Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Normative ethics - Coggle Diagram
Normative ethics
UTILITARIANISM
-
Rule - an action is right if it follows a rule that generally promotes greatest amount of happiness - fails if it does not do so. - these are not convenient rules of thumb hat can be broken - even if following rule doesn't promote greatest happiness it should still be followed
Criticism - it falls into act - you may follow rule 'You should lie when it is to protect someone else' You can use rules to justify an action that would cause greater happiness so it falls into act
Counter - Rule and act are distinct - rule utilitarianism doesn't have to accept, in practice, the same acts as morally right, as act. 1. rule utilitarianism would not accept numerous exceptions to each rule - if they did it would undermine people's assurance that others would behave in certain ways - this uncertainty would not promote greatest happiness - you'd never know if someone was going to rob or kill you..
- It would be difficult to teach - the code of rules would be too long so rule ut. would accept more simple code.
-
Moore's Ideal utilitarianism (non-hedonistic) - other intrinsic goods - beauty and knowledge - heap of filth example - one world is excendingly beautiful and the other is a heap of filth - most reply living in the beautiful world is better - so he infers a beautiful world has more intrinsic worth - so beauty must have value irrespective of pleasure
My own response - but surely the reason people choose the beautiful world because they'd gain more pleasure living on it - not the fact its beautiful in itself.
Fairness and individual liberty/rights. It suggests we should do acts that violate peoples liberties if it is for the greatest good. - Tyranny of the majority - majority can excercise power on thee minority - if the majority votes for muder how is murder good?
Problems with calculation - what being should you include? The theory is impartial so should you consider the amount of migrating birds harmed from wind turbines which would power 100 homes? - Also how distant consequences should we consider?
Issues around partiality; - We have duties to those closest to us - no ones going to morally reprimand a mother for saving her baby instead of a doctor
Whether utilitarianism ignores the moral integrity of the individual - Bernard Williams - Jim and the Indians - he had to shoot one person to save 19 - but Jim had firm and consistent moral integragities - how could Jim still be moral if he broke these?
Whether utilitarianism ignores the intentions of the individual. - Is someone who goes to their dying grandparents death bed because they want to get in the will as moral as someone who does it out of love? - It produces the same consequences
-
KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY
A good will is one that acts out of respect for the moral law. (Respect for moral law manifests a good will)
Moral law is the categorical imperative - a categorical imperative is something that you must do regardless of your desires. like 'Sit down."
Hypethetical imperitive is something you should do if you desire. e.g. "Chew with your mouth closed, if you want to have good manners".
First formulation - FUL - formulation of universal law - (test for our maxims). - Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'. - only do things that can be universalised like 'do not make a lieing promise' because if everyone lied there would be no meaning to a promise. 1. Maxims that cannot be universalised without contradiction in conception should be rejected - this is like the lying example - where that possible world couldn't exist. 2. Maxims that are a contradiction in the will should be rejected - maxims like 'I will not help others when they are in need' a world like this is conceivable but it contradicts with your other wills like not starving to death if you become incapacitated.
Second formulation - Humanity formula - 'Act so that you treat humanity (rational will) whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only' - basically do onto others what you would want on yourself and do not exploit people. and respect their rational will - this is their intrinsic worth. Basically respect others.
Acting in accordance - is just coincidence - like a shop keeper not scamming his young customers because he is trying to protect his reputation.
Acting out of respect - is doing somethings for it being moral - like a shopkeeper not scamming his young customers because it is the right thing to do.
Clashing/competing duties; - We can derive duties from the categorical imperative like 'Do not lie' and 'Protect others' but if an axe murder comes to your door asking for your mother what do you do? Kantian deontology gives us no guidance on which duty to choose
We have mere prima facie duties that can be overridden - you can override the prima facie of 'do not lie' to protect you mother - but this is not Kant's actual position
Criticism 2: Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral - You could universalise 'Only people with a c in their name can steal at 3.45 from a Tesco on a tuesday' this is universalisable without a contradiction in will or conception but is not moral.
-
Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral; - You cannot universalise the maxim 'I will watch tv but never act' this is a contradiction in conception but watching tv and never acting is not immoral
The view that consequences of actions determine their moral value - I have a duty not to murder because it produces more unhappiness than happiness - Kant says consequences are immoral in deterring moral value - but a good will cannot have intrinsic value just for someone acting out of respect for moral law - a good will has to be derived from what it achieves ie. producing good. (Aristoleon argument - good will is good if produces eudaemonia)
We cannot determine value of acts by looking at consequences - painful things can be good like heart surgery, but pleasurable things can be bad like a pedophile - we only discover true value by reason.
Kant ignores the value of certain motives - If you are just acting out of duty this ignores the value of motives like love. For example someone visiting their dying granny because 'they are acting out of respect for moral law' is seen as more moral as someone who is doing it purely out of love for their grandmother - surely the loving grandchild is more moral?
These feelings can motivate us act but should not be the sole motivation - we should still strive to base our moral acts around reason - that being acting out of respect for moral law. - duty should be primary motive
Morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives (Philippa Foot).
The surface grammar of imperatives is misleading - we might treat morals as categorical imperitives because they're worded as such - like 'Do not lie' but this isn't good advice for them actually being categorical imperititives. They equally could be hypothetical imperitives like manors like 'Do not lie, if you want to be seen as moral and reasonable' NOT 'Do not lie' unless you ARE irrational as you are going against what you are 'morally binded to as a rational agent'
Because we act morally because we desire to be moral - people with not desire to be seen as good or moral have no problem breaking these 'binding' laws.
Morality exist not because of a reason-giving force but beacause of our desires to do good to others and be seen as good. - Charity can still exist without duty because people desire the end of helping others or being seen as moral.