay, even
though I know I will not repay.”
1. Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one
can’t will that would be universal will.
2. Remember, lying and not repaying would be morally right if and
only if the person who is thinking about lying and not keeping
promise can consistently will that lying and not keeping promise
be a universal law.

3rd Example: Developing One’s Habits
 "A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture
might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in
comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather
than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural
capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his
natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, agrees
also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of nature could
indeed subsist with such a universal law although men (like the South
Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve to devote their
lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation of their species-
in a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will that this should be
a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as such by a natural
instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties
be developed, since they serve him and have been given him, for all
sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles
of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)

3rd example: Developing One’s
Habits
“When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my
talents rust.”
1. Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.
2. If everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed,
then no one can consistently will that his non-use of talents to be a
universal law.
3. Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about
non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a
universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
4. Therefore, allowing one’s talents to rust is morally wrong.

4th Example: Helping Others.
 A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend
with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: 'What concern
is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can
make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do
not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in
distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law,
the human race might very well subsist and doubtless even better than in a
state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes care
occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats when
he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But although
it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in accordance with
that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the
universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would
contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would
have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a law
of nature, sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope
of the aid he desires." (From the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic
of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)

4th example: Helping Others:
“When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall
give nothing to charity.”
 Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be helped in desperate
circumstances.
2. If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that
non-help be a universal law.
3. Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking
about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be
a universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
4. Therefore, not helping others is not morally right.

11. Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:
Fairness, Consistency, and morally equal treatment of all
people for they are intrinsically valuable.
Emphasizes the Law of Non-contradiction; we would not
will anything that is not rational.
Emphasizes doing what is morally right (it is our duty).
It is universally binding and Impartial-in order for an action to
be morally permissible, we should be able to will it for all.

12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to rules,
as opposed to result-centered or utilitarian ethics.
1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each
other.
2. Deontological ethics are consequential moral systems in disguise enshrined
in customs and law have been known to give the best consequences.
3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.
4. Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?
5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what
is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.
6. Rule worship: The refusal to break a generously beneficial rule in those
areas in which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.
7. Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human
beings.

There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts
consider the following:
a. Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask
for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must
tell the truth (illustration by Kant).
But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is given
in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we cannot
will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as
persons.
Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral
conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth and
preserve life are moral obligations.

Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:
b. Kant’s moral philosophy is its belief in impartiality; in order for
an action to be rally permissible, we should be able to will it for
all.
However, persons do differ in significant ways (gender, race, age, and
talents). In what way does morality require that everyone be treated equally
and in what does it perhaps require that different person be treated
differently (e.g., gender).
c. Kant’s stress on rationality may be considered to be too male-
oriented, too Westernized. It is subject to the continental
critique of structure (Foucault).

Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in
fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390)
This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with
classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.
 First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty
already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character traits
as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, Kant
takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of
moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a
good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought
to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct
based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on
that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these
principles.

 Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence
does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’
by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act
and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but
a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions,
feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature
that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the
disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior
that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human
nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what
Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz.,
continence or self-control.

 Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral
principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral
law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what
he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean
between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed,
assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of
degree rather than in terms of the different principles
each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice,
for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose
enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal
acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole
intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the
principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of
possessing them.

 Fourth, in classical views the distinction between
moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly
significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of
the soul , but one finds classical theorists
treating wit and friendliness along side courage
and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be
a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary
between non-moral and moral virtues could not
be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a
remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed,
much of Anthropology is given over to
discussing the nature and sources of a variety of
character traits, both moral and non-moral.

 Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since
it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in
them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a
constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses.
Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is possible (and we
recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run
counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be
trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually
requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that
morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not
change the fact that each and every desire and interest could have
run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they can conflict
with moral law, not the fact that they actually do conflict with it, that
makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait
concerned with constraint.

 Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's
system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of
virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one
acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite
compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome
contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge
at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will,
who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply
fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack
of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he
also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth, it
must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable only
through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution” in
the orientation of the will of the sort described in Religion.

