Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Normative ethics (Utilitarianism (Mill- Rule utilitarianism, similar to…
Normative ethics
Utilitarianism
Mill- Rule utilitarianism, similar to act however, Mill believed we should have rules in which there are exceptions to the rule. I.e in the case torture makes more people happy. Following the rules you set determines if you are a strong or weak utilitarian. Mill also considers Higher and Lower Pleasures
Mills Proof:
1)The only basis on which we can work out what is desirable is to consider what is actually desired
2) What each person desires is their own happieness
3)This suggests happiness is desirable
4)Reasoning from individual cases to the general case, we cab under that the general happiness happiness is desirable.
5)Tis provides a reason to maximise happiness.
Problem 1: Happiness is not of value as an end. We can value some things more than pleasure such as truth, freedom, and meaning. Therefore pleasure is not of ultimate value as an end in itself.
Singer- creates another non-hedonistic theory by stating we should do what the most people would prefer to happen, hence preference Utilitarianism
Bentham defined happiness as the absence of pain. Act utilitarianism, therefore, focuses on acts that would maximize happiness for the most amount of people (Hedonic theory). He created the hedonic calculus which allows for the calculation of happiness for the consequences of our actions. Includes, duration, certainty, fecundity
Issue 2: Individual rights and liberty. Distribution of happiness may be unfair. Doesn't look at respecting rights and freedom. Minorities may be in a position in which they are overlooked.
All utilitarians believe that moral actions are those that maximize utility, but how the utility is defined differs. It is a consequentialist theory, therefore it focuses on the. most desirable outcome for the many.
Problem 3: The trouble with the calculation. The consequences are unknowable: can never be sure that what I think my consequences will be, actually will be. Measuring happiness, however, its understood is difficult. Highly subjective calculus.
Issue 4: Moral motivation should play a bigger role in what is being considered a moral action rather than the consequences, as that is the driving factor.
Issue 5: Prima facie cuties and obligations. Too demanding, asks that we ignore any prior or existing relationships and treat people objectively.
Virtue Ethics
Can virtue ethics-can virtue ethics give sufficiently clear guidance on how to act? Highly situational and will vary according to concrete details
Competing virtues: Conflicts between virtues will arise and virtue ethics does not give any indication as to what to do.
A genuinely virtuous person is virtuous all of the time, however, this can become an involuntary action if we voluntary force ourselves to act virtuously all of the time
Problems with defining virtues. The possibility of circularity involved in defining the virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other
The doctrine of the mean: We must fall within the golden mean of a virtue to be considered virtuous. Being is excess is a vice as is being deficient. We can determine the golden mean through phronesis (Practical wisdom)
Problem: the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good. Must a trait contibute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue
1)All things posses a function
2) Functions can be defined as the characteristics activity of a thing
3) they require certain qualities (aerate) that aid the fulfilment of this function.
4)Humans function is to be guided by reason
5)which aid fulfilment of this function (the possession of certain virtues
6)This leads to a good human life
-
Aristotle defined the good as Eudimonia (translated as flourishing). And this is our achievement in life. The final end for human lives.To live a good life, is to live a life full of eudimonia
Kant's Deontology
Categorical imperative
1)Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
With this comes the contradictions in both will and conception
2) Act always that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another never as means one but as an end.
Motivation and duty (the difference between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty)
A person acts in accordance with duty when it conforms to the categorical imperative tests and is done so because it is good in itself
Whereas acting out of duty is an act the does not pass the categorical imperative
Issue 1: Clashing/competing duties :What can be done when two absolute duties conflict. There are situations which suggest they cannot be absolute.
Response: There are no conflict of duties, they must instead be carefully formulated. We have misunderstood
Issue 2: The importance of consequences: The intuition that consequences of actions determine their moral value (independent of considerations of universalisability. Kant seems to overlook the consequences and dismisses them as unimportant, believing instead that an action is good in itself and this is enough.
Problem 3 is that there is an issue when it comes to the application of the theory, not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral and by the same token not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral
Issue 4: moral motivation. The possible value of certain motives (e.g the desire to do good) and commitments (e.g those we have to family and friends). Morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives.