Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Applied ethics - Coggle Diagram
Applied ethics
Simulated killing
Dramatisation f killing - enactment of killing within fictional context, eg. in video games, film and plays. It is not merely the description of killing as in a novel.
If portrayal presents the act as immoral, such as Macbeth - no moral problem. But things like grand theft auto glamorise immoral killing
Aristolean virtue ethics
Simulated killing damages our moral character - simulated killing = wrong prevents us from developing virtue + prevents gamer from flourishing - they erode our moral character making it difficult to live eudaemonic life. - because observing these violent acts can lead us to develop injustness and unkindness
It is unclear whether simulated killing erodes our character - no cause and effect link between violence and video games - at best video games could lead some people to be more aggressive. - Not everyone who plays Grand theft auto becomes unjust and unkind
Cases where they do lead to violence are significant - murder od Stefan Pakeerah - not everyone in America that owns a gun for self defence reasons uses it for violence or ever needs to use it - however because it presents itself as a danger due to a select few it is band in UK.
Meta critiqueL simulated killing does not contribute to development of virtues - even if it has no impact on character - could be spending time actually developing virtues by spending time with friends or volunteering these virtuousness activities lead to no development - lead to no virtuous dispositions - nothing to promote eudaemonia of gamer
Kantian Deontology
Violent video games/films/plays leads us to violate our duties towards others. We have duties towards others because of their rational will - so activities that would lead us to mistreat them are immoral, like video games. Watching media where innocent people die with no moral context may make us less compassionate to others. Might encourage us to treat more people as a means -'cannon fodor' - so duty not to play video games.
It is not clear hat internet video games/films/plays lead us to violate our duties to thers. No clear causal - most evidence shows you may be at risk of becoming more aggressive - someone who plays Grant theft auto is unlikely to go on a killing spree so should not conclude it is immoral.
Utilitarianism
Video games are a lower pleasure - Macbeth may be pleasure of intellect - however some plays/ video games do not stimulate the intellect - they are lower pleasures - need verdict of competent judge to decide if pleasure is higher/lower. Some simulated killing is unnecessary immoral or fails to exercise our faculties ao should be avoided.
But do higher pleasures exist? - competent judges don't constantly opt for higher pleasures - many want to eat fast food when they are aware of quality meals - or watching murder not contextualised properly
Met critique - competent judges can identify higher pleasures - Judges actively choose what they know to be less good - know uncontexualised murder s not good as pleasurable but many do it anyways. We look to competent judges verdict but they don't only have to choose higher pleasures.
Video games/ gory films + some plays cause offence to others - if more people are generally offended by violence in video games which is gratuitous immoral killing like game manhunt - this may outweigh pleasure gained - couldn't pleasure be gained by something more moral ? So we should reject simulated killing if it is generates unnecessary displeasure.
Video games and gory films/plays are a matter of liberty. Is the majority finds its offensive they can forcibly stop the minority from indulging in these - this is undermines our intuition - bad as it violates our individual rights and liberties
"harm principle ' - ion people playing video games or other is not harming people who should not force them to stop though we may reason with them. because this promotes greatest happiness in society overall.
Lying
Most common wrong act - lie communicates infpormation - aims to deceive the recipient - teller use believe it to be false. Lying doesn't have to always be false - also doesn't need to have malicious intention
Utilitarianism
Lying is right if it maximises happiness and minimises pain - you can lie to a mad man abut where your friend is to protect them. - because this lie maximises utility
But this allows us to lie in trivial circumstances - when lying would produce minimally better consequences - like lying to a child to stop a tantrum - however over time this leads to bad like degrading trust.
meta- critique - we can only cat aside rule of thumb in specific circumstances - only when it would save someone from great and undeserved evil. Because lying has bad indirect consequences that outweigh trivial gains from lying - if you caught lying about what you think of someones clothes they may loose trust - not worth trivial circumstance
Implies lying when pleasurable outcome is morally required. Like in order to be a moral person you would be forced to lie in some circumstances - this is against our moral intuitions. Like it suggests you should ALWAYS lie to your friend in order to protect their feelings - or lie to a patient about how much time they have left.
Rule utilitarianism - rules that generally promote greatest happiness - 'Do not lie' if everyone followed this there would be greater trust.
but its right to lie in some circumstances - our intuitions suggests that in some extreme situations things like theft are not morally wrong. Like axe-man example - surely should lie in this situation.
Meta-critique - Add a rule that allows you to break other rules - in some circumstances - reword rule 'Do not lie' to 'Do not lie unless extreme circumstances where protecting someone's life'. This is a 'general purpose' rule - allows you to lie to protect someones from significant harm
Kantian Deontology.
Ought not to lie in anycircumsatnces - CI - if everyone lied there would be no truths (contradiction in conception) also fails humanity formula - by lying undermines people's dignity and rational will - treats as a meams
Not everyone has a right to the truth - Duty not to lie implies murderer has right to truth. Were Nazi's entitled to truth about if innocent jewish people were hiding in someone's attic - Not lying is only a duty to those who deserve to know the truth - Kants position of lying is wrong in these circumstances.
Counter - can't be sure about consequences of lying - what if you lied saying your friend ran out the back so the axe-murder goes there and your friend actually did run out back! Now the moral responsibility of your friend being murdered lies on you as if you didn't lie they wouldn't be murdered. If the axe-murder found your friend from telling the truth the responsibility also wouldn't be on you as the location of your friend is not your fault. You failed your duty and it did nothing.