 Kant here describes the natural human condition as one
in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of
morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent
change in the will's orientation in this respect, a
revolution in which moral righteousness is the
nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of
one's actions that are in accordance with duty are
nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may
be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will
must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong
strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into
practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is
that a good will is a will in which this revolution of
priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one
with the strength to overcome obstacles to its
manifestation in practice.

Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
1. How do decide between two principles?
2 What about moral conflict between two
morally right principles.
3. From where or whom do we get our
principles? Nature? God?
4. If from nature, that assumes that what is in
nature is actually good? How do we define
nature?

Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come
into conflict with one another.
2. They are consequential moral systems in disguised-
enshrined in customs and laws that have been known
to promote the best consequences.
3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are
based on absolutes.
4. Which duties qualify given time and location. Are old
duties still valid?
5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may
result in a clash with what is best for human welfare
and prescribe actions which cause human misery.
6. Rule worship: Refusal to break a rule because it is
rule, even if it is not beneficial.

Let’s now
explore
consequential
ethics:

Consequential Ethics:
We choose the actions that bring about the best
outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential
forms of ethics. Let’s consider the following:
- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our
own individual interests.

A. Consequential Ethics:
We choose the actions that
bring about the best outcomes:
- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our own
individual interests.
- Utilitarianism: we should act to maximize the happiness
of all affected by the action.

A closer look at Utilitarianism:
 This theory that holds that an act is
right or wrong according to the
utility or value of its consequences.
 An act that produces more good
than harm has greater value than
act that produces more harm than
good.

 Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical laws in
helping people determine which action will
probably bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.
 While they are not against laws or values
(antinomians), they are not absolutists either.
 Every act is judged by its results, not by it intrinsic
and universal value.

 In order to do determine the best consequence,
some argue that you must add up the happiness
in one person and then multiply the total
happiness in the total number of people and
subtract the total pain.
 If the result is positive then the action is good.
 If the result is negative then the action is bad.

 Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure vs.
Pain (Peter Singer):
1. When we testify the safety of a new shampoo,
we drip the shampoo in concentrated form into
the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible pain.
But does shampoo leaving your hair lustrous and
manageable, sufficient to justify the infliction of so
much suffering?

2. The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy and
tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But can
this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential to
sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten our
lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify the
infliction of suffering on cattle that are raised on
crowded feedlots, and then herded into slaughter
houses?

3. It must be delightful to live in an elegant home, richly equipped
with a Jacuzzi and sauna in addition to having a master bedroom
suite with an entire wall-covered entertainment system. But is it
really right to spend that much on luxuries that add only a small
increase to our pleasure when the same resources could be used to
care for impoverished children living in hunger? For example, $21.00
US dollars can feed over 150 elementary students in Ghana for two
weeks (rice mixed with yams).

4. I purchase another
expensive “GQ suit” to
add to my already stuffed
closet-for it will bring me
pleasure. But is that
small increment of
pleasure even remotely
comparable to the
pleasure and relief of
suffering that would result
if I took that same money
and purchased clothes to
orphan children or a
threadbare family?

5. A tummy tuck will certainly improve sagging
appearances and make some of us feel better.
But the cost of a tummy tuck can be used to drill
a water well and provide clean and pure water to
an entire village in most third world countries.

6. Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy:
If we are trying to decide whether a new football
stadium with luxury boxes for the very rich is a
better investment than decent inner-city schools
and health care for the poor, is utilitarian
calculations a better guide for making such
decisions than deontological ethics?

Problems with Utilitarianism:
1. The end does not justify the means.
An act is not automatically good simply because it
has a good goal.
The road to destruction is paved with good intentions
(Prov. 14:12).
Ex. President Nixon’s goal of national security was
noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate was not
justified.

2. Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.
Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically
valuable act.
No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any value
unless it happens to have good results.
Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical
doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire,
one is obligated to save the medical doctor.

3. People are subject to the greater good of
statistics:
Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical
doctor or a poor child from a destructive
house fire, one is obligated to save the medical
doctor because we know he is able to help
people; we don’t know the future of the child.

