Phil 110: Ethics 1

May 20: Ethics 1

Last Day

Today

The universe; Milesians; Atomists; naturalism; realist assumption Human nature; polis; good life Human nature and the universe; Stoics; Epistemology Rationalists/Empiricists; anti-realism Limits of Western philosophy; dead white males; limits of sub-groups; the whole deal? To do for next class: 1) Read chapter 2, pp. 40-76. 2) Prepare to answer pro and con: "The U.S.A. is morally obligated to share its food and wealth with less-privileged nations." (or the chosen philosophical question brought to class). Be prepared to take part in a debate on this question.

Applied vs. meta ethics. Three aspects of ethics; principles; hard cases; the good life The Categorical Imperative; ethical relativism; ethical skepticism; golden rule Utilitarianism; Bentham and Mill; Greatest Happiness principle; Objections to utilitarianism; justice; the satisfied pig The good life; Plato and the Soul; Freud To do for next class: 1) Read pp. 76-131. 2) Think of a medical ethics issue that hasn't been raised by the chapter. I'll give bonus points to those who bring in a relevant newspaper article. 3) Give two examples of how ethical theory is applied in the same-sex marriage dispute. Identify the theory. 4) Resolve: Assisted suicide is morally wrong.

Introduction

Ethics is one of the central disciplines of current day academic philosophy. It tries to answer the important and pervasive question: "What should I do?" (though not according to Kant, p. 43). In fact, it is one of the few fields (other than teaching) in which philosophers can get a job (example). Normally, this sort of job is an application of ethical theory to particular situations and is thus called 'Applied Ethics'. The more philosophical discussions about ethical theories themselves (usually restricted to academia) are part of 'Meta-Ethics' (example, evaluating moral theory, "Do unto others" vs "Eye for an eye" as absolute moral principles).

Three aspects of ethics

1. Proof of the truth of moral principles

 

First we must identify candidates for absolute moral principles (any suggestions?). Then we must try to prove that these principles are true for all people all the time (how could we do that? even vaguely?). Kant's project. Metaethics.

 

2. What to do in the 'hard cases'

 

This is most often confined to applied ethics. Should she/I/you have an abortion? If someone who is starving steals food, is it immoral? Did you see the last Seinfeld? (train joke).

 

3. Identifying and discovering the secrets to the 'good life'

 

For most of the Greek philosophers, this was truly the major question of ethics. How can we live the good life? How should we live our lives? How can we be happy, content, and achieve our highest purpose? What is true happiness? Many Greeks (Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, Stoics) concluded that contemplation and/or careful management of our behavior in accord with some rational principle was our highest purpose. Do you think people are still concerned with this? Should they be more or less so? (Marx, Confucius). This pursuit is somewhat a cross between meta and applied ethics.

The Categorical Imperative and ethical relativism

Kant's Categorical (absolute, unqualified) Imperative (command, rule) is:

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.

This is much like "Do unto others" (the golden rule), and Kant admits that it is not new. For Kant this is the universal principal of moral action, given to us by our reasoning abilities. Does this rule leave room for interpretation? Can it solve all of the hard cases for us? Will it end ethical disagreement? Does answer 'no' to any of these questions mean that it is not universal, or that it is somehow wrong or misguided?

How does Kant try to prove this rule? What are his three assumptions about people? 1) They are rational (we are moved by reasons not just desires (what's the difference?), therefore we can determine if we've acted rationally). 2) They are ends-in-themselves (restatement of the CI? if so is the reasoning circular? better, that means his argument for this is the argument for CI) 3) they are autonomous (another version of CI). How does he go from these assumptions to the Categorical Imperative? He doesn't, so Wolff is a bit mis-leading in this section. Rather, 1) supports 2) and 3) which are both equivalent to the CI. So much of Kant's argument comes down to his claims about rationality. If we are truly rational, that is, if we have self-generated defensible, coherent, reasons for our actions then we can act morally. Acting morally is the most dignified (valuable) way a person can act. And, any person acting morally and being rational will have to live by the Categorical Imperative, or they will be in conflict (and no longer be moral or rational).

The alternative to this sort of view is ethical relativism: 'Ethics is a social construction, as is right and wrong'. This sort of view is given fuel by anthropologists' experiences with foreign cultures, but we need not go so far. What about the different moral codes of various Christian sects? However, looking abroad makes it even more apparent that there doesn't seem to be a single, universal moral wrong. War (US)? Torture (US slaves)? Child murder (China, India, Mayans)? Adultery (Buenos Ares)? Suicide (Rome, Japan)? Theft (Robin Hood)? Lying (circumstances)? Do these people just disagree on the case facts as Hume thinks? (Homosexuality) Only incest seems to be universally taboo (Bubbleheads of St. Louis?). Some anthropologists have concluded "Normality, in short, within a very wide range, is culturally defined..."

