Philosophy
Moral Philosophy:
Student Activities
Higher and Intermediate 2
7899
.
Summer 2000
HIGHER STILL
Philosophy
Moral Philosophy:
Student Activities
Higher and Intermediate 2
Support Materials
CONTENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
Utilitarianism; information and activities
Kantian Ethics; information and activities
War - introduction to topic
Utilitarianism and War
Kantian Ethics and War
Punishment - introduction to topic
Utilitarianism and Punishment
Kantian Ethics and Punishment
• Euthanasia - introduction to topic
• Utilitarianism and Euthanasia
• Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
1
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
2
NOTE TO TUTORS
These support materials have been designed to support the teaching of the
Moral Philosophy Unit at Int 2 and Higher. The materials have already
been used by one set of students and it is intended that the information
sheets and tasks can be given directly to students.
The materials deal with Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and their approach
to three issues explored by the unit – War, Punishment and Euthanasia.
The materials should be used to supplement other resources or as a basis
from which to start.
Various authors are frequently cited, giving their views on the specified
issues. This gives students a breadth of views without having to read all
the texts mentioned. It might be useful to look at some of the
supplementary texts and some of these texts are listed below.
General texts
Honderich, T Oxford Companion to Philosophy O U P (Oxford 1995)
Morton, A Philosophy in Practice Blackwell (Oxford 1996)
Osborne, R Philosophy for Beginners Writers and Readers Pub. (New York 1992)
Palmer, M Moral Problems. The Lutterworth Press (Cambridge 1991)
Thompson, M Philosophy: An Introduction Hodder and Stoughton (London 1995)
Warburton, N Philosophy: The Basics (edition 2) Routledge & Kegan Paul
(London 1995)
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
3
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
4
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
STUDENT TASK
Moral philosophy is about making moral choices – about how
people decide what is moral / immoral.
Morality is concerned with ideas of right and wrong. Making a
moral choice is not like choosing something to wear; it involves
choices about how we should behave and the intentions behind
our behaviour. It involves what we and society see as the correct
values to have.
Think of some of the topics that might be covered under
“Moral Philosophy”
What is morally right is not the same as what is legally right
(although what is legal is usually thought to be moral too).
Think of something legal but, you could argue, is immoral
Think of something illegal but, you could argue, is moral
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
5
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
STUDENT TASK
Moral philosophers look at the reasons behind decisions about
what is right and wrong and debate whether these decisions are
justified. This is important because if we don’t have good reasons
against murder, torture etc we don’t have any real justification in
condemning it.
Some people say that deciding what is right is merely a matter of
taste – like deciding between tomato and brown sauce on your
burger. This is something that is down to individuals to decide and
you can’t criticise their decision.
Others say there is more to moral decision making, that it makes sense to discuss and debate
decisions of this nature in a way that it does not
make sense to debate the taste of sauce
(obviously tomato is best !!!).
Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is a
matter of taste.
What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality
like this?
Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is more
than personal taste.
What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality
like this?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
6
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
STUDENT TASK
Presuming that we can and should debate what is right and wrong,
there are many answers to the question of how we should decide
moral/immoral acts.
Write down as many ways of deciding what is right as you
can.
Which of the ideas do you think you agree with most? Why?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
7
Why should we be moral?
STUDENT TASK
Before you came to this class, you have probably had to make at least one moral
decision. Perhaps you could have taken a chocolate bar from the canteen without
paying and not been caught, perhaps you promised to do something for a friend and
they seem to have forgotten and you have to decide whether to remind them.
Everyday you have to choose between what you want and the interests of others,
between your desires and rules you feel you should obey.
But why should other people matter, why shouldn’t we just suit ourselves?
Answers like ‘ because it is unfair to others’ don’t always work. Some people don’t
care about others. The answer ‘because the consequences will be bad for you’ might
not apply if there is no way anyone will find out. So why should we be moral?
Here is a story told by the famous philosopher Plato.
It is known as the
‘Myth of the Ring of Gyges’
Plato’s friend, Glaucon tells the story of a magical ring,
which allows the person wearing it to be invisible.
Glaucon says that if we had such a ring and could get
away with anything, we would do so. We would be selfish
if we could get away with it.
•
•
•
•
If you had the ring of Gyges what would you like to
do?
What ‘immoral’ acts might you commit if you knew
you would not be caught?
Are there any things you still would not do even if
you would get away with it? What are they?
Why would you not do these things?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
8
Moral Theories
STUDENT INFORMATION
Why are they important?
Moral theories try to give us some way of deciding why actions are right or
wrong. Once we have underlying explanations about why things are right or
wrong we can use these reasons to decide on particular cases.
Generally, there are two different types of moral theories.
Teleological theories: Where moral judgements are based on the effects of
an act. You decide whether an act is good or bad by looking at its
consequences. This appeals to common sense, usually before people act
they think about what the outcome will be.
There are different opinions about what counts as good/ bad consequences.
Some people think the consequences are only good if they benefit the person
acting. Others think the consequences have to benefit more people than they
will harm.
Deontological theories: Disagrees with the idea that consequences are
important. In deontological theories whether an act is right does not depend
on the consequences. There are certain acts that are right or wrong no
matter what the consequences are.This appeals to the notion that there are
certain acts which are wrong even if they have a good outcome. Some people
think we can decide whether acts are right by looking at the motive behind
them. Others think that acts have to conform to rules for them to be right.
Teleological theories look forward and deontological theories look
backward to decide what is right or wrong. Some people believe in only
one type of theory but we quite often decide what is right and wrong
using both types of theories.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
9
STUDENT TASK
Moral Theories
Decide whether these statements are teleological or deontological or
could be both. (Note that you do not have to agree with the statements).
1.
Drinking and driving is wrong. You only have to
look at the deaths it causes to see that.
I knew studying
was the right
thing to do – I’ve
passed all my
exams!
2.
3.
, FRXOG QHYHU JR WR ZDU
4.
EHFDXVH , WKLQN LW LV
$OZD\V
ZURQJ WR NLOO
WHOO WKH
WUXWK
5.
6.
“ Always obey your
superiors”
When I am older I
must not take sweets
from strangers
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
10
Moral Theories
STUDENT TASK
,Q *URXSV««
Here are some moral dilemmas. For each one decide
• What you would do
• Why you would do this
• Whether your reasons are teleological, deontological or both
You come home one night to find your house on fire.
Your dad and his friend, a famous doctor who is
supposed to be close to curing AIDS, are inside. You only
have time to save one person.
Whom should you save?
Your friend tells you she has stolen the papers for the Philosophy
exam. You tell her that someone else has been blamed and is
being expelled for it. Your friend refuses to own up.
What should you do?
A man from your town decides to open a video shop that will sell mild
pornographic videos. As a moral philosopher, people are looking to
you to say whether this is acceptable or not. Some feel that it will
corrupt the young, others feel that people should free to choose what
they watch. The shop will provide much-needed jobs for the town.
What should you recommend?
You are on a cruise liner that is hijacked. The hijackers discover
that there is one passenger who has gone missing – your son. You
know that he has gone to try and alert the authorities on his
mobile phone. The hijackers find him and then tell you that
unless you kill him, they will kill him and 10 other people as well.
Should you kill your son?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
11
STUDENT INFORMATION
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism states that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.
What does this mean?
What is the ‘greatest good?’
This is explained by the 2 men who are the most famous advocates of
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham
(1748 – 1832)
An Introduction to the Principles
Of Morals and Legislation
“ Nature has placed
mankind under the
governance of two
sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure.”
John Stuart Mill
(1806 – 1873)
Essay on Utilitarianism
“ Utilitarianism holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure and the
absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the
privation of pleasure.”
So for Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. Happiness for Utilitarianism is pleasure and the absence of
pain.
The idea that we ought to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number is called ‘ The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness principle’.
I’m not very happy
– I don’t really
understand what
this principle thing
involves
To fully understand –
we need more details so
read on!