4. The need for an absolute standard:
Relative norms do no stand alone. They
must be relative to something which is not
relative. So, unless there is a standard,
how can they know what is the greater
good.

5. The “end” is an ambiguous term:
If the utilitarian contends that ethics
should be based on what will bring the
best results in the long run, how long is
“long?” A few years? a life-time?
Eternity? Anything beyond the immediate
present is outside of the human range.

6. Ambiguous as well in determining whether
the “end” means “for the greatest
number” or for “all individuals.”
Could good could be achieved for the most
people if basic rights were denied to some
people? Is this intuitively right?

Pleasure vs. Pain:
 Pain and Pleasure are not exact
opposites. Is this true?
 How do you measure pain and
pleasure?
 Can pain be beneficial over and
against pleasure?

Conclusion to Consequentialism:
Consequentialists believe that
consequences are the only things that
matter:
A. We do not necessarily know the
outcome.
B. The consequences of our own action
may be unpredictable.

Conclusion to Consequentialism:
C. he consequences of other people’s actions
which impact on our actions may also be
unpredictable.
D. We do not know what the consequences
will be of our action in the long term.
E. We can’t necessarily control the
consequences.

Concluding thought to Consequentialism:
Dostoyesky’s Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists:
“Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me: imagine that you are
charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of
which is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and
contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and
unavoidable to torture just one speck of creation, that…little child
beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has
to be erected on her unexpiated [suffering for having done nothing
wrong] tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those
conditions? Tell me honestly!”
~ The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994).

Overview of Ethical Systems: Utilitarianism:
A theory of moral reasoning within teleological ethics or consequentialism
that looks to the principle of utility, i.e., the degree to which an act is helpful
or harmful in order to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act.
John S. Mill:
Cultural,
intellectual, &
spiritual
pleasures are
of greater
values than
mere physical
pain or
pleasure.
J.J. C. Smart:
Preference
Utilitarianism:
Maximize the
achievements
of people’s
priorities; it is
for each
person to
decide what
counts as being
happy.
J. Bentham:
Only 2
intrinsic
values:
“Good is
whatever
brings the
greatest
happiness to
the greatest
number.”
Negative Utilitarianism by K.
Popper in The Open Society & Its
Enemies (1945): Promote the least
amount evil or harm; prevent the
greatest amount of harm for the
greatest number:
Ideal Utilitarianism by G.E. Moore: The
rightness or wrongness of acts is determined
by their actual consequences; our duty:
produce the best possible consequences.
Motive Utilitarianism (Robert
Adams): Inculcate motives
within ourselves that will be
generally useful across the
spectrum of the situations we
are likely to encounter.
R.M. Hare’s 2-level
utilitarianism: The
logic of moral
terms & facts
about human
nature &
condition) leads to
a 2 level version
whereby both rule
& act
utilitarianism are
bridged: intuitive
level (simple,
general rules) &
critical level (act
utilitarianism.
John S. Mill: Though still hedonistic
utilitarianism Mill argues that cultural,
intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of
greater values than just mere physical pain
or pleasure.

A Closer look at Consequentialism:
Classic utilitarianism is a complex
combination of many distinct claims,
including the following claims about the
moral rightness of acts (even though it
reduces all morally relevant factors to
consequences):

Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be
defined and whether it can be measured in the
way utilitarians requires:
1. Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends
only on consequences (not circumstances, the intrinsic
nature of the act, or anything that happens before the act).
2. Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right
depends only on the actual consequences (not foreseen,
foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).
3. Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right
depends only on the consequences of that act itself (not
consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice
that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).

Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether
it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:
4. Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the
value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the
consequences).
5. Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the
pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods,
such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).
6. Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which
consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement
over the status quo).
7. Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some
function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to
rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).

8. Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net
good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per
person).
8. Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the
consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the
individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).
9. Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one
person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all
who count count equally).
10. Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others
does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the
perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).