Even stronger than ethical relativism is ethical skepticism: 'Moral claims are meaningless'. There is no descriptive element to these claims, so they can't be right or wrong. If they can't be right or wrong then they can't have a meaning. They are normative and tell us how things should (or ought) to be. There is a continuing debate on whether or not we can make ought claims based on is claims (the 'ought/is' debate).

The great debate

The U.S.A. is morally obligated to share its food and wealth with less-privileged nations. Resolve.

Utilitarianism and hard cases

How many are familiar with utilitarianism? Basically it was proposed as a scientific means for deciding what to do in difficult situations. In fact, there is an engineering sub-discipline called operations research which is often employed to help evaluate complex situations. For example, political decisions concerning whether or not to go to war (the Gulf) are often made in this way. From this perspective, utilitarianism was a great discovery (invention?) which has been refined and expanded to provide powerful decision making tools. However, we are concerned here with moral, personal decisions can we expect the same success? In fact, utilitarianism was proposed for just these sorts of situations with the fundamental assumption that we should always try to make as many people as possible as happy as possible (The Greatest Happiness Principle; Epicurus; Bentham). For Bentham and his compatriots, happiness was achieved simply by avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure. On the face of it, this seems problematic, but Epicureans realized this problem and so claimed: "By pleasure we mean the absence of mental and physical pain. It isn't a matter of boozing, orgiastic parties, or indulgence in women, small boys or fish" (from the Letter to Menoeceus). As well, Bentham realized that our actions affect others and that this is what made utilitarianism a moral principle. The strengths of utilitarianism lie in its simplicity. The consequences of this strength are 1) everyone wants to be happy and happiness is pleasure 2) moral principles must be flexible to the particular situation (sometimes we should lie) 3) our decisions can be arrived at empirically (or at least mathematically - I disagree with Wolff's 'empirical' claim).

Examples

Does anyone have a difficult decision they need to make, or they have made in the past but aren't sure of? How about one of these: 1) Borrowing a friend's (car, bike, computer) without asking. [Don't borrow: lack of convenience, friend's trust, other costs, Borrow: convenience, money, friend's disappointment, danger of damage] 2) Drinking and driving [Don't drive: inconvenient, cost, time, won't get caught, respect of others Drive: convenient, get caught, other consequences].

There is an old story about a utilitarian who was walking down the hall quite upset. He had been offered a new job. "Why not calculate the utility?" a friend asked. "C'mon, this is serious" he replied.

Problems

Bentham was spurred to propose the theory in order to minimize what he saw was arbitrariness in the British judicial system of the time. Perhaps this is why he proposed such a rigorous moral decision principle to maximize happiness. But there are problems (any suggestions?). Here are three:

1. It's not obviously rigorous. What does it mean to maximize happiness? If it's just total happiness then the more people there are, the better the society. If it's happiness per person then we might end up in a society with slavery, depending how we measure happiness.
2. How do we measure happiness (or pleasure)? What units can we use. What if a small change in our happiness estimate makes the whole situation change drastically?
3. Utilitarianism can tell us to do things that seem (by other standard) immoral - torture example. Basically it can't account for rights, justice, and freedom - very important moral concepts. This can also be seen in the example of the 'satisfied pig'. Mill noted he would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. In other words, not all pleasures seem equal, perhaps there should be different weights for different pleasures (higher and lower). Is there such a thing as higher and lower pleasures (ballet vs boxing)? Distopian novels and movies: Logan's Run; Brave New World (Huxley).

The good life

What is the good life? It is sustained happiness. An integration of spirit, mind, and body: religion, reason and health. There have been two main camps, those who think the good life can be led regardless of the state of society (Stoics) and those who think these are intertwined (Plato, Marx, Aristotle). Plato argues for his position by discussing three parts of the soul. This tripartite distinction can be found in Plato, Shakespeare (Victorians), and Freud. The super-ego (rationality), ego (will, war, etc), and the id (desire and appetite - also the maker of some violent video games like Doom, Hexen and Quake). Just as the body must be healthy, so must the soul for Plato. This meant that each of the parts worked in harmony and performed its proper function. He then extended this analogy to the whole of society (this idea was tried in Malawi with terrible results - philosopher king). Any comments on the passage from the Republic?

The more modern concern with the good life has been left in the hands of psychologists. As I mentioned in the first lecture, philosophers have begun re-entering this realm in a practical way as can be seen from the growth of philosophical counseling. Erik Erikson wrote about ego integrity and the identity crisis which many people pass through. For Erickson, this is a process of development that leads to a healthier lifestyle. Recent advances in the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry (e.g. Prozac and Zoloft) have treated such processes as problems to be cured. Do you think science is ready to help us achieve the good life? If so, how? Are drugs the way to go? Can we distinguish normative and empirical statements about human personality and conduct?

1) Read pp. 76-131. 2) Think of a medical ethics issue that hasn't been raised by the chapter. I'll give bonus points to those who bring in a relevant newspaper article. 3) Give two examples of how ethical theory is applied in the same-sex marriage dispute. Identify the theory. 4) Resolve: Assisted suicide is morally wrong.