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
12
Utilitarianism
STUDENT INFORMATION
7KHUH DUH ELJJHU LGHDV ZKLFK XQGHUOLH WKH *UHDWHVW
+DSSLQHVV 3ULQFLSOH :KHQ \RX SXW WKHVH WRJHWKHU \RX JHW D
EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZKDW WKH SULQFLSOH LV DOO DERXW
&RQVHTXHQWLDOLVP
Consequentialism involves deciding whether an
action is good or bad by looking at the consequences
of that action. If the consequences of the action are good
then the action is a good one. If the consequences of the
action are bad then the action is a bad one.
Can we
always tell
what the
consequences
will be?
+HGRQLVP
Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the only inherently good
thing and that pain is the only inherently bad thing. Acts which
bring about pleasure are good acts. Acts which bring pain are bad
acts.
NOTE
Utilitarianism is not exactly the same as Hedonism
because hedonism is all about getting your
own pleasure.
It is important in Utilitarianism to get
pleasure for as many people as possible
(happiness for the greatest number).
(TXLW\
For Utilitarians the pleasure and pain of everyone is
equally important. Every person counts for one and
only one. If your happiness is increased by 10 by
doing something but the happiness of others is
increased by 100 if you do something else then
you should do the ‘something else’.
Should babies
count equally
with adults?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
13
Utilitarianism
STUDENT INFORMATION
:K\ VKRXOG ZH DLP IRU KDSSLQHVV"
Think about what you want out of life – Money? Fame?
A happy marriage? These seem reasonable hopes but
we could ask what we want things like these for?
We wouldn’t, HOWEVER, ask someone who said they wanted
to be happy in life –What do you want happiness for? We do
not feel the need to justify happiness in the same way that we
try to justify wanting money etc.
Happiness is something, which is worth having for its own sake.
JS Mill says that people think of happiness as a goal to aim for. When we look
at what people think is important we find that the reason they find these things
important is because they think they will lead to human happiness.
If you go along with this – the Utilitarian ideal of maximising the general
happiness seems a good way to decide what is the right thing to do.
What about aiming for a stable
society or stable families? Why
just aim for happiness?
Even if we do assume people do aim
for happiness - isn't it their own
happiness they want?
Utilitarianism doesn’t always let you
have it – you might have to sacrifice
your own happiness if it doesn’t fit in
with the happiness of the greatest
number.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
14
Utilitarianism
STUDENT INFORMATION
&DOFXODWLQJ KDSSLQHVV
Bentham’s hedonic calculus
For Utilitarianism to work – we have to be able to calculate and measure pain
and pleasure. If we can’t measure these then we can never know whether we
have brought about the greatest good for the greatest number (the aim of
Utilitarianism).
This seems like a difficult task – the experiences of pleasure and pain are very
complex. Many pleasurable experiences have some pain mixed in – so how
do we calculate the value of our experiences? To help us out Bentham brings
in his hedonic calculus.
He says there are certain things to think about which will help us calculate
how much pleasure/pain an experience gives us. We have to consider things
like:
•
•
•
•
How intense the experience is
How long it lasts
Whether it will lead to similar types of experiences
How many people will be affected
Can these types of
calculation work?
Can we compare the
pleasure of winning at
cards and the pleasure
of saving a life?
If it were found that a
mind altering drug would
make everyone feel
pleasure all the time –
wouldn’t it be OK to
secretly add this to the
water supply?
Doesn’t it allow for pleasure
that most people would see as
wrong – 10 sadistic guards
getting pleasure torturing 1
man? Their pleasure would be
allowed because it is greater
than his pain.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
15
STUDENT INFORMATION
Utilitarianism
&DOFXODWLQJ KDSSLQHVV
Mill’s higher and lower pleasures
Mill’s Utilitarianism is different to Bentham’s because Mill says it is not just
quantity of pleasure which matters – quality matters too. Mill believed that
some pleasures counted for more than others.
“ It is quite compatible with the principle of
utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of
pleasure are more desirable and more valuable
than others.”
Mill is trying to solve the problem of having to allow what most people would
see as unacceptable pleasures - the kinds of pleasures the sadistic guards
were experiencing. Mill could now say that the pleasure of torturing someone
has a much lower value than the pain felt by the victim, so it would not fit in
with Utilitarianism to allow the guards to torture the man.
Which pleasures are ‘higher’ and which ones are ‘lower’?
‘Higher’ - Intellectual pleasures such as reading, debating, learning
‘Lower’ – Physical pleasures such as eating,drinking and sex.
How does Mill justify this distinction?
1. Both animals and humans experience physical pleasures but the
pleasures of the intellect are what make us different to animals.
2. People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer the
intellectual ones.
Is 2 always true? Don’t some people seem to
choose the physical pleasures over the
intellectual ones?
How do we decide exactly, which are Higher/ Lower Pleasures?
Mill says we have to appeal to the views of what he calls competent judges.
These are people who have tried both types of pleasure. If they keep opting
for a certain type of pleasure then it must be a higher pleasure.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
16
Utilitarianism
STUDENT TASK
Look at the list below. Which do you think are ‘Higher’ pleasures?
Which do you think are ‘Lower’ pleasures?
List them under the headings ‘Higher’ and ‘Lower’
Possible pleasures
Having friends
Eating meat
Listening to Mozart
Playing a sport
Taking a walk
Drinking water
Giving love
Making love
Having money
Playing chess
Going to a pop concert
Drinking champagne
Reading a novel
Having power
Receiving love
Taking revenge
‰
Compare your list with others in your group.
Are they the same?
‰
Try and list them according to what you think
Mill would say.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
17
Utilitarianism
STUDENT
STUDENT TASK
INFORMATION
So far, the Utilitarianism we have looked at has been Utilitarianism
which focuses on individual acts. It is often known as Act
Utilitarianism. There is, however, another kind of Utilitarianism.
RULE UTILITARIANISM
Instead of looking at every act to see whether it will bring about the
greatest happiness for the greatest number, Rule Utilitarians try to
find rules which will bring about the greatest happiness for the
greatest number and then just follow these rules.
There are two forms of Rule Utilitarianism - Strong and Weak.
Strong Rule Utilitarianism:
Once the rules have been decided it is not
right to break them even when it might be
better in an individual case.
Weak Utilitarianism:
There are special cases when breaking the
rules may be allowed.
See how much you can find out about rule
utilitarianism.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
18
Utilitarianism
STUDENT TASK
8WLOLWDULDQLVP LQ 3UDFWLFH
7KLQN DERXW ZKDW 8WLOLWDULDQV EHOLHYH :KDW VKRXOG D
8WLOLWDULDQ UHFRPPHQG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ FDVHV"
John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his
mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team
will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water
and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks
very weak.
Should John drink the water or give it to his friend ?
Jerry is a kind person, always making time to discuss other people’s problems
with them. He is studying for his Highers and his results are very important to
allow him to get into University. It is his dream to go and study the Media and
hopefully get into TV. The evening before his Philosophy Higher (his favourite
subject) his friend Derek phones. He is upset because he has just discovered
that his girlfriend has been two timing him with another friend and he needs
someone to talk to. Jerry knows if he lets Derek talk, it will take up most of the
evening when he could be studying. But if he tells Derek to phone back
tomorrow then Derek will spend the evening being upset.
Should Jerry a) Tell Derek to phone back tomorrow?
b) Let Derek talk?
Her Granny has left Joanne a fortune. She has a well-paid job and lives
comfortably. Joanne has a cousin who is a single parent trying to raise two
children while working a badly paid job. Granny did not leave any money to
her because they had a disagreement about her boyfriend twenty years ago.
Should Joanne
a)Keep the money?
b)Give the money to her cousin?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
19
Utilitarianism
STUDENT TASK
8WLOLWDULDQLVP LQ 3UDFWLFH
Look at these cases. Think about what you
would do.
1.You work as a doctor. Two babies are brought in one night but
you only have one intensive care bed. Baby A is very ill and will
almost certainly die if he is not admitted to intensive care. Baby B
is less desperately ill.
You also know that Baby A has a rare genetic disorder which
means that if he survives he is likely to grow up to be an
aggressive psychopath. Most people with his condition murder or
rape. You know nothing about the genetic makeup of Baby B.
Which baby should you admit to intensive care?
2. You are in prison with an incurable disease and you will die
soon. You share a cell with a prisoner who will be in prison for the
rest of his life. He has no friends and no family. He is also
miserable and this will only get worse. He is too frightened to kill
himself although he has talked about his wish to die many times.
You have a poison which you could put in his food to kill him
painlessly and without being detected. The doctors would think he
died of natural causes.
Should you kill the prisoner?
Think about what a Utilitarian might recommend
What reasons would they give?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
20
STUDENT INFORMATION
Utilitarianism
6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV
So what do you think of Utilitarianism? Is it a good way to decide what is
right and wrong?
Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?
Strengths
Natural – Pleasure and pain are real. They play a huge part in
our lives. Utilitarianism gives them a central role.
Everyone matters – It is not just concerned with how we feel. It
takes into account how others feel. This seems right and only
practical when talking about morality.
Balanced – The consequences of an action depend on the
circumstances of each case. Utilitarians don’t have to deal with
having moral rules which sometimes conflict, e.g. What if you
believe in the rules ‘don’t kill’ and ‘protect your family’ yet
someone is attacking your family? What do you do?
Utilitarianism avoids such conflicts.
Simple – Few ideas are actually involved – only the
consequences of an action matter and we only need to look at
whether these bring about pleasure/pain. It is much less
complicated than having to deal with the motives of actions and
peoples’ rights’ etc. These are things which other moral theories
focus on.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
21
STUDENT INFORMATION
Utilitarianism
6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV
Weaknesses
Can we calculate pain/pleasure? – Can we really work out
how to get the most happiness for the greatest number? e.g. do
we need lots of people with a little happiness or slightly less
people who have more happiness?
Does everyone really matter? – What makes you happy might
not go along with what makes the majority happy. You might
end up being miserable all the time. Also Utilitarianism seems
to ignore an idea that most people accept – that we have
special responsibilities to particular people like our families.
Problem of Justice – Linked with the idea that some people
seem to matter less than others. An innocent person could be
punished for a crime if it would contribute to the greater
happiness – e.g.by deterring others.
Difficulties of Calculation – It is hard to predict the
consequences of some actions. It is also hard to tell when the
consequences stop. If you save a baby who then grows up to
be a murderer is this a consequence of your action?
Should we ignore rights/motives? – Do we want to say that
no one has the right to things like justice? Doesn’t the motive
behind an act count for anything?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
22
Utilitarianism
STUDENT TASK
$ 8WLOLWDULDQ :RUOG
Think about what you know
about Utilitarianism and write
down what you think a
Utilitarian world would be
like.
Would you like to live in a
Utilitarian world? Why/
Why not?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
23
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT INFORMATION
Kant was a German philosopher (1724 – 1804)
and he looked at deciding what is right and wrong in
a different way from Utilitarianism. Kant was a
non-consequentialist. He did not believe that looking at
the consequences of an action was how to decide whether
it was right or wrong.
KANT WROTE
‘Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals’
Let’s look at what this means…..
How do we decide what is right?
For Kant, you had to look at the intentions behind any act to see whether it was right
or wrong. Only the reason behind your actions would determine if it was right. Only
if your intentions were the right ones would you be acting morally. The consequences
did not matter for morality, what matters was the reason for acting.
Why do consequences not count?
Kant believed that the consequences of actions couldn’t be used to decide what was
right because consequences were not totally within our control. Kant believed that
being moral was something we did as rational human beings and was something
which applied equally to all such rational beings. If morality was the choice of
rational beings it hardly seemed fair to decide whether someone was acting in the
right way by looking at things they couldn’t control.
Think about a man who saves another from drowning and the man he saves then goes
and kills his family. If we were just looking at the consequences – the first man could
be said to have done something wrong, not right.
Even I can’t predict the
consequences of every
action!
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
24
STUDENT INFORMATION
Kantian Ethics
If consequences don’t count what does?
We have already established that for Kant, the only way to decide what is right is to
look at why you are doing it. Kant says that the only reason which counts as a moral
one is to act out of duty.
What does this mean?
What is it to act out of duty?
Acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the right thing to do,
not from any other motive.
What about acting out of courage,
or out of kindness, do these have
nothing to do with morality?
Why Duty?
If you were thinking about the right reasons for people doing something, duty is
probably the last thing you would come up with. You might suggest that it was
morally right to do something out of kindness or compassion but Kant doesn’t agree.
We need to find out why.
Think about the different natures people have. Some people are kind by nature; they
enjoy helping people and get pleasure from it. Other people find it harder to be kind.
It follows then that if what was right and wrong was decided by looking at whether
people acted out of kindness, some people would find it much easier than others
would. They would be more inclined to be kind. This means that being moral would
be a lot easier for some.
I love helping
people. I’m
lucky…
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
25
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT INFORMATION
Duty versus Inclination
Kant thinks that duty is all-important because acting out of duty is totally under our
control. The nature that we have is out of our control. It is luck whether or not we are
naturally kind. Like the consequences of an act being out of our control, it hardly
seems fair to decide whether someone is acting in the right way by looking at things
they can’t control.
Won’t some acts fit in with being
kind and acting out of duty?
Yes - it will sometimes be hard to tell just from looking at what people do to tell what
their true motive is. Kant also points out that some acts fit with duty and self-interest
too
“ it certainly accords with duty that a grocer should not overcharge
his inexperienced customer.. but this is not nearly enough to justify
us in believing that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty..
his interests required him to do so.”
There is more that we need to find out about our duty.
Remember we said acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the
right thing to do, not from any other motive.
But what is the right thing to do?
Kant believes that there are underlying principles which make us act in certain ways.
These general rules are called maxims and there are maxims for morality.
We can tell what are moral laws (maxims) by looking at something Kant calls
The Categorical Imperative
%H FRRO DERXW WKH ELJ
ZRUGV ² LW ZLOO VRRQ DOO
PDNH VHQVH
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
26
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT INFORMATION
What is a Categorical Imperative?
A categorical imperative is a command, like ‘Go to your class’ or ‘Keep your
promises’. This command applies unconditionally.
There are commands, which are hypothetical imperatives. These have conditions
attached to them like ‘ Go to your class if you want to learn’ or ‘Keep your promises
if you want people to respect you’.
For morality, Kant says there is one Categorical Imperative. There are 2 main ways in
which the categorical imperative is stated.
“Act in such a way
that you always treat
“Act only on that maxim
humanity… never
which you can at the same
simply as a means, but
time will that it should
always at the same
become a universal law.”
time as an end."
Universal Moral law
The idea here is that you should only do things, which it would make, sense to apply
to everyone. You should only do things that you would make a moral law for
everyone. Kant uses the example of making promises. If you make promises you
don’t intend to keep this might be convenient for you sometimes but it would not
make sense to make this a universal moral law. It would not be good if everyone
broke their promises when it suited them. If everyone broke their promises when it
suited them then people would stop trusting each other when they made promises.
The idea that the universal law has got to make sense is very important. Kant does
not use the word ‘want’ in the quote above; he uses the word ‘will’. This means that
you rationally intend that it happen. It means that you have thought it through and
it makes sense. If you think back to Kant’s reasons for duty as the only proper motive
- he wanted to make sure that everyone had the choice to be moral – that they were in
control of what they did.
What kinds of things
would it make sense to
have as universal laws?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
27
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT INFORMATION
Treating People as ends not means
The idea here is that you should not use people to suit your own purposes. You should
make sure that you are treating them as individuals who have their own lives to lead
and deserve respect.
Again Kant’s idea about people all having the chance to choose to be moral, to be in
control, comes in here. If people are being used then you are not giving them the
chance to be in control. You are not giving them the chance to act like rational beings.
