To Get The PowerPoint Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
Go to http://www.ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Long/long.htm
Left click on “ethics power point” to view or right click
to save (recommended).
I tweak regularly so refresh the file weekly to insure
that you have the latest version.
Print the slides covering the relevant material for the
week as “handouts” (I recommend three to a page)
and bring them to class to take additional notes on.
What Is Ethics?

Generally speaking, an ethic is a set of moral values or principles.
–
–


Descriptive ethics is the historical, comparative, or psychological
study of the various sets of values that people do in fact have.
Evaluative (prescriptive, normative) ethics is a critical enterprise
concerning which sets of values people should have.
–
–

Some see ethics as primarily about one’s personal moral code while
others see it as primarily about a social moral code.
Some people and societies base their ethics on religious beliefs.
It asks which sets are better or worse and why.
It is part of a branch of philosophy called moral philosophy.
Metaethics is another part of moral philosophy; it studies the
concepts, methods of justification, and ontological assumptions of
the field of evaluative ethics (like the meaning of moral language).
Ethics As a Branch of Philosophy




Philosophy asks fundamental questions about key
areas of the human situation.
Philosophers (and philosophies) may be either
systematic or piecemeal.
Philosophy emphasizes rationality and the importance
of giving reasons for beliefs (but this doesn’t mean
abandoning or ignoring emotions and feelings).
Nowadays philosophical ethics is primarily prescriptive
and normative, but metaethical issues are still
discussed.
Ethics and Religion




Religion grounds ethics in things like scripture and divine
revelation, whereas philosophy seeks to ground ethics in
reason and experience.
Divine command theory bases right and wrong completely
on the will of god(s).
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions this view by asking
“Are things just (good/right) because they are approved by
god, or does god approve them because they are just?”
Others have objected that it prevents atheists from having a
morality, or having a reason to be moral or to be concerned
to do the morally right thing.
Ethical and Nonethical Evaluation




Descriptive judgments (“empirical”) attempt to state
what is the case.
Evaluative judgments (“normative”) attempt to state
what should be the case in terms of general beliefs
about what is good or right (norms and standards).
Moral judgments are only one type of evaluative
judgment; Others are legal, aesthetic, practical etc.
The nature of the linkage between descriptive and
evaluative judgments in ethics remains controversial
(Hume’s notorious “is-ought” problem).
Ethical Terms





Right and wrong usually apply to doings (action) and
there is usually no in-between.
Good and bad usually apply to beings (things or statesof-affairs) and there are usually degrees between.
Ought and obligation imply urgency but morally
permissible does not.
Other terms are just and unjust, virtuous and viscous.
Often the ethical theory we advocate influences the
terms we use and their precise meanings.
Ethics As a Rational Enterprise






Philosophical ethics requires that we provide reasons
(premises) to support our moral claims (conclusions.).
To logically support the conclusion, such reasons must be
both true (or well-grounded) and relevant to the conclusion.
We should try to avoid fallacies such as the ad hominem.
Because ethical issues are generally a mix of factual,
conceptual, and evaluative issues, we must be prepared to
argue on multiple fronts: facts, meanings, and values.
Analogical arguments are common in ethics and must be
closely analyzed to see if they are apt.
Remember that giving reasons to justify a conclusion is not
the same as explaining why one believes it.
Ethical Theory



An ethical theory is a systematic exposition of
a particular view about the nature and basis of
the good and the right.
It provides (and attempts to justify) reasons
and norms for judging acts to be right or wrong.
It provides ethical principles based on these
norms that can be used to decide what to do in
particular cases.
Ethical Reasoning




There is an interesting relationship between ethical
theories, the ethical principles they crank out, and the
ethical judgments we make in particular cases.
Sometimes our particular judgments are so strong that
no principles or theories that contradict them can be
accepted.
On the other hand, sometimes an ethical theory or
principle can work to illuminate or guide us in the
judgments we should make in particular cases.
Dilemma: should I let a reasonable theory guide my
particular judgments or my particular judgments guide
my choice of principles and theory?
Types of Ethical Theories




Consequentialist (teleological) ethics focus on actual or
intended results.
Nonconsequentialist (deontological, duty-based) ethics
focus on something other than results, such as the
intent or the inherent nature of the act.
Virtue ethics focuses not on acts but on having good
character traits.
Natural law ethics bases good, bad, right and wrong
with the norms found in nature; What allows our human
nature to flourish is good, what corrupts it is bad.
Why Take Ethics?







