3.2 Moral philosophy
Key:
Topics
Sections
Subsections
Quotation
Philosopher
Examples
Normative ethical theories
Comparing the Utilitarian Kantian ethics Virtue ethics
three main ethics
approaches
Centred on… Act Act Agent
Universalises Yes (rule) Yes No
Reason or feelings? Feelings Reason Equal
Considers Yes No Yes
consequences
Considers motives No Yes Yes
Considers self or Others Others Self
others?
Utilitarianism
Bentham: hedonistic utilitarianism
Ultimate goal of all actions: gaining pleasure/avoiding pain
Action has utility if helps achieve this goal
Quotation: ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two
sovereign masters: pain and pleasure’ – Bentham; ‘Principles’
Act utilitarianism (+ Bentham) – a consequentialist moral theory
Moral value of acts calculated by considering its consequences
An action is good if it brings more pleasure than pain
Example: theft
Thief gains phone – short term pleasure
Victim suffers – long term pain
Victim’s family/friends distressed – suffering
Therefore: bad act
Bentham’s utility calculus (somewhat hypothetical)
- Considers aspects of pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness,
fecundity, purity, extent
Criticisms
- Long-term consequences are unknown
- Takes too long to decide moral worth
,- Theory leads to counter-intuitive thoughts (Example: killing and
harvesting organs from innocent person to save five)
So…
Rule utilitarianism (+ Mill)
Follow secondary principles
Act is good if it follows suitable rule
Rule is good if it will increase happiness
Criticisms (Smart)
- Falls into act utilitarianism
- Basic rules are vague and have legitimate exceptions (Example: lying to
axe-murder to save your parents)
Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism
Higher and lower pleasures
Pleasures of the mind > physical pleasures
- Likely to last longer so give more pleasure
Quantitative approach unnecessary
Quotation: ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’ – Mill;
‘Utilitarianism’
Only those who can appreciate both types are competent judges
Criticisms
- Loses simplicity
- Cultural elitism
Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle
1. Only evidence that something is desirable is that is it desired (same
as only evidence something is visible is if it can be seen)
2. Each person desires their own happiness
3. Therefore, each person’s happiness is desirable
4. The general happiness is desirable
5. Each person’s happiness is a good to that person
6. The general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons
7. Happiness is the only good
Criticism: equivocation of ‘desirable’ – ‘able to be desired’ or ‘that which
ought to be desired’?
- Mill’s defence: theory is not an attempt to deduce that happiness is
worthy of desire
Criticism: fallacy of the composition
- While (2) may be correct, to conclude from (2) that (3) does not follow
- Example: each person wants to win the lottery, but this does not mean
each person wants everyone to win the lottery)
,Criticism: mystical being
- Aggregate of peoples not a thing with desires
- Mill’s defence: not suggesting general aggregate desires general good,
but if we each desire happiness, impartially, overall happiness is the good
Preference utilitarianism (non-hedonistic)
A good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of
all those involved
Preference is easier to find out
Criticisms
- Bad preferences (example: David becoming psychotic and desiring to
punch strangers)
Preference utilitarians try to imagine and ideal viewpoint position
- Weighing up preferences
Issues with utilitarianism
Is pleasure the only good?
Nozick’s pleasure machine: humans seek things outside our heads, we
seek things in the real world, not sensations
Fairness and individual liberties/rights
Ideals such as liberty, honour, and justice have value as ends in
themselves
Morally primitive and do nor derive their moral worth from ability to
maximise happiness
Example: rich family kidnapping oy from poor country – wrong because
denies the boy his liberty
Mill on liberty: the risk of the tyranny of the majority
Problems with calculating utility
Question: should we aim for average or total happiness?
Distribution of happiness
- Everyone’s happiness counts equally; we all count for one
- Most actions only affect some people
Do consequences end?
- If moral worth an action is based on its consequences, constant revision
and no final moral value can be assigned (example: saving a drowning
boy who goes on to become a dictator responsible for the death of
millions)
Whose happiness?
Singer argues animals’ interests should be considered as they are also
sentient
1. If only humans have moral status, there must be some special
quality that all humans share
, 2. All human-specific possibilities for such a quality will be a quality
that some humans lack (example: intelligence)
3. The only possible candidates will be qualities that other animals
have too
4. Therefore, we cannot argue that only human being deserve moral
status
Criticisms (Diamond)
- If sentience were the only factor, eating dead humans or amputated
limbs would be morally fine
- Embrace complexity of existing moral views
Issues around partiality
Example: in a burning building you can save your son or a brilliant
scientist working on the cure for cancer
- Act utilitarianism: saving scientist maximises general happiness,
therefore right thing to do; saving your son would be understandable, but
morally wrong
Moral obligation/duty to be partial in some circumstances
Therefore, act utilitarianism counter-intuitive
- Rule utilitarianism: rule of looking after family is good, therefore saving
son is right thing to do
- Requiring everyone to be perfectly impartial would lower general
happiness
- Rule of partiality is, therefore, a good one
How impartial should governments be?
- Rule utilitarianism: it is good for each country to look after its population
- Should all people’s happiness be treated equally?
Moral integrity and intentions of the individual (+ Williams)
Utilitarianism requires us to do things that challenge our sense of
personal/moral integrity
1. Personal integrity requires there are things that you would not do
(X)
2. Using utilitarian framework, a scenario can always be created
whereby X is the right things to do
3. Therefore, utilitarianism undermines our personal integrity
Defence: our sense of moral/personal integrity is culturally acquired
Intentions – ignoring these is counter-intuitive
Kantian deontological ethics
Good will
Only pure good in the world; source of all moral value
A good will is one which acts for the sake of duty
Motive (not consequence) is key in assigning moral worth
Key:
Topics
Sections
Subsections
Quotation
Philosopher
Examples
Normative ethical theories
Comparing the Utilitarian Kantian ethics Virtue ethics
three main ethics
approaches
Centred on… Act Act Agent
Universalises Yes (rule) Yes No
Reason or feelings? Feelings Reason Equal
Considers Yes No Yes
consequences
Considers motives No Yes Yes
Considers self or Others Others Self
others?
Utilitarianism
Bentham: hedonistic utilitarianism
Ultimate goal of all actions: gaining pleasure/avoiding pain
Action has utility if helps achieve this goal
Quotation: ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two
sovereign masters: pain and pleasure’ – Bentham; ‘Principles’
Act utilitarianism (+ Bentham) – a consequentialist moral theory
Moral value of acts calculated by considering its consequences
An action is good if it brings more pleasure than pain
Example: theft
Thief gains phone – short term pleasure
Victim suffers – long term pain
Victim’s family/friends distressed – suffering
Therefore: bad act
Bentham’s utility calculus (somewhat hypothetical)
- Considers aspects of pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness,
fecundity, purity, extent
Criticisms
- Long-term consequences are unknown
- Takes too long to decide moral worth
,- Theory leads to counter-intuitive thoughts (Example: killing and
harvesting organs from innocent person to save five)
So…
Rule utilitarianism (+ Mill)
Follow secondary principles
Act is good if it follows suitable rule
Rule is good if it will increase happiness
Criticisms (Smart)
- Falls into act utilitarianism
- Basic rules are vague and have legitimate exceptions (Example: lying to
axe-murder to save your parents)
Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism
Higher and lower pleasures
Pleasures of the mind > physical pleasures
- Likely to last longer so give more pleasure
Quantitative approach unnecessary
Quotation: ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’ – Mill;
‘Utilitarianism’
Only those who can appreciate both types are competent judges
Criticisms
- Loses simplicity
- Cultural elitism
Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle
1. Only evidence that something is desirable is that is it desired (same
as only evidence something is visible is if it can be seen)
2. Each person desires their own happiness
3. Therefore, each person’s happiness is desirable
4. The general happiness is desirable
5. Each person’s happiness is a good to that person
6. The general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons
7. Happiness is the only good
Criticism: equivocation of ‘desirable’ – ‘able to be desired’ or ‘that which
ought to be desired’?
- Mill’s defence: theory is not an attempt to deduce that happiness is
worthy of desire
Criticism: fallacy of the composition
- While (2) may be correct, to conclude from (2) that (3) does not follow
- Example: each person wants to win the lottery, but this does not mean
each person wants everyone to win the lottery)
,Criticism: mystical being
- Aggregate of peoples not a thing with desires
- Mill’s defence: not suggesting general aggregate desires general good,
but if we each desire happiness, impartially, overall happiness is the good
Preference utilitarianism (non-hedonistic)
A good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of
all those involved
Preference is easier to find out
Criticisms
- Bad preferences (example: David becoming psychotic and desiring to
punch strangers)
Preference utilitarians try to imagine and ideal viewpoint position
- Weighing up preferences
Issues with utilitarianism
Is pleasure the only good?
Nozick’s pleasure machine: humans seek things outside our heads, we
seek things in the real world, not sensations
Fairness and individual liberties/rights
Ideals such as liberty, honour, and justice have value as ends in
themselves
Morally primitive and do nor derive their moral worth from ability to
maximise happiness
Example: rich family kidnapping oy from poor country – wrong because
denies the boy his liberty
Mill on liberty: the risk of the tyranny of the majority
Problems with calculating utility
Question: should we aim for average or total happiness?
Distribution of happiness
- Everyone’s happiness counts equally; we all count for one
- Most actions only affect some people
Do consequences end?
- If moral worth an action is based on its consequences, constant revision
and no final moral value can be assigned (example: saving a drowning
boy who goes on to become a dictator responsible for the death of
millions)
Whose happiness?
Singer argues animals’ interests should be considered as they are also
sentient
1. If only humans have moral status, there must be some special
quality that all humans share
, 2. All human-specific possibilities for such a quality will be a quality
that some humans lack (example: intelligence)
3. The only possible candidates will be qualities that other animals
have too
4. Therefore, we cannot argue that only human being deserve moral
status
Criticisms (Diamond)
- If sentience were the only factor, eating dead humans or amputated
limbs would be morally fine
- Embrace complexity of existing moral views
Issues around partiality
Example: in a burning building you can save your son or a brilliant
scientist working on the cure for cancer
- Act utilitarianism: saving scientist maximises general happiness,
therefore right thing to do; saving your son would be understandable, but
morally wrong
Moral obligation/duty to be partial in some circumstances
Therefore, act utilitarianism counter-intuitive
- Rule utilitarianism: rule of looking after family is good, therefore saving
son is right thing to do
- Requiring everyone to be perfectly impartial would lower general
happiness
- Rule of partiality is, therefore, a good one
How impartial should governments be?
- Rule utilitarianism: it is good for each country to look after its population
- Should all people’s happiness be treated equally?
Moral integrity and intentions of the individual (+ Williams)
Utilitarianism requires us to do things that challenge our sense of
personal/moral integrity
1. Personal integrity requires there are things that you would not do
(X)
2. Using utilitarian framework, a scenario can always be created
whereby X is the right things to do
3. Therefore, utilitarianism undermines our personal integrity
Defence: our sense of moral/personal integrity is culturally acquired
Intentions – ignoring these is counter-intuitive
Kantian deontological ethics
Good will
Only pure good in the world; source of all moral value
A good will is one which acts for the sake of duty
Motive (not consequence) is key in assigning moral worth