Think about the little white lies
we tell people so we don’t hurt
their feelings – ‘No your bum
doesn’t look big in that’. Kant
thinks this is wrong because it is
not treating people as valuable
individuals, but is it?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
28
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT TASK
'HFLGH ZKHWKHU WKHVH FRPPDQGV FRXOG EH
XQLYHUVDO PRUDO ODZV 0DNH VXUH \RX KDYH
D UHDVRQ IRU \RXU GHFLVLRQ
D7DNHZKDW\RXZDQW
E%HSROLWH
F'HIHQG\RXUVHOIEXWQHYHU
VWDUWWKHILJKW
G/LHZKHQLWVXLWV\RX
H*LYHDOO\RXKDYHWRWKHSRRU
I1HYHUOLH
J$OZD\VNHHS\RXUSURPLVHV
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
29
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT TASK
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV LQ 3UDFWLFH 'RLQJ \RXU GXW\
Think about what Kant believed about what doing your duty involved.
Where would Kant say your duty lies in the following cases?
John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his
mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team
will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water
and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks
very weak.
Should John drink the water or give it to his friend?
A plane has crashed in the mountains with 26 survivors and 14
dead. The rescue attempt will take days. Food is running out. Do
the survivors have a duty to eat the flesh of the dead so that
they stay alive?
A group of 50 cancer patients are in a 6 month long drugs
experiment. 25 are given a new drug and 25 are given
vitamins. The patients don’t know which they are being
given. After 3 months there is a dramatic improvement in
those taking the new drugs but the doctor has to keep the
experiment going for 6 months for any drugs company to
accept the new drug.
Does the doctor have a duty to give the 25 patients on
vitamins the new drugs or should he keep the experiment
going?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
30
Kantian Ethics
STUDENT TASK
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV LQ 3UDFWLFH
Look at these cases. Think about what you
would do.
1. You are a teacher who has taken a group of children to the
theatre. You sit upstairs. In the middle of the show, you smell
smoke and someone shouts ‘Fire’. When you and the children get
to the fire exit, you discover it is made of glass and can only be
opened from the outside.
There is a man standing in front of it, frozen in panic.
It flashes into your mind that you could use the man to smash the
glass and get out. This would save all the children.
Should you use the man as a sort of battering ram?
2. You are part of the government of a country at war. You have
managed to strike a deal that will end the war but it involves all
prisoners of war being killed. If you do not agree to this, the war
will continue.
Should you sign the deal?
Think about what a Kantian might recommend
What reasons would they give?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
31
STUDENT INFORMATION
Kantian Ethics
6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV
So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what
is right and wrong?
Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?
Strengths
No problem of consequences – You do not have to worry
about how to predict the consequences of actions, about
consequences, which you can’t foresee.
Motives matter – Think about the difference between the
person who makes promises because they are convenient and
the person who promises because the person wants to keep
them. We prefer the latter person.
We should act out of duty not just do what we want –
Making duty the important thing stops people assuming that
what they want is the best thing to do.
Justice matters – We cannot treat people badly in order to
bring about better consequences. There are things you can’t do
no matter what. Everyone has rights and has to be treated with
respect. This theory is universal and impartial.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
32
STUDENT INFORMATION
Kantian Ethics
6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV
So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what
is right and wrong?
Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?
Weaknesses
Are consequences totally irrelevant? – Is obeying the rule ‘Never
Kill’ what we should do even if we know killing one person will save
millions of people?
How can we tell what people’s motives are? –People can act in the
same way for many different reasons. One shopkeeper might be
honest to help his business, another might do it because he wants
to help people, and another might do it for both these reasons.
Is duty the only correct motive? – People save lives because they
are brave or because they are compassionate. Kant says that these
motives don’t matter for morality but in real life people find these
emotions very important. You can’t totally ignore human emotions
or it will make morality inhuman.
What happens when duties conflict? - How do we decide
between 2 acts which count as moral or when we only have a
choice between 2 immoral acts? What happens if we act to do our
duty but this will break another duty that we have e.g. if it is always
wrong to break promises and always wrong to lie, what happens if I
have to lie to keep a promise?
Some immoral acts are OK under Kant’s theory – Telling a
contract killer where his victim was would fit with the universal law
always to tell the truth.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
33
:DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
¶%HLQJ RQ WKH IURQW OLQH LQ D
ZDU LV OLNH EHLQJ RQ WKH
VFHQH DW D WHUULEOH
DFFLGHQW RQ WKH PRWRUZD\·
‘If you are a soldier, you have
to control your fear. You have
to try not to think about the
deaths. You just think about
doing your job.’
The twentieth century has seen the largest and bloodiest wars in history.
Since 1945 there have been hundreds of wars all over the world. It is
estimated that nearly 30 million people have been killed using
‘conventional’ (non-nuclear) weapons.
The average death toll from armed conflict is put at between 33,000 and
41,000 a month from 1945.
Is killing in war any different to other types of killing? Some people think that it
is less morally wrong to kill in war – because you might be fighting for your
country, or you might be fighting an aggressor. Some people think it is more
morally wrong to kill in war because of the sheer number of deaths involved.
Questions to think about….
•
•
•
•
Do you think war can be justified? If so when?
Would you be prepared to fight for your country?
What questions (if any) would you ask before you would fight?
In what circumstances (if any) would you be prepared to die for your
beliefs – in a war against another country, in a war within your own
country, in a revolution?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
34
:DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
War can be defined as:
‘Armed conflict between 2 or more groups or countries’
This definition covers many different types of war. There are world wars and
local wars, conventional wars and nuclear wars; there are civil wars and
religious wars, to name but a few.
When talking about war you must note that there are
these different types of war. You must be clear about
what kind of war you are discussing.
Even if you concentrate on a ‘simple’ case of ‘conventional’ war between
2 countries, there are different moral issues to think about.e.g.
i)
Is the government justified in committing the country to war?
ii)
Once the war has started should you participate?
iii)
Questions about the possible use of chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons.
How would you feel if you were
called up to fight in a war
a) You thought was just
b) You thought was unjust
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
35
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
For a Utilitarian to decide whether
war is right or wrong, they have to look at
whether it will fit in with the Greatest Happiness
Principle.
Utilitarians will only be for war if it will increase the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.
The greatest happiness principle and the issue of war
Look back at your notes on the ideas that underlie Utilitarianism.
•
Utilitarians will look at both short and long term effects of a war. They will
consider things like the pain and deaths, loss of relatives, the misery of being
invaded, future freedom and peace. Everything depends on whether the benefit
will outweigh the pain of those killed, injured and bereaved.
Underlying Idea = Consequentialism
•
Utilitarians will look at the pain, which will be brought about by a war. They
will try to calculate whether the actions of war will bring about more of an
absence of pain than not going to war would.
Underlying idea = Hedonism
•
Utiltarians will not see the killing of ‘innocent’ men, women and children as
any worse than the killing of soldiers. The term ‘innocent’ in war is usually
applied to civilians. It would only be worse in Utilitarian terms if the
consequences were worse. This might well happen because the killing of children
etc might decrease the morale of the soldiers fighting.
Underlying Idea = Equity
Could Rule Utilitarians think
a rule against war was
justified?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
36
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
Nuclear War
Although a Utilitarian has to
consider the effects of war before condemning war,
we can say that they would be against nuclear war.
Why? - The use of nuclear weapons would inflict pain out of all proportion to
the military, political, social advantages to be gained by its use. We now have
enough weapons to destroy all life on earth and obviously this would not fit
with the greatest happiness principle. Even if, however, the nuclear war was
not on such a global scale, the terrible effects of even one nuclear bomb will
always far outweigh the benefits.
Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent
What does this mean? - This is the idea that if one country has the same
number or more weapons than another country, this will frighten the other
country enough to stop them attacking first.
The MAD system - We have a system where we can detect a nuclear attack
but cannot stop it. All we can do is attack back and ‘achieve’ Mutually Assured
Destruction.
