Normative ethics
- Created by: A
- Created on: 02-04-13 10:55
Act utilitarianism
Bentham - consequentialist, based on one universal rule
Good = greatest good for greatest number (GGFGN)
based on hedonism good = pleasure
all pleasures equal
Criticisms - how do we know what will maximise happiness - response - does not matter as long as we take action that we believe will maximise happiness
No action is actually definitely immoral
Too demanding - should only live to help others - e.g. could not buy CD should give to charity instead
Rule Utilitarianism (+preference)
Mill - actions is right if it complies with rules which if everybody followed them would lead to greatest happiness - Means don't have stupid rules to give happiness
Don't have to work out consequences to all actions - As everyone should be acting that way only have to do your fair share e.g. with charity
Problem - actions e.g. white lying is wrong even if it might promote happiness, and if we go to each individual situation we just go to rule - Response - overall if everyone acts that way it would be better
Preference utilitarianism - not maximise pleasure but satisfaction of people's preferences - better as easier to know if someone's preference has been fulfilled than amount of pleasure - also can be right to encourage someone's preferences even when they don't know it has appened so they do not get any pleasure - e.g. doing something for someone when they die
Problem - is happiness best way to decide morality, Who should get happy, can have morally bad happiness, other values that might be better e.g. justice, how do you decide who is involved in your morality
Deontology
Duty - have moral duties to do things that are right and duties not to do what is wrong
Discovering duties - Ross (prima facia duties) - actions that self-evidently are right - duties can be ordered in order to settle disputes
Aquinas - look at human nature and it becomes obvious what is right by what will help flourishing
Scanlon - moral principles are principles of behavious which no one can reasonably reject to
conflicts of duties - resolved 'prima facie' (at 1st sight)
Utilitarianism - deontolgoy is irrational - how can justify not saving one for many - surely if I reject to murder I reject to killing, so should kill one to save
How do you distinguish between different types of action? e.g. killing/murder - response, should judge by intention
Kant's imperatives
Kant's categories - universilisation, people as ends not means, kingodm of ends
Tests for universilisation - contradiction in conception - e.g. if admitted stealing would say that everyone effectively own everyone elses things, but this would mean stealing would be impossible
contradiciton in will - e.g.helping others, if the will was not to help others, you could not achieve your wills Categorical imperitave based on reason - 2 ways of motivation - reason and happiness but happiness cannot be basis of morality because - what makes people happy differs and even if you say it is about promoting general happiness that does not motivate me, also happiness not always morally good e.g. **** therefore morality rational - lots of parallels between rationality and morality e.g. universal, also morality does not apply to non-rational beings, dogs misbehave they aren't immoral objections - easy to overcome the categories for yourself e.g. only people with your name and birth date - you become exempt - response, not the actual maxim, - technically morally wrong to do anything other than basically getting enough food for yourself to survive
Kant - respecting humanity and importance of motiv
Formula of humanity - act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time an end
have to respect their humanity - allow them to make an informed choice e.g. lying does not do this
Importance of motive - what is right for Kant is to act from motive of duty e.g. 2 shopkeepers 1st gives exact change as is worried of getting caught, other gives change because they believe it is right - only one is motivated by duty
objection - often we do things for people as we like them, not because we feel we have a duty to
response - does not stop us being motivated by feelings, could be argued duty should not motivate us to do the right thing, only not to do the wrong thing
Does not apply to e.g. Aquinas
Phronesis
practical wisdom - capaciy to make informed rational judgements without recourse to a formal decision procedure
needs - general conception of what is good or bad (human flourishing)
ability to perceive what is required in terms of feeling
ability to deliberate and act on that deliberation
for Aristotle cannot be taught
Insight - needs insight into what is good and bad for someone, what is required in a certain situation and what is a virtue
The mean - do not want to be rash or cowardly but courageousb - means you will be virtuous - knowledge of what is the right time, objects, people, motive and way for certain emotions or choices is practical knowledge of how to live a good life
Criticisms of virtue ethics and modern alternative
Criticisms - does not tell you what to do
How do we know what is virtuous, people can act virtuous without trying to be, depends on there being a end for our lives to strive for
Slote - moral rightness based on motives which are not only necessary but sufficient for well being, based on common-sense intuitions of what traits are admirable, about motives more than consequences
Macintyre - looks at virtue in relation to our own culture, function is relative to when and where we live
Hursthouse - imagine what the perfect virtuous person would do - problem if we knew that we would be virtuous
Euthanasia
Different types:
assisted suicide - X gives Y means to kill themselves
Passive euthanasia - X lets Y means by removing life support
doctrine of double effect - doing something that may lead to or hasten their death but with the intention of relieving pain not with the intention of ending life
Active - X does something to Y to directly cause death
Voluntary - Y gives permission to X to let Y die
Involuntary - Y does not give permission
Euthanasia: well death - to cause someone's death with the intention of relieving terminal and/or excessive pain and suffering
Questions raised:
- is it ever right to end someone's life?
