Ethics
Why Be Moral?
The Good Life
What Ultimate Good?
Happiness (most common)
Pleasure
Success
Freedom
Power and Creativity
Religious life of devotion to God
Basic Theories of Ethics
Utilitarianism
Duty-defined ethics
Aristotle‟s virtue ethics
Divine Command Theory
Care Ethics
Two Meta-Ethical Issues:
Before we discuss the
theories
Moral Relativism and Absolutism
Egoism and Altruism
Moral Relativism: There is
no one moral standard that
covers all people at all
times
Cultural Moral Relativism
Individual Moral Relativism
Cultural Moral Relativism
Morality is relative to the beliefs
and values of each culture
Each morality is correct
Follow the morality of your
culture
Problems with Cultural
Moral Relativism
Not every culture can be right
(cultures that promote slavery
are wrong)
No single culture in the US
Moral reformers are impossible
(no abolitionists or Martin L.
King)
Problems with Individual
Moral Relativism
Not everyone can be right
(people who like to steal do
something wrong)
Moral Absolutism (or
Objectivism)
There is one moral standard that
covers all people at all times.
What could be the basis for
the one standard of
morality?
God
Human nature
Human reason
Human sentiments
Egoism and Altruism
Psychological Egoism: People in
fact do only what promotes their
own self-interests
Ethical Egoism: People should
act only to promote their own
self-interests.
Altruism
Psychological Altruism: people in
fact always take into
consideration the interests of
others when they act
Ethical Altruism: People should
always take into consideration
the interests of others when
acting
Ethical Egoism or Ethical
Altruism: Which is correct?
It seems that Ethical Altruism is
the correct view for morality
Could Ethical Egoism be correct?
Classical Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy
Bentham
Happiness is the ultimate good
Happiness is pleasure and the
absence of pain. (hedonism)
Utilitarianism
Mill states, “…the theory of life on
which this theory of morality is
grounded – namely, that pleasure
and freedom from pain are the only
things desirable as ends; that all
desirable things are desirable either
for pleasure inherent in themselves
or as means to the promotion of
pleasure and the prevention of pain.”
Utilitarianism
The utilitarian greatest happiness
principle:
Action A is morally right if and
only if it produces the most
happiness.
Utilitarianism
Mill States, “…the „greatest
happiness principle‟ holds that
actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness;
wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness. By happiness
is intended pleasure and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain and
the privation of pleasure.”
Utilitarian Calculus
The right act is the one that, compared to
all the alternative acts open to the agent,
produces the greatest net amount of
goodness. For each alternative action,
add up the pleasures (benefits) and
subtract the pains (burdens) that would
result as a consequence of performing
each action. The morally right action is the
one that would produce the greatest
amount of happiness for people, taking
into account everyone who would be
affected by the action.
Utilitarianism
Action 1: Mary +25, John +54,
Jim -20, Lynn -2, Pam, +12,
Henry -33
Action 2: Mary +23, John +64,
Jim -19, Lynn -22, Pam, -12,
Henry -36
Action 3: Jill +32, John +3
Utilitarianism
Case: Should we site a uranium
enrichment plant in Homer
Louisiana?
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
An act is always morally wrong
if it causes someone great
unhappiness.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Any action is automatically
morally wrong if it produces
more unhappiness than
happiness; that is, if it has
negative happiness.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
It is possible to have
circumstances in which it is
morally permissible (not wrong)
to torture an innocent baby
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
The effects that our actions will
have on people‟s welfare
millions of years from now are
just as important as their
immediate effects.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Other things being equal, it
would always be wrong for you
to listen to Metallica if the other
three people in the car would
be happier listening to
Madonna.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Suppose that you are
comparing act A with act B. If
act A produces happiness for
many and unhappiness for no
one, then it can never be
wrong to do A rather than B.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
In deciding how to build our
prisons, we should consider the
happiness of the inmates who
will live in them to be just as
important as the happiness of
the taxpayers who will pay for
them.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
If you promised a kid ten bucks
to wash your car and he did as
promised (he washed the car
and did a nice job), you should
always give him the ten bucks.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Using correct treatment for Jones‟
condition, Dr. Smith injects Jones with a
shot of penicillin after asking him whether
he‟s allergic to it. Jones said that he wasn‟t.
But it turns out, unknown to Jones even,
that Jones is severely allergic to penicillin.
Consequently, he dies as result of the
injection. Assuming that had Jones not died
there would be more utility in the world
and that had Dr. Smith not used penicillin
Jones would have lived, it follows that what
Dr. Smith did was morally wrong.
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Mr. Smith has an extra $500 this month
after paying all his bills. He uses that $500
to buy his son a set of encyclopedias to
help with his son‟s schoolwork. But had
Smith instead donated that $500 to
UNICEF, fewer children in the Third World
would have died. Assuming that Smith
would have produced much more
happiness if he had donated the money to
UNICEF, it follows that what Mr. Smith did
was wrong (other things being equal).
Utilitarianism Quiz:
True or False?
Other things being equal, Smith
imposes a great loss of utility on
himself for the sake of saving a
stranger from a comparatively
minor loss of utility. Smith could
have avoided his loss by not
helping the stranger. So what
Smith did was wrong.
Objections to Classical
Utilitarianism
Pleasure Doesn‟t Define the Good
No God
No Time to Calculate
Supererogatory Acts Are Required
Promises
Special Obligations
Praise and Blame
Rights and Justice
Future People
Pleasure Does Not Define
the Ultimate Good
The Experience Machine
Doctrine Worthy of Swine (Pigs)
The Experience Machine
Objection
Does pleasure define the good?
Imagine that you could hook up
to a machine that would keep
you alive and give you an
extremely pleasurable virtual
fantasy life (like in the movie
The Matrix) for the rest of your
life. Would you hook up?
Doctrine Worthy of Swine
Objection
If life has no better end than
pleasure, then utilitarianism is a
doctrine that is undignified for
human beings, since it directs us
to become no better than
pleasure-filled pigs or animals.
(p. 36)
Response to the Doctrine
Worthy of Swine Objection
Response: Man is capable of higher, more
valuable pleasures (e.g., pleasures of the
intellect, of the imagination, and of the
moral sentiments). The quality of
pleasures varies, and some pleasures are
of such high quality that no one would
prefer a much larger amount of a lesser
pleasure. “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to
be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied.” (p. 38) So one must take into
account the quality of the pleasures.
Quality of Pleasure
1. Exercising regularly.
2. Working in a job that pays well.
3. Eating in good restaurants.
4. Owning a big house.
5. Having friends.
6. Helping people in need.
7. Having children.
8. Writing letters or a diary.
9. Watching TV.
10. Being politically active in one's community.
11. Watching movies.
12. Having a lover.
13. Having a good sense of humor.
14. Listening to good music.
No God Objection
Utilitarianism does not recognize
God as the supreme law of morals.
Response: If God desires
happiness for His creatures, then
whatever God reveals about
morality necessarily fulfills
utilitarianism. (p. 41)
Utilitarianism fits the Golden Rule
of Jesus of Nazareth. (p. 39)
No Time to Calculate
It would be impossible to apply
the principle of utility to acts
because it would take too much
time to make the calculations.
We could never decide to do
anything.
Response
It is not necessary to use the principle of utility for
every act. We live with the experiences of the whole
past duration of the human species. We are all
brought up to learn a common morality (secondary
rules). This common morality gives us the correct
moral intuitions to guide us in our everyday lives.
The only time one needs to use the principle of
utility is to correct the common morality or to
resolve conflicts in common morality. Common
morality is sometimes based on unjust social
relations and relations of domination (e.g., slavery
and the subjugation of women).
Supererogatory Acts Are
Required Objection
Supererogatory acts are (1) very
good but (2) go beyond what is
required. These are heroic acts. For
example, imagine a fireman saving a
person when it is much too
dangerous to try. A second example
would be the case of a soldier who
jumps on a grenade to save the lives
of others. Utilitarianism requires
these acts.
Response to
Supererogatory Acts
Objection
Act utilitarianism does not require
people to perform supererogatory
acts because usually people are not
capable of doing them. A person can
have an obligation to perform an act
only if it is the sort of act that people
are usually capable of doing.
Promises Objection
Utilitarianism says that what makes
keeping a promise morally right is
that it produces more happiness than
breaking it. So if breaking a promise
produces more happiness, then one
should break it. But that is incorrect.
What makes keeping a promise
morally right is the fact that we have
promised, not that it produces more
happiness.
Promises Example
Example 1: Let‟s say that you sincerely
promised to pay back $100 to a friend
who loaned it to you. But it turns out that
more happiness would be produced if you
broke your promise and didn‟t return the
money. Imagine that you would be much
better off keeping the $100, and your
friend would hardly miss it because a
family crisis has made him forget that he
loaned you the money, and he is not poor.
Utilitarianism implies that you should
break your promise. Is this right? What
would you do?
Promises Example
Example 2: An elderly woman is living alone and is
dying, and you are at her bedside. She draws your
attention to a small case under her bed. She asks
you to take the case and to promise to deliver its
contents after she dies to her nephew living in
another state. Moved by your affection for her, you
promise to do as she asks. After a tearful good-bye,
you take the case and leave. A few weeks later the
old woman dies, and when you open her case you
discover that it contains $50,000. No one else knows
about the money or the promise that you made. Now
suppose further that the nephew is a compulsive
gambler and heavy drinker and that you know --
that if you were to give him the $50,000 as promised
-- he would rapidly squander the money. What would
a utilitarian do in this situation? What would you do?
What is morally required?
Special Obligations Objection
Utilitarianism also has problems incorporating our
special obligations as professionals, parents, siblings,
or relatives into our moral thinking.
Suppose you are the parent of a beautiful 3-year-old
son. You are cruising the Atlantic on an expensive
cruise ship. Disaster strikes. The ship sinks. You
somehow manage to get on a life-boat with a motor.
All around you, people are drowning and crying for
help. You see your son 100 yards away. He is
frantically trying to stay afloat. In order to save your
son you must immediately drive the lifeboat to him.
However, just as you are about to do that, you see
that three children are about to drown 20 yards away
in the opposite direction. What would utilitarianism
require you to do? What do you think is the morally
right thing to do?
Praise and Blame Objection
Example 1: Imagine Joe is a doctor and has an
emergency patient with a heart problem. Joe does a
quick diagnosis and correctly determines that the
patient has heart condition P. Joe quickly decides
that the best alternative is to give the patient
medicine M, which is the standard treatment. But
unknown to Joe and medical knowledge, the patient
is a person who will react very badly to medicine M.
It turns out that the patient dies because of the
medicine. The patient would not have died had Joe
not prescribed medicine M. What are we to say
about Joe‟s decision? Utilitarianism seems to say
that Joe did what was morally wrong because Joe‟s
action did not produce the best consequences. But it
does not seem that we can blame Joe for what he
did. In fact, we might praise him.
Praise and Blame Objection
Example 2: Imagine that if Hitler‟s nurse
had killed him in the crib, the world would
have been much better off than it would
have been had she not killed him.
Suppose that she had killed Hitler in his
crib. Would she have done the morally
right act? Utilitarianism seems to say yes
because she would have produced the
most good. But we would have blamed her
for killing the child.
Rights and Justice Objections
Rights-based objections: Let‟s say that there
are three people in a hospital. They are going
to die (within six months to a year). We
cannot save two of them, but we can save the
third person (i.e., he will live another 50
years) if we kill the other two and harvest
their organs right now. There are no other
options to save the third person.
Utilitarianism says that we should kill the
other two people to save the one person. But
it is wrong to violate innocent people‟s right
to life.
Rights and Justice Objections
Just Punishment: Utilitarianism says
that we should punish someone for
wrongdoing only if this would produce
more happiness in the world than
doing something else. So if letting a
criminal go unpunished would produce
more happiness, then this is what
should be done. But this is incorrect. A
person simply deserves punishment
for the wrong they have done, and the
consequences of punishment are
irrelevant or have secondary
importance.
Response to Punishment
Objection
Punishment will always result in
more happiness because it
rehabilitates the criminal, it
deters others from committing
crime, and it satisfies the victim,
those who know the victim, and
those who want revenge for the
criminal act.
Rights and Justice Objections
Unjust distribution: Utilitarianism implies that an unjust
distribution of benefits and burdens is morally right if it
produces the most happiness. Imagine that we have a choice
between two taxation schemes for a society made up of equal
numbers of men and women who all work:
(a) Tax everyone equally at 10%.
(b) Don‟t tax the men, and tax the women at 20%.
Imagine that these two schemes produce the same revenue,
and equal amounts of happiness result. Other things being the
same, utilitarianism says that there is no moral difference
between (a) and (b). But there is a moral difference because it
violates justice, equal treatment, to tax the women at a greater
rate simply because they are women.
Future People Objection
It is unreasonable to take into
equal consideration the effects of
our actions on people who do not
exist but will live in the distant
future.
Response to Future People
Objection
There is no reason to discount
the interests of future people
just because they are distant
from us in time. But if we
wanted to, we could use a
discount rate and count them for
less when we do the utilitarian
calculation.
DUTY-DEFINED MORALITY
IMMANUEL KANT
(1724-1804)
Duty-Defined Morality:
Ideas
It‟s a “Deontological” Theory
Respect Autonomy
Use Human Reason
Have a Good Will
Good Intentions Make Good Wills
Universalize Your Intentions
The Categorical Imperative
Deontological
Kant‟s theory is called a
deontological theory (as opposed
to a teleological theory like
Utilitarianism) because what is
important is acting for the sake
of duty alone, not for the sake of
producing good consequences.
Autonomy
Kant begins with a liberating vision of the
individual. Each person is a self that is free
of any external power or authority. Each
person comes into the world
unencumbered, with no attachments,
obligations, commitments, or moral ties that
one does not choose to have. The authority
for moral principles is internal to each
person. Every person has the authority to
make moral law. Each person is a self-
originating source of valid moral claims.
(Influenced by Rousseau (1712-1778))
Human Reason
Reason is the internal authority that
allows each one of us to determine what is
right and wrong independently of any
external authority. Reason gives us
necessary laws and duties that apply to
everyone universally. As we will see, the
authority of reason is what makes one‟s
will good, and having a good will is what
makes one morally good. Emotions and
feelings are morally irrelevant.
Have a Good Will
To be morally good, one must act with a good will.
What makes an act morally right or wrong is whether
one performs the act with a good will. The only thing
that is always good (without qualification) is a good
will. Contrary to Utilitarianism, Kant‟s maintains that
happiness is not the ultimate value to attain.
Happiness is not necessarily connected to moral
goodness. A happy person may be a morally corrupt
person. Also, what are usually taken to be good
qualities, like courage, intelligence, beauty, success,
and wealth may all be used for bad purposes.
(Contrary to Kant, Plato and others have argued that
a morally corrupt person can never be a happy
person. Socrates and the Gyges Ring example: an
unjust person cannot be a happy person because
doing what is unjust corrupts one‟s soul.)
Good Intentions
Good Intentions (Good Motives)
Make Our Wills Good. What makes us
moral is not what we accomplish,
because we may fail no matter how
hard we try, but the fact that we
intend to do good. All of our
(deliberative) actions are connected
to motives. If the motives behind our
actions are morally good, then our
will is good.
Universalize Your Motives
What makes a motive morally good is central to
Kant‟s theory. To explain this, Kant first considers
what makes a moral law or moral principle moral.
First, it must be rational. He thinks that the test of a
moral principle‟s rationality is its capacity to be
universalized, or generalized, for everyone,
everywhere, regardless of the particular
circumstances and interests of individuals or
different societies. Likewise, a morally good motive
is one that can be universalized, or generalized, for
everyone, everywhere, regardless of the particular
circumstances and interests of individuals or
different societies. In other words, if a motive is a
good motive, then acting on this motive must be
capable of becoming a universal principle or law for
all people equally.
The Categorical Imperative
Act for the Sake of Duty – For the Sake of the
Moral Law. The categorical imperative tells you to
act only on those motives that can be
universalized, those motives that you can will to
be a universal law that applies to everyone
equally. The Categorical Imperative is the
ultimate principle that we would want to issue to
everyone and tell them to follow it at all times.
Categorical Imperative: Act only
according to that maxim
(motive) whereby you can at the
same time will that it should
become a universal law.
Categorical Imperative:
Other Versions
1. Act as if the maxim of your
action were to become by your
will a universal law of nature.
2. Always act so as to treat
humanity, whether in yourself or
in others, as an end in itself,
never merely as a means.
3. Always act as if to bring about,
and as a member of, a Kingdom
of Ends [that is, an ideal
community in which everyone is
always moral].
What Is a Maxim?
A maxim is a generalized formulation
(or a rule) of a motive. Every action
has an implicit maxim like the
following:
I should never do anything that hurts
other people‟s feelings if I can avoid
it.
I should always be loyal to my
friends.
I should never act in a way that
makes my parents ashamed of me.
I should always tell the truth.
Determine the Maxim
Behind Your Action
Example: You see a man who
seems to need urgent medical
help of some sort. You
immediately seek help by using
his cell phone to call 911.
Possible Maxim: Whenever I see
someone needing urgent medical
help, I should seek or offer
immediate help for that person.
Practice: State the Maxim
Sally is a juror at a criminal trial.
She thinks that the defendant is
innocent. She votes for the
defendant‟s innocence. Possible
Maxim?
Practice: State the Maxim
Molly‟s teenage son is very sick.
She stays home from work and
takes care of him. Possible
Maxim?
Practice: State the Maxim
A police car is trying to pull Bill
over. Bill pulls off on the side of
the road and stops. Possible
Maxim?
Practice: State the Maxim
Jack thinks that he might have
skin cancer. He goes to a
dermatologist to have it checked
out. Possible Maxim?
The Categorical Imperative
Test
You must be able to universalize the
maxim (motive, intention) of your action.
You must be able to will that everyone in
every relevant situation should have this
motive. If you can think of a situation in
which you cannot accept everyone having
this motive, then the motive cannot be
universalized, and you have to reject it.
Put another way, if you cannot will a
motive to be a universal law without
contradicting yourself, then the motive
cannot be universalized.
The Test: Can you
Universalize you Motive?
For every motive that you have, first try to
imagine that everyone would have that
motive. If you can‟t accept that, then you
cannot universalize the maxim (motive) of
your action. Second, try to imagine a
possible situation in which one person (or
a few people) has that motive but you
wish that this person (or these people) did
not have that motive. If you cannot think
of a possible situation in which you reject
the motive, then you can will that this
motive should become a universal law. It
passes the test. You can act for the sake of
duty.
Kant’s 4 Famous Cases
Lying Promises
Suicide
Helping Others
Neglecting Your Talents
Kant’s Case of Making a
Lying Promise
Let‟s see if we can universalize the liar‟s
maxim: When you can gain by it, lie
about making a promise. Suppose that
you believe that you follow the rule (or
maxim) that you should lie about making
a promise whenever you can gain by
doing it. Kant asks if this maxim can be
universalized. To universalize it, imagine
that everyone follows this maxim.
Can’t Make a Lying Promise
Kant would say that you cannot
universalize this maxim because it
results in a contradiction. The maxim
undermines itself when universalized. To
see this, consider that lies only work if
people think that you are telling the truth.
But if everyone followed the maxim, then
no one would trust anyone. No one would
believe what anyone would say. So the
practice of lying about making a
promise whenever you can get away
with it would never work if everyone
did it.
Suicide Case
Kant‟s Case of Suicide. Let‟s see if we can
universalize the suicide maxim: One
should commit suicide when it would
be better for you not to be alive.
Suppose that you are ravaged with cancer
and are in extreme pain constantly. You
can no longer walk, feed yourself, or talk.
You decide that it would be better if you
were to end our life. Can your maxim be
universalized?
Neglecting Your Talents
A third finds in himself a talent whose cultivation would make him
a useful man for all sorts of purposes. But he sees himself in
comfortable circumstances, and he prefers to give himself up to
pleasure rather than to bother about in-creasing and improving
his fortunate natural aptitudes. Yet he asks himself fur-ther `Does
my maxim of neglecting my natural gifts, besides agreeing in
itself with my tendency to indulgence, agree also with what is
called duty?' He then sees that a system of nature could indeed
always subsist under such a universal law, although (like the
South Sea Islanders) every man should let his talents rust and
should be bent on devoting his life solely to idleness, indulgence,
procre-ation, and, in a word, to enjoyment. Only he cannot
possibly will that this should become a universal law of nature or
should be implanted in us as such a law by a natural instinct. For
as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his powers should
be developed, since they serve him, and are given him, for all
sorts of possible ends.
Not Helping Others
Yet a fourth is himself flourishing; but he sees others who
have to struggle with great hardships (and whom he could
easily help); and he thinks `What does it matter to me? Let
everyone be as happy as Heaven wills or as he can make
himself; I won't deprive him of anything; I won't even envy
him; only I have no wish to contribute anything to his well-
being or to his support in dis-tress!' Now admittedly if such
an attitude were a universal law of nature, man-kind could
get on perfectly well…. But although it is possible that a
universal law of nature could subsist in harmony with this
maxim, yet it is impossible to will that such a principle
should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will which
decided in this way would be in conflict with itself, since
many a situation might arise in which the man needed love
and sympathy from others, and in which, by such a law of
nature sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all
hope of the help he wants for himself....
Examples to Discuss
(1) Suppose that you are Edmund Ross, a member
of the Radical Republicans who would like to see
Andrew Johnson (Lincoln‟s successor) impeached
and removed from office. You must cast the
deciding vote in the senate. You are under great
pressure to vote to remove Johnson from office.
There have been threats on your life. You know
that if you do not vote to remove Johnson, your
political career will be destroyed. Plus you dislike
Johnson and his policies. But you took an oath “to
do impartial justice.” When you look at the matter
impartially, you see that Johnson does not deserve
to be removed from office. What do you do and
why?
Examples to discuss
(2) Imagine that you are a grocer in
a town and are dealing with some
very inexperienced customers. If you
choose to do so, you can cheat these
customers out of some money. What
would you do, and what would be
your reason for doing what you do?
Examples to Discuss
(3) Imagine that you want to
help some poor, hungry
individual. You feel compassion
for this person and you act from
this feeling of compassion.
Would Kant say that you are
acting morally?
Problems for Kant’s Ethical
Theory
(1) It seems implausible to hold
that consequences are never
relevant for deciding the moral
worth of an action. Is it always
our duty to tell the truth, as Kant
would insist – no matter what
the consequences?
Problems with Kant
(2) Duties may conflict, and Kant
does not offer any way to
resolve conflicts. I may have a
duty to tell the truth and to
protect innocent people from
unjust harm. But I may have to
lie to protect an innocent person.
Problems with Kant
(3) How can I ever know the
correct maxim of my action?
What is the true motive of my
action? Is it always easy to tell?
Problems with Kant
(4) Kant‟s Categorical Imperative is just a
formal criterion telling one when a maxim
cannot be universalized. But it does not
say anything about the content of our
moral principles. All kinds of silly
principles (and maybe even immoral ones)
could pass the Categorical Imperative
test. For instance, what about the
principle that everyone should tie their left
shoe first? Can‟t that be universalized
without contradiction?
Perry Case of the Manic
Patient
See text
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Good Character: With virtue ethics
we move from a concern with good
actions to a concern with good
character. We do not ask “What
should I do” but rather “What kind of
person should I be?” The virtue
theorist says that we should be good
people and have morally good
characters.
Virtue Ethics
Forms or Essences in Things: Unlike
Plato, Aristotle thought that the forms of
things existed in the particular concrete
things of the world. A particular table has
its form in its matter. Forms cannot exist
independently of matter. It would no
longer be a house. Aristotle would say
that the form of a person is the soul of
that person. If a person‟s body loses its
soul, then the body is no longer a person.
The form of a thing is also called its
essence or its essential nature.
Virtue Ethics
The Form or Essential Nature of a
Thing Determines Its Proper Purpose
or Function: If you build a house, you
want the house to have the proper form, a
form that will make the house function
properly as a house – to provide shelter,
etc. The form of an oak tree determines
an oak tree‟s proper function or purpose
as an oak tree. The soul, being the form
or essential nature of a person,
determines the proper function or purpose
of a human being – to be rational.
Virtue Ethics
Essences Are Built-In Goals or Ends to Be
Actualized: The form of the oak tree exists
potentially in the acorn. The form of an oak tree
is a built-in goal or end that the sapling slowly
actualizes as it grows up. The sapling grows into
an oak tree and realizes its essential nature, its
natural end. Likewise, the essential form of a
human being, the properly functioning human
soul, exists potentially in the embryo. This
essence is a built-in goal or end that is slowly
actualized as the embryo develops into a human
adult. The embryo grows into a human being and
its guiding essential nature is slowly actualized.
But unlike an oak tree, a human being does not
automatically actualize its essential nature.
Virtue Ethics
Humans Are Essentially Rational
Animals: The essential nature of a person
is realized when the person‟s soul
functions properly. Essentially, human
beings are rational beings. A properly
functioning soul is a rational soul. A
properly functioning human being is
rational. The soul has a rational part
(reason) and an irrational part (desires
and appetites). The human soul realizes
its proper essential nature when the
rational part of the soul governs the
irrational part.
Virtue Ethics
Happiness as Human Flourishing:
The ultimate end of all human
activity is happiness understood as
human flourishing, or as being a
successful and entirely full human
being. Human flourishing occurs
when a person realizes his or her
essential nature as a rational being.
Virtue Ethics
Virtuous Action Follows a Rational
Principle: When you actualize your
essential nature as a rational human
being, you become a virtuous person, a
good person who behaves with the right
character. You have a soul that actualizes
conduct in accordance with reason.
Virtuous action is an activity of the
soul that follows a rational principle.
You then attain happiness. So Aristotle
says that happiness is rational activity
of the soul in accordance with virtue.
Virtue Ethics
Become a Good (Virtuous) Person by
Realizing Your Essential Nature: One
must strive to be an excellent example of
a human being by fulfilling or realizing
one‟s function or essence as a human
being. This takes work. People are not
born good people. It is like being a good
piano player. You have to practice to
become a good piano player. Likewise,
one has to practice hard to be a good
human being, to be able to play your
nature well.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue as Habit: To be a good
person requires practice (at first) so
that one acquires the habit of being
a good person. One has to practice
virtuous action to become virtuous.
When the habit becomes second
nature, then you truly come to have
virtuous character. Virtue is a good
state of the soul acquired through
habit.
Virtue Ethics
No Rules or Ultimate Standards:
Virtuous action is an activity of the
soul that follows a rational principle.
But there is no one ultimate
standard. One has to learn to be
virtuous through practice and
observation of role models or people
who are virtuous. Each situation is
different and requires a new principle
of action, so you just have to acquire
what is called “practical wisdom.”
Virtue Ethics
Name some role models (in your
life or in history) and state their
virtues or good character
attributes.
Virtue Ethics
Practical Wisdom: You have
practical wisdom when you know
the mean between two extremes
in particular situations. You have
the smarts to make the right
decision and avoid improper
excesses.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Is a Disposition
Toward a Mean: a moral virtue
is a MEAN between two
extremes, two vices (one in
excess, one in deficiency)
Virtue Ethics
Excess Virtue Deficiency
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Self-indulgence Temperance Insensitivity
Boastfulness Truthfulness Self-depreciation
Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
Obsequiousness Friendliness grouchiness
Vanity Pride Small mindedness
Short tempered Good temper Apathy
Bashfulness Shame Shamelessness
Vulgarity Magnificence Stinginess
Extravagance Liberality Stinginess
Envy Justice Spite
Virtue Ethics
Life of Contemplation –
Aristotle claimed that the life of
contemplation and
theoretical wisdom is the
greatest of human virtues and
the highest form of happiness.
Virtue Ethics
Aim of the State is Virtue: The aim of
happiness always includes the well being
of the entire community. The state aims to
form virtuous citizens, good men and
women, and communities. A state does
not exist for the sake of mere alliance and
security from injustice, or just for the sake
of exchange and mutual intercourse. This
is not sufficient to make a state. A state is
a community of families and villages in
well-being, for the sake of a perfect and
self-sufficing life, a happy and honorable
life brought together through friendship,
brotherhoods, common sacrifices, family
connections, etc.
Divine Command Theory
DCT Theory
Religion and Morality: For those who think
that God is the creator of the laws of
nature and the rules of morality, the
divine command theory is a natural choice
for explaining moral rightness and
wrongness.
The Principle: An action is morally right if
the action is in accordance with God‟s
commands (and morally wrong if it is in
conflict with God‟s commands).
Advantages to DCT
Universal Moral Rules: The
Divine Command Theory
explains how there can be
universal (applies to everyone)
moral rules. What God
commands applies to everyone.
Advantages of DCT
Objective Moral rules: God‟s
commands do not depend on
what any person thinks is right
or wrong. Stealing is wrong
whether you think it is or not
because God has commanded
that stealing is wrong.
Advantages of DCT
Motivation to be Moral: God is an
all-knowing enforcer of His moral
rules. There is no way to avoid
getting what you deserve. So
you better obey God‟s
commands.
Advantages of DCT
Sense of Security: traditional
religions have many statements
of God‟s commands, and this
makes it easier for us to know
what is morally required of us.
Problems with DCT
Many Religions Problem: Different
religions give us different commands.
What are God‟s commands? Jews
and Muslims do not eat pork, but
Christians do. Muslims believe that
God requires us to pray five times a
day. Hindus believe that the cow is
sacred.
Problems with DCT
Interpretation Problem: We can
interpret God‟s commands in
different ways. God commands us
not to kill, but does this mean that
killing is always wrong? How can we
know how to interpret God‟s
commands? If we interpret God‟s
commands on our own, we have to
use our own sense of what is right
and wrong. But then God‟s
commands do not explain all of our
moral knowledge.
Problems with DCT
Arbitrariness Problem: God‟s
commands cannot be arbitrary. God
cannot command whatever strikes
His fancy, as if He could make rape
morally right just by commanding it.
There must be a reason that God
commands certain things and not
other things. So the mere fact that
God commands something is NOT
enough to explain what makes it
morally right.
Problems with DCT
Morality is Autonomous: Reasons for
acting one way rather than another may
be known independently of God‟s will.
Rightness and wrongness is not based
simply on God‟s will, but God commands
what he knows is right (before he
commands it). We act morally for the
same reasons that God commands what
He commands. If there were no
commands from God, that wouldn‟t
change the fact that rape and stealing are
wrong.
Care Ethics
Carol Gilligan
In her 1982 book, In a Different Voice,
Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan
argued that women tend to follow a
different path of moral development
than do men. Rather than thinking
through moral dilemmas in terms of
justice, rights, or utility she claimed
that women are inclined to utilize an
orientation of care, which emphasizes
the importance of maintaining
relationships and tending to the needs
of others.
Care Ethics
While care ethics has primarily been
discussed in the fields of psychology,
philosophy and feminist theory, in
more recent years it has become a
topic in medical ethics as well
(primarily in the area of nursing
ethics), by those who seek an
alternative to the deontological and
utilitarian approaches to medical
ethics that still dominate the field.
Care Ethics
Although the attempt to develop a
care ethics approach to medical
ethics is still in its infancy, care
ethics‟ emphasis on care,
relationships, and tending to needs,
concerns shared by medical
practitioners, suggests that it has a
contribution to make to medical
practice.
Care Ethics
Care ethics portrays the moral agent
as a self who is embedded in webs of
relations with others. These relations
shape the care agent‟s self-
conception -- she defines herself in
terms of the relationships in which
she is engaged. They also shape her
perception of the world, serving as a
lens through which she sees and
understands the events of her life.
Care Ethics
This relationship focus gives rise to
the moral orientation of care. The
care agent strives to be the kind of
person who fosters caring relations
by the way in which she encounters
and interacts with others. She tries
to realize the fundamental moral
commitments of care--avoid harm,
respond to need or vulnerability, and
maintain caring relations -- in her
exchanges with other persons.
Care Ethics
The care agent approaches
others with a caring attitude.
That is, she exhibits both a
willingness to engage in relation
and an interest in and concern
with the good and well-being of
those with whom she already is
in relation.
Care Ethics
This interest and concern is
manifested through
attentiveness to the other‟s
particular needs and unique life
circumstances and through the
expression of compassion when
faced with great need or
vulnerability on the part of the
other.
Care Ethics
While caring acts can be carried
out in the absence of a caring
attitude, the value of such acts
are enhanced when accompanied
by this attitude.
Care Ethics
For example, when a nurse not only
makes a patient more comfortable
but does this out of concern for the
patient‟s well-being, the act of
tending to the patient takes on
additional value. It addresses not
only the patient‟s physical needs but
also her emotional need to feel cared
for as a unique human being.
Care Ethics
Care thinking is generally described
as narrative, contextual, and
particularistic. It contends that the
right thing to do in these particular
circumstances given this particular
constellation of individuals and
relationships need not be the right
thing to do in all apparently similar
cases.
Care Ethics
Care ethics embraces partiality
as a moral good, maintaining
that our responsibilities are (and
should be) stronger towards
those to whom we feel ourselves
to be "closer," with our strongest
responsibilities obtaining towards
those who are both "closer" and
more vulnerable.