To become a morally better person? (Plato).
To better appreciate specific moral problems.
To provide conceptual and critical tools to help us think
better about in moral matters.
To help us form and critically analyze ethical
arguments.
To increase our respect for opposing views.
To help us see the potential reasonableness in
previously unconsidered viewpoints.
To satisfy our natural curiosity and test the limits of
knowledge.
Challenging the Idea of a Universal,
Objective Morality



Nihilism hold that there are no objective values
of any kind.
Relativism holds that ethical values and beliefs
are relative either to the individuals or the
societies that hold them and thus there is no
objective standard of right and wrong.
Egoism holds that right and wrong are based
entirely on self-interest.
Descriptive Relativism

Descriptive relativism makes factual claims about what
people believe to be right and wrong.
–
–
–
Personal descriptive relativism asserts that different people
embrace different moral norms, values and beliefs.
Cultural descriptive relativism asserts that different groups of
people embrace different moral norms, values and beliefs.
Most anthropologists accept both.
Prescriptive (Ethical) Relativism

Ethical relativism makes evaluative claims about what
really is right or wrong, based on the denial of the
existence of objective ethical norms and values.
–
–
–
Personal ethical relativism holds that ethical norms and
standards are relative to the individuals who hold them.
Cultural ethical relativism holds that ethical norms and
standards are relative to the groups that hold them.
Both are subjective views in the sense that both see morality
as a function of the moral beliefs that people have, not of some
objective reality beyond them (moral objectivism.)
Morality Contrasted With Science


Science seems to be universally valid, admits
of progress and follows agreed-upon objective
methods of inquiry.
Ethics seems not to be universally valid, admits
of no clear progress and lacks agreed-upon
objective methods of inquiry.
Common Reasons for Ethical
Relativism




It is implied by the existence of moral diversity.
It explains moral uncertainty, the great difficulty
we have in knowing what is the morally right
thing to believe or do.
It is implied by situational differences between
individuals and between groups; It allows these
situational differences to “morally matter.”
It promotes tolerance.
Objectivist Responses

Moral diversity:
–
–

Moral uncertainty:
–
–
–

It may not be as widespread and deep as imagined; much apparent
moral diversity may be due to differing factual beliefs.
Mere diversity of belief does not prove relativism.
If anything, moral uncertainty supports moral skepticism, not moral
relativism.
The uncertainty and seeming lack of progress compared with science
may simply indicate that ethics is harder, not that it is non-objective.
Perhaps moral progress is less apparent because it is different than
scientific progress and harder to detect.
Situational differences:
–
–
Moral objectivism needn’t entail with moral absolutism (“strong
objectivism”).
While recognizing objective core principles, moral objectivism can still
Problems With Ethical Relativism

Cultural ethical relativism:
–
–

Personal ethical relativism:
–
–

It is hard to define and identify a culture
It seems strange to think that morality itself changes with
changes in “polling percentages”.
it doesn’t seem to conform to how we actually react to
situations of moral uncertainty.
It seems strange to think that an individual can make
something right for her just by believing that it is right.
Both:
–
–
Neither necessarily encourage tolerance
Both encourage a kind of “moral laziness.”
Problems for the Moral Objectivist



What exactly is the objective alternative to
ethical relativism?
How do we defend moral realism,the view that
there is a moral reality whose existence and
nature are independent of those who know it?
Is the objective good defined by this moral
reality one or many, and how do we come to
know it?
G. E. Moore on Goodness


If it is a real property, how do we sense, observe or
know it, and is it one or many?
G. E. Moore’s objectivist view:
–
–
–

Goodness is a specific quality that attaches to people or acts.
However, because it is simple and unobservable by sense
perception it cannot be analyzed in terms of parts or defined in
terms of the natural properties employed by science.
Thus, although real, it is a nonnatural property of things whose
presence we somehow intuit with a special moral sense.
Others have held that moral properties like goodness
are relational or supervenient properties.
Mary Midgley on “Moral
Isolationism”


Moral diversity leads some to hold that we can never
understand any culture except our own well enough to
make judgments about it.
Midgley criticizes M.I. On the following grounds:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
It isn’t forced on us.
It isn’t a respectful attitude (respect requires understanding.).
It falsely implies that other cultures can’t criticize us.
The isolating barrier of blocks praise as well as blame.
If we can’t judge other cultures, we can’t judge our own.
M.I. Leads to a general ban on moral reasoning
(=immoralism.).
If there were an isolating barrier, our own culture could never
have been formed.
The Alan/Edna Debate



Factual (and conceptual) question: are people
basically self-centered or selfish?
Factual question: what are the implications or
consequences of such self-centered or selfish
behavior?
Evaluative question: is such behavior a good or
bad thing?
Psychological Egoism





This is a factual (descriptive) theory that holds that
people are naturally self-interested.
Self-interested may be understood as narrow and
short-range (“selfish”) or as broader and longer-term.
Under the latter, we need to take the interests of others
into account, but our concern for others need not be
genuine, only apparent.
It seems false to claim that people always act in their
own best interests, but perhaps they always do what
they think is in their own best interests.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a psychological
egoist and a moral contractarian.
Is Psychological Egoism True?