•
Utilitarians would be against having a nuclear
deterrent.
Michael Palmer says that Utilitarians would condemn
using nuclear weapons as a threat for other countries
because in order for the threat to work, there has to be
a real possibility of using them. Utilitarians, as
pointed out above, would not agree with their use.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
37
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
BENEFITS
PROBLEMS
Common feeling. Looks to the short
and long term consequences of going
to war and will only
agree with war if the consequences
will create greater happiness. People
usually only go war to
create better circumstances.
Calculating Consequences . it is very
difficult to tell exactly what the
consequences of war will be. Did they
foresee the atomic bomb being used in
World War 2? Would not going to war
really be worse? Often the true results are
not known till years later.
It is also very demanding in the sense that
consequences have to be continually
monitored in what is an ever changing
situation with new decisions having to be
made all the time – should ground troops
go in? Should we use one nuclear bomb?
Will this lead to retaliation?
Rules. Once committed to war,
Utilitarianism allows
for rules of war having to be obeyed.
Although Utilitarianism involves
looking at cases
on their merits, its concern with
consequences will not allow killing
that is disproportionate to the benefits
it will bring.
The rules that Utilitarians will allow
are also rules that will make sense to a
lot of people.
This is what RB Brandt says in
‘Utilitarianism and the Rules of War’.
He says that
“people both impartial and rational
would
choose rules of war that would
maximise expectable utility”.
What should the rules of war be? It is
easy to have humanitarian rules which
don’t stop your military campaign e.g.
don’t bomb hospitals, but it is harder for
Utilitarians to make rules which do stop
some military actions. Again weighing up
the possible consequences is the
difficulty here.
J Glover point this out in ‘Causing Death
and Saving Lives’
Breaking the Rules. There will be some
cases however rare, where breaking the
rules would suit Utilitarian principles
better than not breaking them and this
might allow acts people see as immoral –
e.g. killing children.
Rule Utilitarians could avoid this
criticism with the idea that it will
always be better overall to keep rules
of war even if in individual cases they
should sometimes be broken.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
38
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG :DU
STUDENT INFORMATION
For Kantians to decide
whether war is right or wrong, they
have to look at whether it will fit in with the
Categorical Imperative.
On the whole, war does not seem to fit in with the 2 different forms of the
Categorical Imperative, so the Kantian will probably be against it.
The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of war
Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Why might war contradict the
Imperative?
•
Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be
universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.
Going to war cannot be a universal moral law because thousands, if not
millions of innocent people would die.
•
Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which
are moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They have
to be respected and valued.
Going to war does not treat people as ends because their country could be
using soldiers as a means to win the war.
Nuclear War
As Michael Palmer points out in ‘Moral Problems’,
the possible non-combatant casualties of a nuclear war could run into millions. This
involves the death of innocent people and the Kantian principles above are against
that. The Kantian would therefore be against nuclear war.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
39
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG :DU
BENEFITS
Common feeling. The Kantian idea that
we should never kill innocents fits well
with the common idea that no matter
what there are certain people who
have to be protected and certain things
we should never resort to.
T. Nagel in ‘ War and Massacre’ prefers
the idea of never killing innocents
because it is always morally wrong
rather than because it has bad
consequences, as a Utilitarian might
say.
Rules. Once committed to war Kantian
ethics Provides clear and unbreakable
rules.They fit in with the traditional
rules of war: that killing should be for
military objectives and not
disproportionate to the aim. Intentional
killing of innocents is not allowed
either. These rules are not subject to
consequences like Utilitarian rules
might be.
STUDENT INFORMATION
PROBLEMS
What counts as innocence? In war it is
often said to mean ‘currently harmless’
but in modern warfare it is hard to
decide whom this includes. What about
the mechanics who service the
technological weapons? What about the
factory workers who produce them?
What about the people who support the
government who declared war - are they
truly ‘innocent’? What about child
soldiers?
Breaking the Rules. Never breaking the
rules might allow atrocities which are
far worse than breaking them.
T. Nagel points this out in ‘War and
Massacre’.
Conflict of Duties. The CI gives no
guidance about what to do when we
have to choose between 2 immoral acts
and this might be a common scenario in
war e.g. killing an enemy soldier who is
about to find a group of hiding children.
This is a conflict between the duty of not
killing and protecting the innocent.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
40
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
$FFRUGLQJ WR WKH 2[IRUG (QJOLVK GLFWLRQDU\ D FULPH LV
¶DQ RIIHQFH
SXQLVKDEOH E\ ODZ·
,W FDQ DOVR EH GHILQHG DV
¶VRPH XQSOHDVDQW FRQVHTXHQFH WKDW D VWDWH
LPSRVHV IRU WKH YLRODWLRQ RI D OHJDO ODZ· -RVHSK *UFLF
(YHU\ VRFLHW\ KDV ODZV EXW SHRSOH DUH QRW SHUIHFW DQG WKHVH ODZV DUH
VRPHWLPHV EURNHQ )RU VRFLHW\ WR UXQ VPRRWKO\ ZH QHHG WR WU\ DQG
PLQLPLVH WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKDW WKLV KDSSHQV 2QH ZD\ WR GR WKLV LV
XVLQJ SXQLVKPHQW 7KLV VRXQGV VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG HQRXJK EXW QRW HYHU\RQH
DJUHHV DERXW ZKDW IRUP SXQLVKPHQW VKRXOG WDNH $ ORW RI WKH
GLVDJUHHPHQW FRPHV IURP WKH IDFW WKDW SHRSOH GR QRW DJUHH DERXW ZKDW
SXQLVKPHQWV DUH WU\LQJ WR DFKLHYH
Why Punish? Reasons from the Past.
Primitive Society: Crime was an insult to the Gods and
the Gods had to see that it was being dealt with.
Social solidarity: Some people think that punishing
crime brought society together.
To keep the poor down: Some people thought
punishment was imposed by the ruling classes to make
sure they kept their privileges.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
41
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT TASK
/RRN DW WKH W\SHV RI SXQLVKPHQW FRPPRQO\ XVHG WRGD\ DQG
GHFLGH ZKLFK RQHV \RX ZRXOG UHJDUG DV DSSURSULDWH LQ WKH
IROORZLQJ FDVHV
COMMON PUNISHMENTS
CRIMES
)LQHV
DUDSH
3ULVRQ
E IRRWEDOO KRROLJDQLVP
&RPPXQLW\ 6HUYLFH
F GHDWK E\ UHFNOHVV GULYLQJ
7DJJLQJ
G GRPHVWLF YLROHQFH
3UREDWLRQ
H EXUJODU\
&DSLWDO SXQLVKPHQW
I PXUGHU
J FKLOG DEXVH
K EODFNPDLO
L PDQVODXJKWHU
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
42
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
The Aims of Punishment
,Q WRGD\·V VRFLHW\ SXQLVKPHQW LV FRPPRQO\ VDLG WR KDYH SXUSRVHV 0RVW
VHQWHQFHV KDQGHG RXW WR RIIHQGHUV DUH D PL[WXUH RI VHYHUDO RI WKHVH
Read the 5 main aims below and then look back at the punishments you
recommended for different crimes. Which aims are covered by each
punishment?
™ PROTECTION: To protect society from someone’s anti–social
behaviour.
™ RETRIBUTION: If someone does something wrong then they
should receive a punishment which fits the crime.
™ DETERRENCE: Seeing that people are punished from crimes will
put other people off committing a similar crime. It will also
(hopefully) stop the criminal doing it again.
™ REFORM: The punishments should be of a kind that will make
the criminals become responsible citizens.
™ VINDICATION: Punishment must be given when people break
the law so that the law will be respected.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
43
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
The Ultimate
Punishment
Is it morally
right for me to
sentence
someone to
A just society is recognised by most
people as one that gives its citizens
the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. It has also been
accepted for centuries that those individuals who violate this right must pay
the ultimate penalty.
Arguments for Capital Punishment
•
•
•
•
Society must protect civilians and those who fight crime, from people who
can’t control their violent impulses.
