Ethics Lecture Three

Ethics – Lecture Three 7/11/05

(quote 1)


Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Ethics


Know the difference between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethics

Know the difference between ‘act’ and ‘rule’ consequentialist and ‘act’ and ‘rule’ nonconsequentialist ethics

Understand and analyze nonconsequentialism and its main examples: Divine Command Theory and Kant’s Duty Ethics

Understand the ethical terms and concepts: universalizability, Catagorical Imperative, reversibility, human beings as ends rather than means, and prima facie duties.

Noncon - based on something other than the consequences of a person’s actions.

Consequentialist – egoist worried about the effect on them – utilitarians concerned with the consequences for all involved.

The most important thing to remember is that noncons believe that consequences do not and should not enter into theories of ethics.

Actions are judged only on whether they are ‘right’ actions – regardless of the consequences.

(quote 2)

Divine Command theory

Believing that there is a God, or gods, and that God has set up ethical and moral commands; then an action is right if, and only if , the commands are obeyed – regardless of the consequences.

Divine Command Theorist would say that someone must follow the commands of God – whether by voices or by signs or other means – and the consequences do not matter – including the deaths of many, people, etc..

Abraham’s sacrifice of his son.

DCT – is a clear example of a nonconsequentialist theory – but it is not the only one – and they don’t need to include God.


(quote 3)

‘Act’ Nonconsequentialist Ethics

‘Rule’ Nonconsequentialist Ethics

Just as in ‘act’ consequentialism – ‘act’ nonconsequentialists believe that no overall rules can be made for every situation – that each ethical situation must be approach differently – and must decide what is the best action to take in that particular situation.

What is interesting in this theory is the way in which ‘act’ nonconsequentialists decide on the best action in the situation.

It is said that that decisions made by ‘act’ nonconsequentialist are intuitionistic – or based on intuition.

(quote 4)

Intuition – understanding things (ie. a situation, or somebody’s feelings) immediately without the need for reasoning (thinking) or study

Like sensing that someone is behind you in a room.

(Blink – the book)

‘Act’ Noncon – are not concerned with consequences – they must do what they feel is right in this particular situation without thinking about rules or consequences.

One of the main things that ‘act’ noncons stress in that ethics is not based in reason – in the same way as science – ethics is about people’s feelings.

In fact, ‘act’ nonconsequentialists say that ethical statements really only do two things:

(quote 5)

‘Act’ Nonconsequentialists claim that ethical statements only do two things:

(1) express people’s feelings and attitudes

(2) create or make other people feel certain emotions and attitudes

(quote 6)

Right and Reason - Austin Fagothey

List reasons for and against using ‘intuition’ as a basis of ethics:

For

(1) Any mentally healthy person seems to have a sense of right or wrong

(2) Human beings had ethical ideas and convictions before philosophy created ethics as an area of study.

(3) Our ethical philosophy and theories are often used to confirm our ethical ‘intuitions’.

(4) Our ethical reasoning can go wrong and then we have to fall back on our ethical ‘intuition’.

Against

(1) difficult to prove ‘intuition’

(2) no proof of inborn set of ethical rules

(3) ‘intuition’ cannot be objectively criticized because it is personal

(4) human beings who do not have ethical intuitions

Other criticisms of ‘act’ nonconsequentialism

1. How do we know what we feel will be ethical?
2. How do we know we have enough facts to make an ethical decision?
3. If I am acting only on my own feelings, how do I know that I am doing best for all the others involved in the situation?
4. Can we really rely on our momentary feelings to make ethical decisions?
5. How can I justify my actions, except to say “it seemed like the best thing at the time?”

“I felt like killing him”

‘Rule’ Nonsequentialist Ethical Theories

‘Rule’ Nonsequentialists believe that: there are or can be rules which are the only basis for ethics – and consequences do not matter.

It is following these rules which is ethical or right and good.

The main way in which ‘rule’ nonsequentialist ethical theories differ from each other how these rules are made or established.
One of the has already been mentioned: Divine Command Theory.

But this has some obvious problems: even if we could prove that there was a God – we would then have to prove that God is good, or ethically right – and if we could prove that we would then have to go and prove it was indeed God who set up the ethical system.

Another famous nonconsequentialist theory is called Duty Ethics.

It was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Kant said that it was possible to come up with ethical rules by reason alone – not from God, or even from empirical evidence (ie. observing consequences or results).

Kant’s requirements for an ethical rule:

1. Must logical
2. Must be able to be universalized.

Every should steal.

If we could establish ethical rules that were logical and able to universalized – then these rules should be followed no matter the consequences.

Inclined – want to behave in certain ways or do certain things – stay in bed, hit someone, give money to the poor, etc.

Duty ­– having decided on a ethical rule – through reason and asking is it logical? can it be universalized? – you would follow that rule no matter what your inclinations.

We have some inclinations (wants) that are ethical (good and right) and some inclinations that are not ethical (not good or right) – Kant said that we should rely on reason and our will and act out of a sense of duty.

Kant went so far as to say if the motive behind the act is inclination rather than duty – that it is not ethical.

A person who is good and kind because they want to be is not, according to Kant, ethical.

The main idea for Kant’s ethical system is the Categorical Imperative.

Imperative – a command – telling someone to do something.







(quote 7)

Categorical Imperative

An act is unethical if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule which all human beings can follow.

This means that every time that people are going to make a ethical decision that need to ask themselves two questions:

(quote 8)

1. What is the rule I am using for this ethical action?

2. Can it be made into a rule that all human beings can follow?

Example: A lazy person says, “Why should I work hard in order to live; why don’t I just steal from everyone else?”

The rule: I shall never work, but steal want I want from other human beings.

If you use the categorical imperative, it would come out like this:

No human being should ever work, all human beings should steal what they need from each other.

But if no one worked there would be nothing to steal.

Another important principle in Kant’s ethical system is:

(quote 9)

Practical Imperative

No human being should be used as a means for someone else’s end – a human being is always a unique end in himself or herself

Some of the ethical rules that Kant created, based on his ethical system, were:

Never kill.
Never steal.
Never break promises.

Suppose that by not breaking a promise someone might get killed?

The problem with Kantian ethics is they don’t tell us what to do when two rules contradict each other.

Another problem: Never help anyone in need.

To overcome this kind of problem Kant introduced another ethical principle:

(quote 10)

Reversibility

If the action were reversed – would the person want it done to him or her?

Golden Rule

The criticism of ‘reversibility’ is that it is consequentialist – that what Kant is saying is that: don’t do make this a rule because the consequences (results) might be bad for you – ie. no one will help you when you need it.

The problems with nonconsequentialist theories in general:

1. Why should we follow rules if the consequences are bad?

2. How can we resolve conflicts between rules?
3. Can there be a rule with no exceptions – human beings are very different and complex.