Believing in the jury system versus serving on a jury.
Abraham Lincoln and the piglets.
Is self-interestedness innate or learned?
Is there a gender difference re self-interestedness?
Theories about motivation, while apparently empirical, are difficult,
if not impossible to prove.
Mother Theresa cases: if we are to argue for P.E., It isn’t enough
to argue that she got satisfaction out of doing what she did; We
have to show that her aim was the obtaining of the satisfaction.
Paradoxically, we may have a better chance of obtaining
happiness if we do not aim primarily at happiness.
Ethical Egoism



This is a normative (prescriptive) theory about how we
ought to behave.
Individual ethical egoism is the view that I (the
speaker) ought to look out only for my own best
interests and have no concern for others unless it
impacts me (no advice for others).
Universal ethical egoism is the view that everyone
should look out only for their own best interests; The
interests of others should concern them only when it
affects them.
Is Ethical Egoism True?





Does it follow from psychological egoism?
Is IEE even a morality?
Is UEE even consistent?
Is EE justified by laissez faire capitalism?
Does EE conform with common sense?
Falk’s Moral Point of View


The egoist stresses prudence as the essence of
morality.
But a moral education is not the same thing as a
prudential education since.
–
–
–
–
Morality requires occasionally seeing beyond ourselves and
our own interests.
Morality requires occasionally seeing things from others’ points
of view.
Morality requires occasionally being impartial.
Morality requires occasionally restricting self-interest.
Why Be Moral?


The most common reason seems to be fear of reprisal.
Plato’s story about the ring of Gyges raise two
questions:
–
–


Do we value morality or just the appearance of morality?
Why not be a free rider?
One response is that being moral is to one’s own
positive advantage, either internally (e.G., Plato: being
moral leads to a healthy soul which is essential for true
happiness) or externally (e.G.,Ben Franklin’s adages in
poor Richard’s almanac).
An eastern perspective: morality is connected with
honor and nobility, which are essential to the good life.
Have You Considered A Philosophy
Major or Minor?








Open up new universes of thought!
Meet interesting and exciting people!
Form your own “weltanschauung”!
Be the hit of the party with witty philosophical repartee!
Learn Plato’s real name!
Become rich and famous! (Well, maybe not, but did I
mention new universes?)
Not for the intellectually squeamish or lazy!
See your nearest philosophy department for details - why
not TODAY?
Utilitarianism: The Basic Idea



We all should strive to produce the most happiness we
can while reducing unhappiness to a minimum (the
utilitarian principle.).
Ethical issues should be decided by comparing the
benefits and costs to all of each available alternative
and doing that which has (or appears to have) the
greatest net benefit.
Everyone’s happiness and unhappiness (benefits and
costs) counts the same; We mustn’t play favorites..
Characteristics of Classical
Utilitarianism






Consequentialist
Hedonistic
Democratic
Progressive and reformist
Empirical
Optimistic
Two Versions of the Utilitarian
Principle


The morally better or best act is that which
produces the greatest net utility (e.G.,
Happiness, pleasure, preference satisfaction,
benefits over cost).
Do that which produces the greatest good
(utility) for the greatest number.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)


The same principle applies to both personal
and social morality: maximize group happiness
or pleasure and minimize group unhappiness
or pain.
Bentham makes no distinction between
“higher” and “lower” pleasures;He insists that, if
the quantity of pleasure produced is the same,
“pushpin is as good as poetry”.
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Good


Classical utilitarians viewed happiness or
pleasure as the only thing good or desirable for
its own sake.
They viewed all other goods (e.G. Money,
health) as simply means to happiness or
pleasure.
Bentham’s Purely Quantitative
“Hedonic Calculus”





First we factor in the net happiness or pleasure produced by a
contemplated action; This is the total pleasure produced minus the
total pain produced.
Next, we factor in the intensity of pleasure or pain produced in
each individual.
Then we consider the duration of the pleasure or pain produced in
each individual.
Then we add a factor representing the fruitfulness of the pleasure
or pain produced in each individual (which is a measure of the
tendency of that pleasure or pain to produce or set the stage for
future pleasures or future absences of pain.).
Finally, we add a probability figure to the entire calculation that
indicates how likely are our predictions of the future
consequences of each alternative action.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873):
Quality Over Quantity