These claims could be clarified, supplemented, and subdivided further.
What matters here is just that these claims are logically independent, so a
moral theorist could consistently accept some of them without accepting
others. Yet classic utilitarians accepted them all. That fact makes classic
utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight.
It also makes classic utilitarianism subject to attack from many angles.
Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism.
Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims
of classic utilitarianism. By dropping one or more of those claims,
descendants of utilitarianism can construct a wide variety of moral
theories. Advocates of these theories often call them consequentialism
rather than utilitarianism so that their theories will not be subject to
refutation by association with the classic utilitarian theory.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Greatest Happiness Principle: “Acts are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness
(intended pleasure), wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pain and privation of
pleasure). Cultural, intellectual, & spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure,
because the former would be valued more highly by competent judges than the latter. A competent
judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher.
John S. Mill:
Cultural,
intellectual, &
spiritual
pleasures are
of greater
values than
mere physical
pain or
pleasure.
Mill reaffirmed
though
developed the
hedonistic
theory of
Bentham from
strict hedonistic
path by saying
that some kinds
of pleasure,
whatever their
quantity, are
intrinsically
superior to
others.
.
Mill was an advocate of rule
utilitarianism: you obey those
rules which experience has shown
will produce the greatest happiness
of the greatest number. When you
always know what people will do
you get predictability and security.
We ought to choose the action which
looks most likely to produce most
happiness. In order to do so we should
usually be guided by those general rules
which have been formulated as a result of
the long experience of men in society:
The beliefs that have come down are the
rules of morality for the multitude, and
or the philosopher, until he has succeeded
in finding better.”
A rule is valid only because it passes the
utilitarian test: and it is difficult to
believe
Pleasures differ from
each other qualitatively
as well as quantitatively,
a “higher” pleasure
being intrinsically better
than a “lower”
pleasure.”
“It is better to be a
human being dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.”
Bentham treats all forms
of happiness as equal:
“a pushpin is as good as
opera.” Some desires
are primitive: others the
result of experience,
training, self-discipline,
& special associations.
The only justification society has in interfering with the
liberty of action of an individual is self-protection;
People should be allowed to think & do whatever they
like. Mill was worried about the “tyranny of the
majority” in his Essay On Liberty.
Qualitative differences
easily recognizable
whereas quantitative
differences are
difficult to determine.
He also differed with
Bentham by denying
that human
motivation implies
egoism. Even though
we are by nature
pleasure-seekers, we
can be trained through
proper development of
our feelings to find
pleasure in the
pleasure of others.

John Stuart Mill:
Essential Terms:
1. higher pleasures: "pleasures of the intellect, ...relating to our feelings
and imagination"; also those relating to our moral values.
2. lower pleasures: bodily and physical pleasures
3. inferior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the lower
pleasures (88-89)
4. superior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the higher
pleasures
5. altruism: personal sacrifice; "putting other's interests before one's
own"
6. incommensurable: (in this case) two things that are incomparable
because they are essentially different. Mill uses this word to describe
the comparison of pleasure and pain.

John Stuart Mill:
7. Although Mill was heavily influenced by Bentham, there are two
specific points of the latter's utilitarian theory that are rejected in Mill's
version:
 Mill did not regard all pleasures equally. He made a distinction between
higher and lower pleasures.
 Mill rejects Bentham's hedonic calculus because he believes that
pleasures and pains are incommensurable.
8. Higher pleasures are such because they:
 offer a sense of human dignity,
 offer greater permanency, safety, and un-costliness, and
 challenge us to develop our intellectual capabilities.
9. The only persons qualified to judge the relative merit of
pleasures are those acquainted with the higher pleasures. Mill inserts
this qualification so that his ethics can overcome the charge the it is
an ethics for pigs and because he argues that anyone who is
acquainted with both types or pleasures will certainly affirm the
superiority of the higher type.

Egoism vs. Altruistic Utilitarianism:
 Enlightened self-interest is rejected in favor of consider
the greatest happiness of all concerned.
 Persons responsible for making ethical decisions should
do so from a disinterested, benevolent perspective.
 The value of personal sacrifice or altruism takes center
stage over that of psychological egoism.
 If one can see that personal interests are bound up with
communal interests, then the conflict between ego and
community will be minimized.

Other Points on Mills:
10. Human Suffering: Mill argues that "we have ... a moral duty to prevent or to
reduce to human suffering.“
 Selfishness and a want of mental cultivation are the greatest causes of
unhappiness.
 Individuals who have not taken the time to develop their intellectual capabilities are
unlikely to share the view that the improvement of the human condition is of
paramount importance.
11. On Democracy:
 Although he favored democracy, Mill sees the possibility for domination of the
minority by the majority under a strict system of "mob rule.“
 Accordingly, Mill argues that safeguards be put in place to protect the interests and
viewpoints of minorities in the political process. Note that the term minority is not
meant to denote racial minorities, but rather all types of political and social
minorities that do not share majority/mainstream views.

Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics:
Utilitarian Ethics:
1. Consequential Outcomes-
Based.
2. Case-by-Case.
3. Hypothetical Imperative.
4. Happiness (Greatest
Happiness Principle)
Deontological Ethics:
1. One universal law for each
situation.
2. All times, all places, & all people.
3. Categorical Imperative (Maxim-rule)
4. Duty, Obligation, & Good will.

Other Ideas:
 Though you are not going to be tested on
these issues, it would be in your best
interest to understand both pluralism and
relativism.

What is Pluralism?
There are definite standards of right behavior but
that more than one right standard exists.
- There are several right course of action.

What is Relativism?
The theory that there are no absolute standards and
that all truth is relative to a person or culture.
- No universal moral law or norm of goodness or
rightness exists.
- What seems right to a person or group is right;
there is no higher court of appeal.

A. Relativism assumes the following:
1. The context or situational setting in which
any talk occurs influences its outcome or the
conclusions that arise from it.
2. Relativism leads to the conclusion that the
situational character of all conversations have
no access to a standpoint from which we
could reach conclusions about what is
absolute or universally right or wrong, good
or evil, just or unjust.

Relativism assumes the following:
3. Moral relativism declares that
assertions about the right and the good,
as well as laws or principles that guide
human moral behavior are contextually
determined.

3a. Cultural Relativism:
A form of pluralism, this theory holds that different
standards of right and wrong arise in different
cultures. Within a given culture there are distinct
standards, but these standards may vary from
culture to culture.
- No culture is in a position to make ethical
judgments about the behaviors of other
cultures.
- Ex. One culture may have a prohibition against
slavery, whereas another culture does not. In this
view, slavery is right for the one culture but wrong
for the other.

3b. Individual Relativism:
A form of pluralism, individual relativism is the
doctrine that states that what is right depends on the
view of a specific individual.
Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital affairs are
morally permissible but her husband does not, then
extramarital affairs are right for her, but wrong for
him.

In contrast, what is Absolutism?
There are definite and universal standards of
ethical behavior, that we can know what they
are, & that all people have an obligation to
act on them.
a. Believed to be standards which are dictated or
generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).
b. These ethical standards are either “religious” in
nature (e.g., special revelation; the Bible.).

3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
A. They seem unable to account to how strongly
people feel about certain immoral acts.
Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing Jewish
children is morally permissible, can we only say that
such behavior is right for him but that it is not right for
us?
B. They are unable to offer a strong account for
justice vs. injustice; good vs. evil, right. vs
wrong; it is counter-intuitive.

3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
C. Unlivable and inconsistent with
reality.

Criticisms made against Relativism:
 Relativism commits treason against legitimate
authority.
 Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty).
 Relativism conceals certain defects.
 Relativism cloaks greed with flattery.
 Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility.
 Relativism enslaves people.
 Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism.
 Relativism silences personal identity.
 Relativism poisons personal character.

Lecturess_6-7_Consequential_and_Deontological_Ethics.ppt

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lecturess_6-7_Consequential_and_Deontological_Ethics.ppt

Similar to Lecturess_6-7_Consequential_and_Deontological_Ethics.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lecturess_6-7_Consequential_and_Deontological_Ethics.ppt