From Last Time
The good will is the only good thing in an
‘unqualified way”
Acting from duty vs. acting in accord with
duty
Categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives
Universalizability test for duty (four
examples)
Second formulation of the
categorical imperative
Treat other people not merely as a means,
but also as an end.
We always use other people, but Kant
thinks its wrong to treat other people just
as instruments, as things to be used for
other purposes.
Kant and Aristotle
Kant takes as fundamental the notion of duty—
the right action done from a respect for the moral
law. A good person will be one who acts this way
(from duty)
Aristotle thinks a good person will do the right
thing from inclination. They will want to be
virtuous. For Aristotle what is fundamental is
what makes a person virtuous, not what makes
a particular action right
An argument against Kant
If Kant’s view is true, some duties are
absolute. It is always wrong to make a
lying promise
But it is obviously right to make a lying
promise when you can save an innocent
person’s life by doing so
Therefore, Kant’s moral theory is incorrect
Utilitarianism
The right action is the action that, of the
alternatives available to you, produces the
greatest net pleasure relative to pain.
Consequentialism: The consequences
determine what is right or wrong
Hedonism: the only thing that is good for
its own sake is pleasure. The only thing
bad for its own sake is pain
Is Hedonism true?
Aristotle and Mill: two different conceptions
of Happiness.
Aristotle: Happiness as pleasure too
“brutish”
Mill: There are different kinds of pleasures.
All pleasure is good, but human beings
can experience qualitatively better,
“higher” pleasures.
The competent judge argument.
If intellectual pleasures are preferred over
physical pleasures by those who
experience them both, this shows
intellectual pleasures are superior
People who have experienced both sorts
of pleasures prefer intellectual pleasures
Therefore, intellectual pleasures are
superior to physical pleasures.
What are intellectual and physical
pleasures?
Intellectual pleasures consist of, e.g.
Appreciation of art, literature, philosophy
(duh), science.
What is a physical pleasure? Food and
drink and sex—any pleasure that is shared
with non-human animals.
What about the pleasures of casual nonintellectual conversation, of sports, etc. ?
Is the argument good?
Do those who prefer intellectual to
physical pleasures really have adequate
experience of physical pleasures?
Does the preference indicate an objective
fact about the pleasures, or a fact about
the kind of person who makes the
judgment?
Utilitarianism and rules
Moral rules are important but they do not
define or constitute morality
Moral rules, such as “do not lie” are useful
because they generally provide good
advice about what actions would produce
the most happiness relative to
unhappiness
Always possible to have exceptions.
Utilitarianism and the virtues
Virtues are good to cultivate because they
are character traits that in general lead to
actions that produce better consequences.
A possible counterexample to
utilitarianism
Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a
headache. The doctor kills this patient and
uses the organs to save the lives of five
other people.
It looks like this doctor performed an action
that has much better consequences than
the alternative.
But was it really the right action?