The Ethics Debates: October 2013
The Theories:
David Hume (1711-1776 – Scotland) – teleological
 moral decisions based on feelings – scientific issues are different than moral issues
 we have similar make-up, so we have similar moral judgments
 similar experiences and knowledge lead to similar judgments – we argue BECAUSE we have
different levels of knowledge and different experiences – education can lead to agreement
 approve of socially useful acts
 our feelings drive our decisions – then reason how we feel (reason doesn’t cause us to act, so it’s
not the basis for morality – we act because of our passions)
 crime due to reactions to the act – only because it upsets us (eg murder bothers us, piracy doesn’t
so much)
 only need justice when there’s need / desires
 morality rooted in well-being of all – universally shared – people affect our lives
 emergencies – otherwise immoral acts become acceptable (e.g. during war…)
 indirect utilitarianism – (should be most people most happy – but by general rules) generally –
like Mill but for all
Ayn Rand (1905-1982 – born in Russia, moved to U.S. – the land of opportunity) – teleological, relativist
 objectivism – individual rights – nobody can stop anyone from anything until it infringes on the
rights of another
 selfishness is good – only ethical if you do things in your own self-interest
 3 virtues:

- rationalization – determine if it’s logical; accept responsibility; think for yourself;

honest; never act like a zombie; act with purpose to make rational decisions; no religion

- pride – acquire character that makes live worth living – act on good morals; don’t feel

guilt if not at fault – don’t judge self; if not guilty, don’t worry about it; self-sacrifice is

wrong

- productiveness – ultimate value is happiness – eliminate care; be successful in your own

life
 laissez-faire view of government – capitalist – government has too much power over us – inspired
libertarian movement of the right
Friedrich (‘Fritz’) Nietzsche (1844-1900 - Germany (Prussia))
 2 types – master and slave – follow master morality – two attitudes (not positions)
 master – “challenge accepted!” how we should live - self-control; power over self; ability; can be
feared due to ability and power; good is what’s noble and creates their power; strong will;
determine own morality through experiences – what harms me is harmful ; independent thought
 help others from an abundance of power; take pleasure in challenges that are difficult; honour
your enemies; accept cruelty and tragedy; suffering is a challenge; rise above the herd
 slave – what we should avoid - follow the herd/tradition; religious (weak); strength and wealthy
are evil because they’re bitter about their position; resentful and fearful; (sheep)
 many “slaves” are suspicious that the rich aren’t really happy; highest moral is sympathy and
kindness; using power is evil; resents enemies; accept self-denial and sacrifice as necessary for the
benefit of the group; pretend to be good in order to be accepted and get help of the group
Aristotle (384-322 BCE – Athens, Greece) - teleological
 means and ends – teleology – we’re all striving for the end result – happiness is the end goal
 3 ways – pleasure (vulgar life) – fruitless; not self-sufficient;

- honour (justice / politician) – good, but due to other’s opinions so not self-sufficient

- virtuous life – intellectual - contemplation
 virtue is the golden mean - temperance – the place between two vices - relative to us

can be moral (have good character and habits) or intellectual if you can (contemplate the

good to achieve the greatest good); because we’re better than animals!
 morality isn’t known by what you say, but what you do – how you live
 some things are just wrong – no good medium amount to them (murder)
BUT – intellectual life not necessarily superior; the mean leads to mediocre
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862 - U.S. – during slavery) – relativist,
 civil disobedience – to government – hated government
 if a law is unjust or involves suffering to others, it should be broken – don’t pay taxes to support
an unjust government.
 better to die for a cause than give in to the government
 if caught breaking the law – must take the consequences
 pursuing wealth is unethical - selfish - leads to causing suffering to others
 people should do anything to stop injustices – even if you’re the only one
 don’t have to fix everything, but at the very least don’t participate in it
 most politicians are corrupt and stupid – don’t think about the people, but about self-gain
 hard to stay true to self – but best in the long run
BUT – if everyone decides what should be right, it could be chaos
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 - German (Prussia)) - universalist, deontological
 morality lies in the intent (not the ends, nor the common utility)
 good intent = good will – the only thing that’s good (duty-based)
 intelligence, strength, etc. can be used for bad purpose
 good will comes from reason (not emotion), but have to decide based on principle:
 categorical imperative – act by a principle (maxim) such that everyone in the world HAD to do
that – don’t do anything unless it would be good for everyone to be made to do that. – would the
world be harmonious - not allowed any exceptions for yourself
 can’t have a logical contradiction – e.g. goes against our own lives – can’t improve life if you end
your life (suicide, etc.)
 treat people as an end in themselves, not a means to an end (don’t use people)
BUT – so many pitfalls to fall into; no room for change or interpretation; sometimes we need to look at
particulars
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939 - Austrian – escaped to England at the start of WWII) - relativist
 mind has three provinces: (like Plato’s charioteer) – also rationalist idea – we know right and
wrong