Anyone who has taken a life deserves to have his or her life taken. This is
justice.
The death penalty is the only sort of deterrent that some criminals will
understand.
Some criminals much prefer to be executed than to spend the rest of their
lives in jail.
Arguments against Capital Punishment
•
•
•
•
There have been miscarriages of justice. Innocent people have been
hanged.
The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Murders are still
committed in places with the death penalty.
It is a violation of the sanctity of life, which the state is supposed to protect.
It could make convicted terrorists into martyrs.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
44
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT TASK
Read the following quotes about
crime and punishment. What do
you think? Why?
Have your say but be
prepared to justify your
answers!
How can the law be fair? How do
you fine a person who can earn
more in a week than the average
guy earns in a whole year?
“Prisons are academies where
the apprentice criminals can
learn their trade”
The Dalai
Lama.
(Former Home
Secretary.
Douglas Hurd.)
(Punishment) – the methods used only
create more problems, more suffering,
more distrust, more resentment, more
division. The result is not good for
anyone.
&ULPLQDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH 8. EHJLQV
DW DJH EXW KRZ FDQ WKLV EH ULJKW ZKHQ
\RX KHDU RI ROG SHRSOH EHLQJ DWWDFNHG E\
FKLOGUHQ RI DQG "
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
45
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
The Utilitarian theory of punishment favours the idea of deterrence.
This is the idea that punishing the criminal will send a message to those
who are thinking about committing a crime, a message that committing
the crime would be a bad idea. Punishing a criminal will hopefully deter
criminals from committing crimes.
This theory has two parts to it:
1. SPECIFIC - To prevent the actual criminal who is being punished from
committing crimes again.
2. GENERAL - As a warning to potential criminals.
In ‘An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation’ Bentham talks
about punishment. He says ….
If it ought at all to be admitted,
it ought to be admitted in as far
as it promises to exclude some
greater evil.
Hopefully this
punishment
will prevent
others from
trying it…
The idea of deterrence is not the only aim of punishment which fits in with
Utilitarianism. Joseph Grcic points out that Utilitarians believe that punishments like
prison sentences should be an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate the criminal so
that he/she can contribute to society (Reform). .James P. Sterba says that
Utilitarianism also fits in with the idea that we have to protect society from anti social
behaviour (Protection) and that we have to use punishment as a way to make sure that
the law will be respected (Vindication).
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
46
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
Where does the Utilitarian view come from?
The Greatest Happiness Principle
For Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.
* Remember that happiness for the Utilitarian is pleasure and the absence of pain.
* Remember that the results of any action have to be good and Utilitarians decide
about this by looking at the 3 underlying ideas of the GHP
•
•
•
CONSEQUENCES: Decide whether an action is good or bad by looking at the
consequences. If you punish criminals are the consequences likely to be good?
The pain of actual punishment, that fact that it deters them and others, keeps
society safe, makes sure the law is respected.
HEDONISM: The idea that pleasure is the only inherently good thing and pain
the only bad thing. Will punishment result in more happiness and less pain? You
have to look at the pain of the criminal versus the happiness of society. When
they are protected from criminals will the crime rate go down because people are
deterred from committing crimes?
EQUITY: The pleasure and pain for everyone is equally important. Look at the
effect on those involved in the specific crimes the criminal, the victim/ their
family.
This explains the Utilitarian view of what the limits of punishment should be but it
doesn’t explain why they think punishment is a good idea in the first place.
Punishment in itself seems to
be evil – it increases pain.
How can this be justified?
Remember that Utilitarians have to look at a wide range of consequences to decide
what to do and they argue that the good consequences of punishment will outweigh
the bad. Punishment itself is not a good thing, it is only good for the consequences it
brings. It is a necessary evil.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
47
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
Capital Punishment FOR or AGAINST?
Looking at the consequences of capital punishment, there are different
possibilities for Utilitarians.
Jonathan Glover points out that some of the possible bad consequences
have to be taken into account. The number of lives saved through deterring
others might not be more than the number of executions. Consider the pain of
the criminal waiting to be executed, their family who know their loved one will
be killed versus the family of the victim who only had to find out later. There is
the possibility of executing an innocent person, the fact that this might lower
the value we put on human life.
J S Mill argued for Capital Punishment in a speech to Parliament in 1868. The
speech was entitled ‘In Favour of Capital Punishment’ and the main points
were
•
•
•
•
•
It should only be for those who will not be reformed by any other
punishment.
It is more humane to the prisoner – they suffer and lose all hope in prison
and this doesn’t even deter others.
Capital Punishment will not deter hardened criminals but it might deter
others.
We will not devalue human life by executing people – we devalue life by
inflicting suffering through prison which does not deter others properly and
will not reform some criminals.
An innocent person being executed is rare and the threat of the death
penalty will make the courts even stricter about the evidence they need.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
48
8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
A Satisfactory view?
STRENGTHS
Fits in with common feelings.
The idea that we have to look at
what will be best for everyone after
something horrible like a crime fits
in with what people want. Most
people want something good to
come from bad situations.
Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Death
and Saving Lives’ says that
punishment has to be more than just
pointless suffering, it has to be trying
to make something positive come
out in the end.
It is a practical theory.
There are lots of categories of crimes
and within each category there are
lots of different circumstances.
Utilitarianism allows these
circumstances to be reflected in the
punishment. Punishment does not
have to be given just because a crime
was committed. In some cases, it
might be better not to punish
someone e.g. in the case of the
abused wife who uses violence.
Utilitarianism also recognises that
criminals cannot all just be got rid
of. We can’t lock them all up and
throw away the key. Criminals do
come back into society and it makes
sense to try and make sure that they
become better people when they do.
Utilitarianism recognises this by
supporting the idea of reform.
WEAKNESSES
Seems to allow for punishing
the innocent.
Utilitarians say that punishment is
chiefly to deter others and they
focus totally on the consequences
to see whether an act is good.
This seems to make it possible
that there could be a situation
where the best consequences will
come from punishing someone
who is innocent.
John Rawls criticises
Utilitarianism because it could
justify punishing the innocent.
Punishment could be very
harsh or very light; it all
depends on the consequences.
Because the whole aim of
punishment looks to the
consequences, sentences could
differ widely in each case if that
was what the circumstances
required. If punishing someone
really harshly would set an
example and really deter others
then a Utilitarian may have to
allow this e.g. really long jail
term for not paying for a parking
space. Or if punishing someone
does not seem to benefit society,
should criminals get away with it
e.g. not paying for a parking
space. This doesn’t seem fair.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
49
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
Kant’s theory of punishment is retributive. This is the idea that
the criminal has taken something unfairly from society and justice
demands that they should suffer for it. This kind of theory sees
criminals as parasites on society – who want to share in the good
things
of society but are not willing to abide by the rules we need to keep society going.
This theory says that the only reason necessary for punishment is that the person
actually committed the crime. It also says that the punishment should fit the crime. (It
should be an eye for an eye, not two eyes and an arm!).
In ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ Kant talks about punishment. He says ….
When someone who delights in annoying and vexing
peace loving folk receives at last a right good beating,
it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and
considers it as a good in itself, even if nothing further
results from it.
If you strike another
you strike yourself; if
you kill another you
kill yourself.
From the quote you can see that Kant is FOR capital punishment . He believed that
criminals were only to be punished because they deserved it, If you killed, you
deserve to be killed. It also meant that he thought every sentence of capital
punishment had to be carried out for justice to be done. Kant gives an example of an
island community which has decided to split up and go and live elsewhere. Kant said
that before they left, it was their duty to execute every last murderer.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
50
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
Where does Kant’s view come from?
The second part of the Categorical Imperative:
Treat people as ends not means
* Remember Kant believed that humans have an intrinsic worth. Remember also that
he believed this because he thought that we were rational beings – beings that could
make our own decisions by using our reason.
• If you put criminals in prison for the good of society - you are, according to Kant,
using them as a means to an end, you are using them being in prison as a way to
make society safer.
