Consequentialism97 090923170018 Phpapp02


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Consequentialism97 090923170018 Phpapp02

  1. 1. · Consequentialism : We ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences. · Nonconsequentialism : Some kinds of action are wrong in themselves, and not just wrong because of their consequences.
  2. 2. Ima Utilitarianism therefore The proper aim of morality is to promote happiness and diminish misery. I reject the exceptionless-rules approach that I was taught as a child (e.g., that it’s always wrong to lie, steal, break your promises, or disobey your parents). This approach is inconsistent, inhumane, and has clear Dr.-Evil counterexamples.
  3. 3. What led me to utilitarianism ? · Human happiness and misery give a solid basis for evaluating the norms of different cultures. · The golden rule leads to utilitarianism. · Utilitarianism can be based on other views too – since some might see it as self-evident or as based on God’s will.
  4. 4. There are two ways to apply utilitarianism. The indirect approachfollows rules of thumb (e.g. stealing usually doesn’t have the bestconsequences). The direct approach sums up likely benefits and harms. Break confidence Pleasures are positive. Pains are Negative – Go with the highest total Don't break confidence Break Confidence My Brother -5 0 My mother 2 -2 Myself 3 0 0 -2
  5. 5.   <ul><li>Classic Utilitarianism </li></ul><ul><li>Do whatever Maximizes the balance of pleasure over pain </li></ul><ul><li>Rejects egoism </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>We do whatever maximizes good consequences for ourselves </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Accepts Hedonism </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only pleasure is intrinsically bad </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Some possible Bizarre Inplications <ul><li>Imagine where a violent action – like breaking someone’s arms maximizes the balance over your pleasure over pain – think an act of revenge </li></ul><ul><li>Utilitarians could respond by </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Biting the bullet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Denying that such cases exist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adjusting the theory </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Now lets give this some thought <ul><li>Would these things automatically be right if they maximized pleasure over pain </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Segregation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Killing your rich angry mena neighbor and giving money to AIDS research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Executing an innocent person to death, to appease the community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extorting money to pay for cancer treatment </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Rule Utilitarianism <ul><li>Evaluate consequences in terms of various good: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goods such as Virtue , Knowledge, pleasure, Life, Freedom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We act in accordance wit the rules with the best possible consequences </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Duties determined by Rules <ul><li>We follow the rules with the best consequences </li></ul><ul><li>Rules easier to apply and herder to rationaliz away </li></ul><ul><li>Less bizarre implications – pleasure is not the sole determinant of morality but following the most virtous rules </li></ul>
  10. 10. Concept of Pluralism <ul><li>PLURALISTIC UTILITARIANISM: Utility is defined in terms of whatever has intrinsic (non-moral) value, not just pleasure and pain--including, for example, knowledge, love, friendship, courage, health, beauty, states of consciousness other than pleasure and pain (e.g., Moore). Utility of a life = the sum of all of these factors produced during the life, again measured on a single scale. </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>So, some pleasures as intrinsically bad, some as good </li></ul><ul><li>Happiness is not the same as pleasure – pleasure has a wider definition as stated earlier </li></ul><ul><li>This is a response to Classic Utilitarianism </li></ul>
  12. 12. Pluralism not quite Perfect <ul><li>Difficult to apply </li></ul><ul><li>Even if it leads to the right results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sometimes it is for the wrong reason </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It is wrong to kill an innocent person – so wouldn’t it still be wrong if a rule permitting it had the best consequences – think collateral damages in an attack </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Non consequentialism <ul><li>Some actions are wrong, immoral unethical not due to consequences, but just because they are wrong </li></ul><ul><li>In other cases we have obligations as they are the right thing to do </li></ul>
  14. 16. Seven basic Prima facie duties (Ross) <ul><li> fidelity </li></ul><ul><li>Reperation </li></ul><ul><li>Gratitude </li></ul><ul><li>Justice </li></ul><ul><li>Self –Improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Benficence – Do good unto others </li></ul><ul><li>Nonmalificence: Don’t harm others </li></ul>
  15. 17. Are there exceptionless duties <ul><li>Under no conditions can you are there exceptions for certain actions: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The killing of an innocent person </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hurting a child </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 18. Discussion Question 1 <ul><li>To what extent do you feel that we need rules in order to be moral? </li></ul><ul><li>To what extent do you believe we need adapt to behavior in specific situations </li></ul><ul><li>Relate this to the presentation on consequentialist or non consequentialist ideas </li></ul>