Care Ethics
Care ethics emphasizes the
importance of communication as a
means to realize its fundamental
moral commitments. Communication
is valued because it is through the
sharing of experiences that caring
relations are initiated and mutual
trust, the bedrock of stable caring
relations, is established.
Care Ethics
Communication also allows the care
agent to become better informed
about the other‟s needs, thereby
increasing the likelihood that she will
engage in appropriate caring. Finally,
communication is important for more
pragmatic reasons: it can be an
effective means to defuse possible
crises or to reach creative,
compromise solutions to apparent
moral dilemmas.
Care Ethics
Caring acts are those acts that
aim to realize the moral
commitments of care: avoiding
harm, responding to need or
vulnerability, promoting
communication, and maintaining
caring relations.
Care Ethics
The moral commitments of care ethics
expand the aims of medical practice.
Modern medicine has tended to construe
the injunction "respond to need and
vulnerability" narrowly, hearing it as a call
to find the proper cure for disease. Care
ethics understands this injunction as a
broader moral requirement that health
care practitioners should address both the
physiological and the psychosocial needs
and vulnerabilities brought about by
illness.
Care Ethics
Medical practitioners should care
for (and about) their patients as
well as try to cure them. This
care is conveyed through the
health care practitioner‟s
attitude, partiality, willingness to
communicate with her patients,
and through the performance of
caring acts.
Care Ethics
Care ethics would also expand the
aims of medicine such that they
included the commitment to
"maintain relation." Care ethics
would have us view the patient, not
as a solitary individual seeking
medical care, but as a self embedded
and engaged in webs of relations
with others and whose health and
well-being (to varying degrees) is
dependent on the proper functioning
of these relations.
Care Ethics
The health and well-being of an
elderly woman, for example,
may depend on the ability and
willingness of her children to do
her shopping and cooking, take
her to dialysis four times a week,
and provide her with emotional
support.
Care Ethics
Care ethics‟ relationship focus, then,
highlights the fact that the health
care practitioner has at least an
indirect investment in, and perhaps
an indirect moral responsibility, to
ensure that the patient‟s caring
relations work well and are able to
provide the patient with the kinds of
emotional and other sustenance he
or she may need.
Friedman: Prescribing
Viagra
Friedman says that societal
expectations about impotence are
unrealistic. Most urologists seem to
assume that men are good lovers,
women want sex, and the goal in
treating impotence is to restore
erections. Also, what does society
teach boys? (See top p. 67) Is she
correct about male socialization?
Friedman: Viagra
Friedman claims that most couples have
unspoken, unresolved discrepancies in
sexual desires and expectations resulting
from male and female socialization and life
experience. (67) Many women do not fully
enjoy sexual activity, and men are not
automatically good lovers. Many women are
secretly thrilled when their husbands
become impotent. What women generally do
want is communication, affection expressed
as kissing, holding, and hugging, and being
treated with respect. Is Freidman correct?
Friedman: Viagra
Friedman takes a care approach
to treatment. (Read the first full
paragraph on page 68.)
Friedman: Viagra
In addition, Friedman says that part
of her responsibility as a physician
treating impotence is to explore and
improve the relationship of the two
partners and to improve a man‟s
relationship with himself. She
suggests that she would also like to
help men stop using their partners as
means to their own ends. (What
does she mean by that?) Do you
think Friedman‟s care approach here
is appropriate for a physician?
Friedman: Viagra
Friedman states that Viagra is dangerous
for men who take nitroglycerin-type
medications. She thinks that Viagra is still
on the market only because it meets the
utilitarian cry for a drug that enhances
sexual pleasure and sexual self-esteem.
She also believes that the 30%-50% of
men who are not improved by Viagra have
been left out in the cold, so to speak. She
suggests that urologists depend too much
on Viagra and have lost touch with
alternatives.
Friedman: Viagra
Friedman prescribed Viagra to a
man who had trouble having sex
at night after a meal and wine.
Would you prescribe it? Who are
you to judge that he should not
receive a drug that could
enhance his pleasure?
Friedman: Viagra
Should insurance companies
cover Viagra? Insurance
companies typically do not pay
for treatment deemed not
medically necessary.
Friedman: Viagra
Medicaid patients can get Viagra,
which costs $840 a year. Many
poor people have no Medicaid
coverage at all. Is that fair?
Freidman is angered by that.
Friedman: Viagra
Friedman concludes by saying that
impotence is not simply a mechanical
problem but a crisis deeply affecting both
partners. She thinks that physicians
treating impotence should base treatment
on maximally improving the patient‟s
relationship with himself and his partner
while minimizing the emotional, not just
physical, harm done. She thinks that with
better knowledge and more realistic
expectations, society can make better
decisions about allocation of taxpayer and
insurance resources.