• Trying to rehabilitate and reform criminals is also treating them as means rather
than as ends in themselves because you are not letting these people be their true
selves. You are trying to mould them into the way society wants them to be.
This explains Kant’s view of what the limits of punishment should be but it doesn’t
explain why he thinks any kind of punishment is a good idea in the first place .
How is punishing
someone
respecting them as
people?
How can executing
people be treating
them with respect?
Remember what we said above that, for Kant, to treat someone as a means rather than
as an end is to treat them as a rational being. This means treating them as people who
are responsible for their own actions.
If you are responsible for your actions, you can be held accountable for them – you
can be praised or blamed for them.
Punishment is the way to make sure people are held accountable for their actions.
Karl Marx liked Kant’s ideas. He said ‘ There is only one theory of
punishment which is compatible with human dignity and that is the
theory of Kant’ (1853)
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
51
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
A Satisfactory view?
STRENGTHS
Fits in with common feelings of
what justice is
The idea that criminals DESERVE
to be punished and that only people
who have actually committed crimes
should be punished, fits in with how
people feel.
It is common to hear victims of
crime saying things like ‘ They only
got what they deserved’ when they
hear the punishment given to the
criminal.
Also people do not like to hear of
people being in prison for things
they didn’t do. If they didn’t mind
this, we would not need the huge
amount of evidence to convict
people which we need now.
James Rachels in ‘Moral
Philosophy’ says that Kant has a
view of punishment which is a very
common view.
Gives people responsibility for
their actions.
On the whole people believe that
you can and do control your actions.
Kant’s ideas about punishment treats
people with respect by recognising
that they are in control of what they
do. If they want to say they are in
control of what they do, they have to
take responsibility for what they do.
This is why criminals deserve to be
punished.
Karl Marx (in notes on Kant and
Punishment) says Kant treats people
WEAKNESSES
It is a very Harsh Theory to follow.
The ideas that we only need to pay
attention to the fact criminals
DESERVE to be punished means that
there are no exceptions to the rule.
We see this in Kant’s island example
where all the criminals on death row
have to be executed before the
community splits up. Even an 80 year
old dying of cancer anyway would have
to be executed.
It also means that mitigating
circumstances cannot be taken into
account either. If a wife kills after she
has been subject to years of abuse for
example, this does not matter, she has
still killed. John Rawls says that Kant's
theory may allow too much punishment
being given out.
Doesn’t look to what will happen in
the future.
This theory looks backward and only
considers the act and what punishment
fits with the crime. Kant’s theory does
not take account of what will happen in
the future. He does not take account of
the consequences of the punishment - it
does not matter whether it deters
criminals or not, it does not matter
whether it will actually help a criminal
reform himself or whether it will
damage a criminal and lead him or her
to commit worse crimes.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
52
3XQLVKPHQW
STUDENT INFORMATION
Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics
7KH\ UHDOO\ GRQ·W OLNH HDFK RWKHU·V YLHZV RQ
SXQLVKPHQW
7KH RQO\ DLP RI SXQLVKPHQW WKDW 8WLOLWDULDQV GRQ·W
DJUHH ZLWK LV 5(75,%87,21
-RVHSK *UFLF
VD\V WKDW
8WLOLWDULDQV VHH WKH LGHD RI UHWULEXWLRQ DV DQ LUUDWLRQDO
QHHG IRU UHYHQJH ZKLFK LQFUHDVHV RYHUDOO VXIIHULQJ
.DQW GLGQ·W WKLQN PXFK RI WKH 8WLOLWDULDQ YLHZ HLWKHU ,Q
¶7KH 3KLORVRSK\ RI /DZ·
.DQW VD\V
‘Woe to him who creeps through the
serpent windings of Utilitarianism to
discover some advantage that may
discharge him from the justice of
punishment’
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
53
(XWKDQDVLD
Euthanasia or mercy killing
is the dilemma of the
decade.
STUDENT INFORMATION
If dying people experience much
physical distress, have no
companionship, feel no
understanding, there will be quite a
few who will ask for voluntary
euthanasia.
E. Udall The Independent 7/12/94
John Hinton, Professor of Psychiatry,
Middlesex Hospital
Euthanasia comes from the Greek eu = well, thanatos = death and is
usually used as a term meaning bringing about a death which is for the good
of the person dying.
Euthanasia has become a bigger and bigger current moral issue thanks to
advances in medical technology. People are living longer and they can be
kept alive for longer too. They are also, in some cases, suffering for longer. It
is now possible to keep people alive when, in the past they would have died.
This has raised moral questions about whether we should keep people alive
as far as technology will let us? People also ask whether we should help
people who want to end their lives but are too frail to do so?
The questions often arise when talking about the very old, terminally ill, in
incurable pain. But these are not the only possible cases.
Before we can talk about the morality of euthanasia we need to look at the
different types of euthanasia.
Typical of philosophy,
we’ve only just started
and already it’s getting
complicated!
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
54
(XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT TASK
5HDG WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI HXWKDQDVLD WKHQ PDWFK XS
WKH H[DPSOHV WR WKH FRUUHFW GHILQLWLRQ
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
•
•
A young girl has cancer.
Doctors give her a drug that
will kill her.
•
A patient with cancer asks his
doctor to give him pills, which
will end his life.
•
A teenage boy in a coma after
an accident is being kept alive
on a life support machine,
which is switched off.
•
An 80-year-old man is given
an overdose of sleeping pills
in his tea. These kill him.
•
Doctors give pain-killing drugs
to a man dying from cancer
but they stop all other
treatment.
Euthanasia is performed because
the dying person has asked for it.
NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
•
Euthanasia is carried out when
the views of the dying person
can’t be known.
INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
•
This contrasts with voluntary and
is where the person dying is
unwilling or not asked for an
opinion, even though they could
give one.
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA
•
Withholding or withdrawing
treatment needed to keep the
person alive E.g. switching off a
life support machine.
ACTIVE EUTHANASIA
•
Something is done to actually
cause death e.g. giving a lethal
injection.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
55
(XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT TASK
It is possible to mix the methods of euthanasia. Active and passive euthanasia can
be combined with voluntary, non- – voluntary and involuntary. Possible mixes are
passive voluntary, Active voluntary, passive non-voluntary, active nonvoluntary, passive involuntary, active involuntary.
Try and think of you own examples for the different
combinations.
3DVVLYH 9R
9ROOXQWD
XQWDU
U\
$FWLYH 9ROX
9ROXQ
QWDU\
3DVVLYH QRQ ² YROXQWD
YROXQWDU
U\
$FWLYH QRQ ² YROX
YROXQ
QWDU
WDU\
\
3DVVLYH ,
,Q
QYROX
YROXQ
QWDU\
$FWLYH ,QYR
,QYROOXQWD
XQWDU
U\
DISCUSS
Some people argue that involuntary
euthanasia is just like murder and
shouldn’t be called euthanasia at
all. Can you think of examples
where people are killed against
their will but for their own ‘good’?
It is hard sometimes to tell the
difference between active and
passive euthanasia. Is switching a
life support machine off, doing
nothing to prevent death (passive)
or actively causing death
(active)?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
56
(XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
¶$ VLPSOH WKHRU\ RI HXWKDQDVLD FRYHULQJ DOO HYHQWXDOLWLHV LV
LPSRVVLEOH·
0LFKDHO 3DOPHU
7KH PRUDOLW\ RI (XWKDQDVLD LV D YHU\ FRPSOH[ LVVXH DQG \RX
PXVW UHFRJQLVH WKDW (YHU\ FDVH LV GLIIHUHQW DQG WKH LVVXHV
DQG TXHVWLRQV VXUURXQGLQJ WKH FDVHV DUH GLIIHUHQW WRR 7R
ORRN DW WKH LVVXHV LQ GHSWK ZH ZLOO RQO\ ORRN DW YROXQWDU\
HXWKDQDVLD EXW HYHQ ZLWKLQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ WKH UDQJH RI
SRVVLELOLWLHV DUH LPPHQVH62
$7 $// 7,0(6 ² %(:$5( 2)
29(5 *(1(5$/,6,1*
,Q *URXSV
1.Read and discuss the case of Jim.
