Philosophy 2803 – Lecture II
Introduction to Ethical Theory
Why Survey Ethical Theory
At All?
Different Aims in Different
Courses
In a course on ethical theory
In order to investigate what
the correct theory is
In a course like this
In order to acquire some tools
to work with
The survey identifies a number
of perspectives that should be taken into account when considering ethically
difficult cases
Relativism vs. Objectivism Again
Last week, we primarily considered
moral relativism
Remember relativism is not
just a descriptive theory. It’s a normative theory.
It claims not just that
people’s moral beliefs differ, but that all there is to the moral
facts is the beliefs held in a particular culture.
What’s right = what a culture
believes is right
This week we’ll focus on
objectivism
Moral Objectivism
'Moral facts' are like 'physical facts'.
What the facts are is independent
of what anyone thinks
They have to be discovered like the laws
of physics
Discovery may be difficult
(again, compare to physics)
Note: Believing in objectivism
doesn’t mean you know what the moral facts are
Why Focus on Objectivism?
A glib answer:
Our culture places importance
on justifying our moral beliefs.
It says we should,
morally speaking, defend those beliefs.
As such, even if relativism
is true, it seems we’re morally obligated to defend our beliefs as though
there were objective facts to uncover
What Are the Objective Facts?
Suppose for the moments that
objectivism is true. What are the objective facts of morality?
Three Candidates:
Consequentialism
Deontological Theories
Principilism
See text for other examples
Case #1
X, an emergency room physician,
happens upon a roadside accident. A car has crashed leaving 4 people seriously
hurt
After calling 911, X begins
examining the injuries of the 4 people
All are in danger of dying
if they don’t receive immediate attention.
A quick examination reveals
that one person, K, will require so much attention the other three may well
die before he finishes treating K
If K is left until last,
his life is in serious danger, but X will likely be able to save the other
three
Consequentialism
Consequentialists maintain that whether an action is morally right
or wrong depends on the action's consequences.
In any situation, the morally right thing
to do is whatever will have the best consequences.
E.g., save 3 people, rather
than 1
Consequentialist theories are sometimes
called teleological theories.
What Kind of Consequences?
Consequentialism isn't very informative unless
it's combined with a theory about what the best consequences are.
E.g., Creedism =
consequentialism + the theory that consequences
should be assessed in terms of how they reflect on the career of Creed
Good for Creed = good consequences
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the most influential variety of consequentialism
The 'Founders' of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
The Basis of Utilitarianism: ask what has intrinsic value and assess
the consequences of an action in terms of intrinsically valuable things.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value
Instrumental Value - a thing has only instrumental value if it is
only valuable for what it may get you
e.g., money
Intrinsic Value - a thing has intrinsic value if you value it
for itself
i.e., you’d value it even
if it brought you nothing else
It may, however,
also possess instrumental value
What, if anything, has intrinsic
value?
What Has Intrinsic Value?
What Utilitarians Think Is Intrinsically
Valuable: happiness
Actually, not all utilitarians agree that
happiness is quite the right way of putting this.
Other suggestions include satisfaction,
well-being, pleasure. (See text)
Each variation yields a slightly
different theory
For now, the general approach
is what matters
The ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’
"actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.“
(John Stuart Mill)
In other words, judge an
action by the total amount of happiness and unhappiness it creates
Note: this means the total
happiness (and unhappiness) of everyone affected
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
Notice that the GHP is a little vague.
it's not clear whether Mill means
(i) an action is right if this sort
of action tends to promote happiness or
(ii) an action is right if this particular
action will promote happiness.
If you believe in version i, you're a
Rule Utilitarian.
If you believe in version ii, you're an
Act Utilitarian.
Case #2
X has inoperable lung cancer
that is unresponsive to chemotherapy & radiation therapy
X will most likely die within
one year
X’s physician believes X
could not handle this news
X’s physician decides to
lie about the diagnosis for a while in order to ‘buy X a little more time’
Deontology
'Duty Based' Ethics
Deontologists deny that what ultimately matters is an action's
consequences.
What matters is the kind of action it
is.
What matters is doing our duty.