- is it murder, suicide or something else
- How soon is too soon? should be done before pain is experienced- When does someone's personhood end? life vs. alive
Virtue ethics + euthanasia
When voluntary:
for patient - stops flourishing, might be cowardly, conversely might be self-sacrificing, against virtue of fortitude
For doctor/relative - compassions is a virtue, Slote - fine assuming motives are e.g. compassion and not e.g. wanting to save resources,
When involuntary:
Hard to argue that ending someones life is going to lead to flourishing
Phronesis - more experience you have easier it is to make decisions (though euthanasia is generally once in a life time except for Dr)
Hursthouse - how would virtuous person act?
Aristotle - importance of flourishing in society - impact in wider society
Macintyre - consider in context of society e.g. may be right in UK but not in Saudi Arabia
Strengths/weaknesses of Virtue ethics approach
Strengths - Considers all involved
Focusses on character of patient and treats as individual
Adaptable - recognises emotional difficult nature of decisions, needs a personal approach
Use golden mean euthanasia can be approached reasonably with no excess or deficiency in feeling/response
Use motives not consequence - good intentions
Weaknesses - no definite response given - response Hursthouse virtuous person - problem is subjective how they would act
Conflict of virtues e.g. fortitude and compassion
easy to manipulate - could appear to be considering motives but actually using consequence
Based on metaphysical speculation e.g. do we have a function
naturalistic fallacy - just because human nature is does not mean ought to act similarly
Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia
What are we universalising?
Active voluntary - ending someones life to relieve pain if asked - can be universalised as treating someone as ends not means, and if universalised not everyone would want to die
Involuntary - treating as someone as means to an end - you will be doing it for e.g. ease your pain or save resources
though if like suicide - ending ones life is illogical so wrong
Duty to relieve pain - emotional and not rational
are non-rational people counted - potential for rationality
W.D Ross - prima facie duties - preserve life vs. duty of care
Cannot say that you always have to respect choice e.g. do not respect a murderer's choice
Strengths/weaknesses of Kantian ethics approach
Strengths: values life - treats as ends
Same in all circumstances and across cultures
actions justified as based on reason
Weakness - euthanasia isn' t always the same
Conflicting duties to preserve life vs. respecting someone + their dignity
Kant's ethics is relative to his culture
Do non-rational people count
If it is right whenever people want to die then does it extend to people who are depressed
Utilitarianism approach to euthanasia
Killing someone to relieve pain - does this produce GGFGN - yes, strain on medical care + suffering of family - No ending someones life is always wrong
Future happiness of individual
Implicatiosn for wider societ
Act - allow each case to be seen on own merits
Rule - difference between euthanasia + murder
How do we judge GGFGN
Preference - satisfying preferences of those involved
who's happiness should be considered
If involuntary - going against their wishes - removing their happiness
Strengths/weaknesses of Utilitarianism approach
StrengthsGGFN ensures majority are happy
Moral dillemmas never about one person
Act utilitarianism considers each case by its own merit
In democracy most decisions made by GGFGN - popularity of this view may suggest this is what morality is like
Simple to use
Weaknesses - shouldn't kill to save strain on health service otherwise would be ok to e.g. kill someone with no family/friends to give food to
People treated as means not ends - not valuing human life
might be allowing involuntary euthanasia
Not actually simple raises questions e.g. who should be considered, how much does pain + pleasure count, higher vs. lower pleasure, is someone in a vegetative state cound and should we count their pain/pleasure, if not surely we should not consider a dead person's depression - problem of majority vs. minority patient seems to count more but their pain/pleasure is = to the doctors
Related discussions on The Student Room
- OCR A Level Religious Studies Religion and ethics H573/02 - 14 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat] »
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules »
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat] »
- PhD Survey - Ethical and Social impacts of Autonomous Machines »
- A-level Philosophy Study Group 2022-2023 »
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023 »
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat] »
- AQA A-level Religious Studies 1 (7062/1) 12 Jun & 2 (7062/2A-2E) 19 Jun [Exam Chat] »
- Unit 7 exam help - preparation »
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat] »
Comments
No comments have yet been made