ego – moral and logical – easily swayed by id and superego - have to stay in control

id – pleasures and selfishness – illogical, contradicting, immediate rewards

superego – wants honour and respect (overactive leads to depression) – guilt and shame
 take out selfishness for pleasures and praise and you’re left with morality
 religion – not steady ground for morality – wishful thinking – no proof - following the Bible
isn’t logical; no longer in context; created for people who can’t think - a store of ideas born from
man’s need to make things tolerable - need a parent figure – God is an illusion of dad and mom to
scorn you and comfort you - was needed to control us, but now we shouldn’t need it anymore
 science gets us further than religion – we keep finding out stuff that makes religious ideas
mistaken
BUT – people like the Bible to tell them rules; hard to decide what to do; many can’t/won't think
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 - England) - teleological, relativist
 utilitarianism - happiness = utility - maximum pleasure with minimum pain for the most people
 humans > animals because we can think (knowledge is the best pleasure)
 calculus: consider all people involved and look at their happiness mathematically

according to duration, fecundity, intensity, certainty, nearness, purity, extension
 can be tranquil or excited or both
 don’t harm people (harm principle)
 don’t just think of selves
BUT – have to make assumptions about each person AND even yourself - guessing at the outcome
- also it’s a very cold calculation to make if the ethical issue is personal or heartfelt
- it really mainly reinforces your own decision as you guess what makes people happy (like Hume said)
ABORTION:
Pro-Choice
Rand
– decision s/b up to individual
- against government control
- child isn’t a person until breathing air
- favour currently living being (mother over fetus)
- all about self-sufficiency – fetus is a parasite –
only exists under woman’s life-force
- good if it furthers the woman’s life - not up to a
parasite’s ideas (or potential life)
Anti-Abortion
BUT – don’t know what the fetus is thinking should have a choice as well
Freud – relativist – entirely case-by-case
- if having the baby - and you’re young – woman
could die; not financially stable; could make it
worse for both; e.g. disabled ; might not love it as
much as you could at a later time; not
psychologically ready
- stopping overpopulation, etc.
- can’t base decisions on gut feelings
- have to be self-aware to do this
Freud – bad reasons for abortion…
- don’t feel like taking care of it or putting up for
adoption (id) – bad reasons
- don’t want people to hate them – embarrassed
(superego) – bad reasons
Hume – emotional response to create general rules
- upsets reasonable people then it’s okay – but only
those in the situation can really know what it’s like
- social stigma, financial burden, not strong enough
to raise child
- socially useful – reduce welfare
- SO important to be fully education – take in as
many experiences as possible (like Philosopher
Kings)
- emergency – in extreme condition okay (e.g.
murder usually wrong - not if emergency)
Hume
- if experiences with abortion are all bad, then it
will FEEL like a really bad idea
Nietzsche – similar to Freud on this one
Master – doesn’t care about public opinion
- decision should be based on woman’s interests,
not outside world
Nietzsche
- acting like a slave if abortion because fear of
judgment or feel pity for the child
- slave if keep out of resentment for position – to
avoid challenges
- Master – keep in order to accept the challenges of
having a child
Kant
Kant
- look at underlying principle – if pregnant
destroying a potential life
- if everyone had to do this, would have a horrible
effect on the world – then fewer babies born
- must act for the betterment of life
*wants us to see our behaviour as if it’s huge
Thoreau
- government has no say in your stuff or your body
Thoreau
- if legal, and we object, we should protest the law
Aristotle
Artistotle
- okay to abort if child would be raised with a
deficit of love or food…
Mill
- your rights end where my nose begins
- happier in long run – for most people ?
- freedom makes us really happy
Mill
- lots of physical and emotional pain – long
duration ?
- don’t harm – rights end where nose begins
Class
- your body, your decision (Rand)
- evaluate logically and independently (Freud)
- doesn’t hurt any sentient being (at 8 weeks) (BUT
could scar the father)
- man can find another woman to bare his child
- abortion shouldn’t be the punishment for sex
(one-way punishment)
- our lives are short, and should be enjoyable –
don’t have a baby that you don’t want – not having
it won’t ruin anyone sentient’s life
- should be restricted to soon after knowledge of it
- safer to be legal so people don’t use “back-alley”
- shouldn’t have a line (in case someone just over
the line uses worse methods)
- okay if just nerve endings (less “lifey” life)
- woman should have the say over whether or not
to give birth, but then men should have a say over
whether or not to support the child
- sex is nice to do - baby isn’t the only function
- women’s rights are a good thing – can do more if
they can prevent/terminate pregnancy
- have technology so we can progress
Class
- harms on a larger scale – don’t make it illegal, but
just don’t do it (Kant)
- must face consequences of your actions –
abortion takes away the consequences
BUT human life shouldn’t be a consequences
- selfish to decide not to have it because
inconvenience (BUT not just 9 months – physical
and emotional consequences)
- shouldn’t be so easy that it’s used as birth control
- only okay if it’s for the benefit of the child – to
prevent a potentially bad life – selfishness is bad
- purpose of sex is to have babies – naturally – it’s
the primary function of sex – should accept the risk
and have a plan just in case
- choice will affect the life of another
- shouldn’t make decisions just on personal desires
ASIDE – what’s wrong with selfishness? – putting your own needs and desires over others - choosing
for you in a way that affects others
- we hope that others are selfless so they don’t rip us off BUT- slave mentality (Nietzsche) best interest
of society to be selfless
- most don’t like it (ad populum)
- can be selfish and rational at once
- human nature to be selfish (naturalistic f.)
- goal – survival of fittest (naturalistic fallacy)
- can only know what you want - can only make yourself happy – then don’t end up bitter trying but
failing to make others happy (Rand) (e.g. Christmas exchanges)
- but we can know to an extent what will make people happy – decide based on general consensus
(Hume)
- thinking you make someone happy is good too even if they’re not really happy about it
BUT – still acting in own self interest
MEDICAL INTERVENTION (saving babies / euthanasia)
intervention is good
Mill
- save life if it minimizes pain as much as possible –
- pro-euthanasia - decreases pain of the person;
can decrease pain of survivors too
- life of suffering worse than no life
- not harm if stoping suffering
intervention bad Mill
- bad if longterm pain – having to care for child
forever…
- Euthanasia is bad if it makes survivors upset
- harming if killing them
Freud
- okay if a good reason – use ego
- euthanasia is bad if doing for inheritance….
Rand
- life is about being productive and being proud of
yourself – no longer able to do that if suffering
- have control over your own body when possible
Kant
Aristotle
- health is essential to happiness – if can no longer
be happy then may as well die
- bad for society to have them live
Nietzsche
- Master – want control over life and death and
want to get rid of babies with disabilities; opposed
to being hooked up to a machine for life
- slave – bad if just because afraid of suffering
Hume
- extreme situation so not like a regular murder
- reasonable people watching others suffer might
change judgment to see it’s a bad thing to have
them life out their life
- better for society economically if terminate
Thoreau
- own your body – make decisions for yourself
- purpose of doctors must be to preserve life
- slave – bad if just because you fear death
- essential part of life to get old and die – people
will be skipping out on that due to pride – don’t
want people to see them undignified (or fear of
pain)
- could lead to slippery slope and we’ll end up
terminating lives of mentally ill
- not fair to doctor to ask them to go against their
oath
- essential part of life to be old and die – skipping out on that due to pride
- okay for terminally ill – but what about mentally ill (terminal depression) – lead to slippery slope??
- not fair to doctor – asking doctor to go against their oath
Animal Rights and random medical issues and other stuff
medical testing
– no better alternative than animals
- people should just die when sick - if your own fault for getting sick, then shouldn’t get drugs
- BUT not a great solution to refuse treatment due to self-blame - ignores the role of luck in our
lives - we even help people who try to kill themselves (intentional harm)
- right to judge others’ choices?
eating and farming
- animals not treated with respect - have an alternative, but don’t use it
Freud – totally against it – not necessary for survival, totally a selfish pleasure
Kant – killing animals has to be fine or not fine - no inbetween
- fine – improves quality of human life
- hypocritical to say okay to test on them, but not eat them