chapter 3, ethics lecures

Ethics is the study of moral norms.

Moral norms are based on human actions (or behaviors) of fundamental consequence for human welfare. And here we make a distinction between morality and etiquette. Etiquette is quasi-moral. Ex: An old lady standing in a full bus is given a seat by a young man (or a young woman). In the elevator, a mature man holds the door for the women and children and younger men.

In Ethics we make moral judgments, for example: "slavery is wrong". These judgments come from moral norms and facts. So, 

moral judgments ~ moral norms + "moral facts"

Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- Cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to differences between "deep" values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and "superficial" values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

 5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: mj ~ mn + "facts" (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a "fact"? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

 6. Are there universal moral principles? YES. We could point to at least two: 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).


1. Difference between Consequentialist theories and Formalist theories.

Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

 2. Intrinsic value (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else).

3. Hedonism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. 

Click here for my lecture on hedonism. 

3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest. This is equivalent to a calculus of prudence. C/A (a) Moral agents are mot mere instruments for one's interest. (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office if you could vote for an utilitarian).

Click here for my notes on Ethical Egoism.

Psychological Egoism: We are all egoists. 

No matter how we try to present rebuttals to egoism, the truth is that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. 

Psychological egoism is attributed to Thomas Hobbes (1651) and Jeremy Bentham (1781). Psychological egoism can be seen as a background assumption of several other disciplines, such as psychology and economics. Recently, some biologists have suggested that the thesis can be supported or rejected directly based on evolutionary theory or work in sociobiology.

Example: Suppose, that Pam saves Jim from a burning office building. What ultimately motivated her to do this?  The altruist claims that Pam's risking her life in the process, shows she did it for Jim's sake. But the psychological egoist holds that Pam’s apparently altruistic act is ultimately motivated by the goal to benefit herself, whether she is aware of this or not. Pam might have wanted to gain a good feeling from being a hero, or to avoid the backlash that would follow had she not helped Jim. 

 4. Act Utilitarianism (or Traditional utilitarianism): What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (remember this is only a particular milieu: family, class, Miami, Florida, the USA). C/A (a) McCloskey’s informant (problems with rights) (b) Brandt’s Heir (problems with duties), (c) Goodwin's Fire Rescue (problems with duties), (e) Ross Unhappy promise (problems with duties) (6) Ewing's Utilitarian torture (problems with justice).

Click here for my notes on utilitarianism

Moral Traditionalism: an act is right if it's supported by my traditions.

 

click here for my notes on moral traditionalism.

 

Kant's Formalism. Formalism is the theory that AIR because of the action's form.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).

2. Duties: obligations one has by virtue of one's embeddedness in society. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties.

Here are my notes on Kantian ethics.

3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER MERELY AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? C/A The problem with Kantian theory is the problem of exceptions to the rule. Should I keep a promise even if it puts someone's life in danger? Then, some times we have to treat people as means to ends.

Here are my notes on Kant's second formulation.

Aristotle's virtue morality, the study of character.

4. Click here for Aristotle's virtue morality,