Meta: Lying ois unliekly in some circumstances to have bad consequences - if you tell the truth your friend will likely die - if you lie they likely will not. Kant says as long as you do your duty you have no responsibility for bad actions but our moral intuitions goes against this - surely you are responsible for the death of your friend if you told the axe-murder their location.
-
Stealing
Utilitarianism
Hedonistic act - right action promotes greatest happiness fr greatest amount - wrong does not do so. so if stealing substantiously creates more happiness we should steal. Eg. if you need got steal to feed a starving child.
Act Utilitarianism allows us to steal too often - too permissive - allows us to steal in more trivial circumstances - like I might be too poor to buy a birthday cake for my little sister - this would produce more happiness but most would be uncomfortable saying this is moral - only slightly better consequences would be achieved.
Only cast aside rule in exceptional cases - seems like act ut. premises trivial stealing but we can only cast aside general rule 'do not steal' in exceptional circumstances - only when it is clear the pleasure will significantly outweigh the pain.
Hedonistic rule - we should never steal - rule 'do not steal' we must follow because telling generally produces more unhappiness.
But its right to steal sometimes - our moral intuitions usually hold theft is not immoral in some life or death situations - no one would blame you for stealing a loaf of bread from a rich baker for a malnutrition child. - 'never steal' is counter intuitive and very unpalatable.
Add another 'general purpose rule' - 'dont steal' but add 'general purpose rule' that allows you to break one of your rules if it is clear that, in excpetional circumstances not doing so would lead to significant and immediate harm.
-
Could be that NOT stealing leads you to immediate harm - like if your a kleptomaniac who gains no physical health from stealing but it preserves mental health;th - could become depressed and suicidal. Then you are morally obligated to steal
-
Stealing might be justified but it isn't moral - you could steal out of necessity but this doesn't make you a role model
Robin Hood? people have always valued people as moral that go against societal norms to 'protect the poeple' or the 'little guy'
Knatian deontology
Ought not to steal - never steal under any circumstances - it goes against CI it is contraction in conception + treats people as a means
Right to steal if laws protecting property are unjust. In cases like Ghandi salt march - UK government already stole something that as not theirs - The people stole their own resources back from a corrupt government who stole it in the first place - This cannot be immoral
Yeah but then is this even stealing if it is yours? - stealing is 'dishonestly taking property belonging to another with intention of permenantly depriving the other of it' - Kant is concerned with real stealing
But it still stealing if Ghandi is taking the salt from the government who leagly own it - to deprive them of the resource. Its not moral to fight fire with fire.
Aristotle virtue ethics
Stealing is unjust as it deprives someone of their fair share. - Aristotle holds some hard rules - like do not steal or commit adultery - stealing is always unjust because it deprives someone of their fair share - even if rest of his moral theory is more vague.
Right to steal if laws protecting property are unjust - Aristotle holds that stealing is always wrong even in the case where you are staling back what is yours.
Modern aristolean - stealing only unjust when deprives someone of their 'fairshare' - some instances like salt march doesn't deprive someone of their fair share - like British - not entitled to 'fair share' of resources in first place - so its an act of rectification. Corrective justices. - Determining when theft is just will involve modern application of phronesis (but Aristotle rejects stealing).
Eating animals
Aristolean virtue ethics
Function argument - humans function is reason (what's puts us above other species) - animals function is to serve humans - animals do not process rationality - they rely on instinct - do not share in eudaimonia
Peter singer arguments from marginal cases - to defend claim humans but not animals have moral status - we must say humans have something animals don't - rationality and autonomy? some marginal cases like comas and vegetative state - humans don't ave reason or autonomy - but no one wants to claim these people don't have moral status.
-
Aristotle and Keats approach is counter intuitive - The cats suffering must be relevant - surely something intuitively different betwent between smashing inanament object and kicking a cat - you can't wrong a vase but you can wrong a dog.
Kantian Deontology
We only have indirect duties to animals - they have no rational will so we cannot undermine their will - it would be morally wrong to harm an animal if it was someone else's property - because this is undermining another person's will. - the animals suffering is irrelevant. Also morally wrong to harm an animal BECAUSE it damages your moral character - so may lead to violate duties to others. Again animal is irrelevant,
-
Utilitarianism.
Bentham and animals - happiness = pleasure in absence of pain - so animals are morally important as they can experience pleasure + pain. "full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison as ore rational, as well as more converse animal, than an infant of one day" - but who or what should we consider when calculating consequences? Entities like animals have capacity for pleasure and pain. So they deserve moral concern as this follows principle of utility.
Singer (speciesism and PEC) - father of modern animal liberation movement. PEC = 'treat all humans as equal' - principle of equal consideration. This should extend to all sentient beings because they are capable of suffering and have interests - so deserve moral consideration. Speciesism is discrimination on grounds that a species belongs to another species. Eg. considering cows suffering lesser than a humans suffering like a racist considering a black Childs suffering lesser than a white child. Both irrational claims - we should exploit animals on grounds they are not humans.
this may be too strong comparison - I feel like there's something inherently worse about human on human violence because were social creature - animal testing and animal labour avoids human on human violence.
Consequences of singers position: everyone should accept vegetarian diet/. We should not sacrifice major interest for a minor interest. In mots western or industrialised societies there is no need for eating meat - we can gain protein form other foods or supplements - for most people in these societies the interest of eating meat is the taste - interest of non-humans is avoiding suffering of meat industry and dieing. surely non-humans interests is more dire. animals may be farmed on a small scale ethically + with minimal suffering but this is not economical.