2. Let everyone in your group say whether they think euthanasia is
the right thing to happen and what their reasons are.Then, as a
group, rank the reasons in order.1 would be the statement the
group agrees with most down to the one that the group agrees with
least. Give reasons for your order. * The person who gave the
argument can expand on what they said to try and make their case
more convincing*
NOTE
This exercise will help you think about how good the
arguments for and against euthanasia are.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
57
(XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
Jim’s Story
Jim was lying in a hospital bed,
suffering from Alzheimer’s
disease. His brain cells had seriously
deteriorated and he was unable to speak
or care for himself. He was being kept alive by food and
water being fed through a tube into his nose and stomach.
Jim was a retired army officer who had fought in the Second
World War. He was now 75 and his family accepted that his
death was only a matter of time.
Jim had contracted Alzheimer’s not long after he had retired
and he knew that it would cause helplessness and eventually his
death. Well before it got to this stage, Jim had written a letter to
his doctor saying that he wanted the doctor to put him to sleep
forever, if he got to a stage of total helplessness and dependence
on others.
Given the legal position, however, the doctor could not carry this
out.
Jim’s younger brother, Sam, another retired army officer visited
regularly. There was only 3 years age difference and the
brothers had always been very close. One day Jim, was very
distressed and kept making mouth movements as if he was
trying to say something. A few minutes later, Sam went to his car
and came back with his pistol. When Jim saw this, he nodded.
Sam fired 3 shots through his brother’s head and another into
his stomach. Calmly he put the gun down and waited for the
police to arrive.
• Jim’s story is taken from ‘The Right to Die’ by D. Humphry and A. Wickett
The Bodley Head Ltd (London 1986)
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
58
8WLOLWDULDQLVP
DQG (XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
For the Utilitarians to decide whether euthanasia is right or
wrong, they have to look at whether it will fit in with the
Greatest Happiness Principle.
Utilitarians will only support euthanasia if it will increase the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.
The greatest happiness principle and the issue of
euthanasia
Look back at your notes on the Greatest Happiness Principle.
The following ideas might influence a Utilitarian’s view.
•
Utilitarians will look at the short term and long term consequences of
allowing euthanasia.
James Rachels says that killing a hopelessly ill patient who is in
great pain, at his or her own request would decrease misery. He
says this would give the patient relief from pain and dignity in
their final days. He calls this argument the argument from
mercy.
Jonathan Glover points out possible bad consequences.
It could lead to a situation where patients feel under pressure
not to be a burden and ask for euthanasia even if they actually
want to live. It could also mean that care for the dying goes
downhill.
Rule Utilitarians would look for rules to cover euthanasia as a whole.
This is not easy to do – the cases of euthanasia vary enormously.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
59
8WLOLWDULDQLVP
DQG (XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
A satisfactory view?
STRENGTHS
Fits in with common feelings.
Having to judge whether euthanasia
will bring about the greatest happiness
for the greatest number seems right
because the whole point of allowing
euthanasia is to bring about relief
from misery. Looking at whether
euthanasia fits with the GHP seems a
good way to judge.
James Rachels in his article ‘The
Morality of Euthanasia’ says that the
utilitarian argument which supports
euthanasia is a common one. The idea
that we should be bringing about relief
from pain is agreed by a lot of people.
Is a practical theory.
There are lots of different
circumstances where euthanasia might
be considered. Utilitarianism allows
these circumstances to be a part of the
discussion when they are considering
whether it is right or not.
Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Death
and Saving Lives’ says that the
Utilitarian view of euthanasia allows
the short and long term consequences
to be considered and acknowledges
that there are possible bad
consequences e.g. where patients feel
under pressure not to be a burden and
ask for euthanasia.
WEAKNESSES
Seems to allow for euthanasia even
if the patient does not want it.
Utilitarians say that we can allow
euthanasia for someone in great pain
because it would reduce the amount
of pain in the world. But what if the
patient does not actually want to be
put out of their misery?
A Utilitarian could counter this
objection by saying, overall that
euthanasia in this case would not
bring about the best consequences.
It is not such a practical theory:
Difficult to work out
consequences.
Because the cases of euthanasia
differ so greatly and the possible
consequences are so wide it is hard
to work out what will bring about the
GHP. This is a problem with
Utilitarianism in general but is
especially important when talking
about euthanasia because you have
to spend time thinking about
consequences for the patient, family,
doctors, society etc but the person
who is affected the most (the patient)
is only counted equally with the rest.
Surely the patient’s wishes should be
more important?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
60
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV
DQG (XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
For Kantians to decide whether euthanasia is right or wrong, they have to look
at whether it will fit in with the Categorical Imperative. They can also look at
what Kant says about suicide because this is something he talks specifically
about.
Kant believes suicide does not fit in with the first form of the Categorical Imperative.
Euthanasia also seems to go against the second formulation so the Kantian will
probably be against it.
NOTE: There are problems with whether Kant’s arguments work but we will deal
with that later.
The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of Euthanasia –
Arguments AGAINST Euthanasia
Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative.
Euthansia is supposed to contradict the Imperative in the following ways.
•
Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be
universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.
Committing suicide goes against the universal moral law of acting out of the
maxim of self-love. Kant believed that to say ‘I’ll kill myself because to keep
going would bring more evil than good is self-contradictory. To show you
love yourself, you have to try and improve your life.
•
Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which
are moral are those which allows people to act as rational human beings. They
have to be respected and valued.
It is our duty not to kill people because this does not show respect towards
another person.
But also see Kantian Ethics – Arguments FOR Euthanasia
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
61
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV
$UJXPHQWV IRU (XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Euthansia can actually fit in
with the Imperative in the following ways.
•
Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be
universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.
Committing suicide could be said to fit in with the universal moral law of
acting out of the maxim of self-love. To show love for yourself, might it not
make sense to shorten a totally unbearable life?
•
Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which
are moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They have
to be respected and valued.
It is our duty not to kill people because this does not show respect towards
another person. But what about respecting someone who wishes to die?
Wouldn’t going along with their wishes show that we value them as
individuals who can make their own choices?
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
62
.DQWLDQ (WKLFV
DQG (XWKDQDVLD
STUDENT INFORMATION
A satisfactory view?
WEAKNESSES
Ignores the relevance of consequences.
For the Kantian, consequences are not
morally important. In cases of euthanasia,
however, it seems to be that we should be
looking at the consequences. Euthanasia is
dealing with people often in pain and
agony and it is often the idea that they will
be put out of their misery which makes
people believe that euthanasia is the right
thing. This is an appeal to the
consequences.
STRENGTHS
Common feeling. The Kantian idea that
we should never kill innocents fits well
with the common idea that no matter
what there are certain
acts which are always wrong.
Gives clear Guidelines.
Seems to give a definite answer to a
moral problem which is very complex
and varies widely from case to case.
There are also reasons to back this point
of view (following
our duty and obeying the categorical
imperative).
This is helpful for people trying to decide
on what is a difficult moral issue.
Kant’s own arguments don’t work well
and seem to allow for euthanasia.
When talking about suicide, he says it does
not make sense to make it a universal
moral law be cause it is self-contradictory.
Kant says you would be doing it out of
self-love and self-love involves trying to
improve life. To apply this to euthanasia,
you could say love of others involves you
trying to improve their life.
Euthanasia also seems to fit in with the
second formulation of the CI – treat others
as rational autonomous beings. If you were
given the choice of dying in no pain at 80
or in agony at 80, in a few days most
would choose the second idea and this
could involve euthanasia. Being able to
choose this would fit with the second form
of the CI.
James Rachels points out that though
Kantians are opposed to euthanasia, the
Categorical Imperative seems to sanction
it.
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
63
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)
64