Identify principle(s) from
which our duties arise
Kinds of Deontological Theory
There are many kinds of deontological theory
e.g., ‘The Golden Rule' - "Do
unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
Deontological theories may
be identifed as monist or pluralist depending on the number
of fundamental principles of duty the theory identifies
Monist = 1
Pluralist = more than 1
See text for examples of
pluralism
Kant
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the most influential deontologist.
Rejecting Consequentialism
"A good will is good not because of what it effects
or accomplishes." Even if by bad luck a good person never accomplishes anything
much, the good will would "like a jewel, still shine by its own light as
something which has its full value in itself."
The Categorical Imperative
Kant claims that all our actions should be
judged according to a rule he calls the Categorical Imperative.
First Version: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby
you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
E.g., telling a lie whenever you need
to borrow money is morally wrong because this sort of act is not ‘universalizable’.
If everyone acted this way, the whole practice
of promising to repay a loan would collapse.
The Second Version of the C.I.
Second Version (The “practical imperative”):
“Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always
at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”
Note: Kant is a monist since
he thinks both versions of the C.I. ultimately say the same thing
This means there are certain
ways we must not treat people (no matter how much utility might be produced
by treating them in those ways)
E.g., don’t lie to a patient
The Second Principle &
Medical Ethics
The second principle has been very influential
in medical ethics
A ‘medical’ reading of this principle
it is necessary to treat people as autonomous
agents capable of making their own decision
Autonomy
A central element in many deontological
theories is the idea of autonomy
Autonomy = self + rule
Autonomous decisions are
ones which you make for yourself for your own reasons (ideally, your own
well-informed reasons)
By respecting your autonomous
decisions, we respect you as an ‘end in itself’
Group Work
1. List the strengths of deontology
2. List the weaknesses of deontology
3. List the strengths of consequentialism
4. List the weaknesses of consequentialism
Strengths of
Consequentialism
Practical, Results-oriented View
Relatively clear how to make ethical judgments
simply reflect
on consequences
Weaknesses of
Consequentialism
How can we know all the consequences of an action?
How can we compare utility from person to person?
Do we include all generations? All species?
Will utilitarianism lead us to ‘repugnant conclusions’?
In theory, any kind of action could be justified
if the consequences of the situation work out just right.
Strengths of
Deontology
Sets clear moral boundaries
Some things just can’t be done
Possibility of multiple principles allows for flexibility
Only on pluralist versions of deontology
Weaknesses of Deontology
If we don’t rely on consequences for moral justification,
then can we find a convincing case for identifying basic moral principles?
Deontology’s basic
approach is not as simple as consequentialism’s
Deontology can seem overly ‘legalistic’
i.e., too focused on rules
too inflexible
The Point
Considerations raised by both theories are worth
taking seriously
We’ll close by considering a theory that
tries to encompass both: principilism
Principilism
Principilism attempts to have
it both ways
Popularized by Beauchamp
and Childress
Principles of Biomedical
Ethics (1979)
The ‘Georgetown Mantra’
Now the dominant theory in
medical ethics
Four Principles
1. Autonomy
2. Beneficence
3. Non-maleficence
4. Justice
The text might call this
a pluralist deontological theory since it endorses a number of fundamental
principles
I disagree. Conditions 2
& 3 identify this as a hybrid of consequentialism and deontology
The Principles
1. Autonomy
The autonomy of patients (families, co-workers,
etc.) must be respected
2. Beneficence
Help others (i.e., benefit them)
The Principles
3. Non-maleficence
‘Do no harm’
4. Justice
“fair, equitable, and appropriate
treatment in light of what is due or owed” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001,
226)
Treating like cases alike
Assessing Principilism
Note: while this is the orthodox
theory in medicine these days, it’s not the be all and end all of medical
ethics
Principilism’s virtue: takes
consequences and principles seriously
Principilism’s vice: how
do we balance consequences and principles when push comes to shove?
This is a question we’ll
confront numerous times in this class
The Point (Again)
As noted, we will not attempt
to settle the question of which ethical theory is correct
Think of the theories discussed
tonight as identifying viewpoints that must be considered when taking a stand
on issues in medical ethics
We must be prepared to consider
challenges to our views and arguments from these viewpoints