Mill believed that some pleasures (notably, the
pleasures of the mind) are qualitatively
superior to other pleasures (such as the
pleasures of the body.).
He writes, “better a Socrates dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied.”
Mill claims that the empirical test for quality is
the preference of the equally experienced.
Evaluating the Theory


Isn’t it too complex to use?
Isn’t it contrary to our common moral beliefs?
–
–
–
It assumes that the happiness of strangers is as
important as the happiness of family and friends.
It implies that the end (general happiness) always
justifies the means (e.G., Executing the innocent).
It seems unjust that the interests of some can be
sacrificed for the interests of the many.
Act Versus Rule Utilitarianism


Act: consider the consequences of this
particular act and do that act which has the
best results.
Rule: consider the consequences of a certain
practice and then do that act which falls under
the practice that would have the best results if
generally followed.
Mill’s “Proof” That Pleasure Is
Desirable for Its Own Sake



Just as the proof that something is visible or
audible is that it is seen or heard, so the proof
that something is desirable is that it is desired.
Everyone desires pleasure for its own sake, so
pleasure is desirable for its own sake.
Problem: “audible” means “can be heard” but
“desirable” means “should be desired”.
Contemporary Versions


Preference utilitarianism: do that act (or follow
that rule) that satisfies the preferences of the
greatest number.
Cost-benefit analysis: do that act (or follow that
rule) that leads to the greatest benefit over cost
ratio.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and His
Three Big Questions



What can we know? (Understanding is limited
by the forms of the mind)
What is real? (Reality is the intersection of
“inner” mental forms “shaping” sensations that
come from “outside”)
What should we do? Read on…
What Gives an Act “Moral Worth”?



The intent to do the right thing for the right reason
(because it is right) is what gives an act moral worth
(“duty for duty's sake”).
Kant says that this motive (the good will) is the one
thing in the world that is good for its own sake.
It is not the consequences that matter since.
–
–
These aren’t always under our control and.
It gives humans only use value, not inherent value.
Two Kinds of Oughts


Hypothetical commands express duties that
are based on individual goals, so these oughts
are conditional.
But moral commands express duties that are
categorical; They are based on our common
personhood as rational, autonomous beings so
these oughts are unconditional.
What Is My Moral Duty?


All moral duties flow from a single duty that is
purely formal and lacks content, the categorical
imperative.
Kant gives two main forms which he regards as
equivalent:
–
–
Act only on that maxim which you can rationally will
as a universal law.
Always treat humanity (self and others) as ends-inthemselves, never merely as mere means.
Evaluating: The Appealing Aspects
of Kant’s Theory



It stresses fairness and consistency.
The emphasis on respect for all persons
contrasts favorably with utilitarianism.
For Kant, morality is both clearly real and
strictly binding.
Problems With the Categorical
Imperative





Which maxim do we use?
I can universally will things that aren’t moral
duties.
Some things that I can’t universally will aren’t
morally wrong.
Isn’t Kant just a rule utilitarian in disguise?
When is coercion or deception present?
Other Potential Problems





The theory is too strict, too absolutist.
It gives us no help in resolving conflicts of duty.
Stressing moral equality and impartiality
ignores morally relevant differences of gender,
race, age, and talents between persons and
groups.
Rationality may not be the same for all.
Too male-oriented; Kant ignores feelings.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties


For Kant, a perfect duty is absolute; It is owed
by all to all at all times (like the duty not to
murder.)
An imperfect duty is one that is only owed by
some to some on some occasions (like the
duty to be charitable.)
Ethical Naturalism: Good As a
Function of the Way Things Are.



Natural law theory: the moral law is based on
human nature.
Natural rights theory: human rights are claims
whose recognition by others is essential to our
natural functioning as human beings.
Virtue ethics: ethics is about developing and
retaining good habits and character traits that
allow us to function well as human beings.
Virtue Ethics



The morally good person is the virtuous
person.
A virtue is a good inner trait or habit.
The emphasis is on “what should I be?” Not
“what should I do?”
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics




Contrast with Plato’s nonnaturalism.
Virtue as human excellence (arete).
Intellectual and moral virtue.
Moral virtue as a golden mean between
extremes.
Philippa Foote’s Virtue Ethics

In some ways she agrees with Aristotle.
–
–

Virtues are corrective traits that are usually beneficial to both
self and community.
Virtues help us do what is difficult.
But in other ways she challenges Aristotle.
–
–
–
Not all virtues benefit both self and others (charity, for instance,
seems to mostly benefit others).
Not all beneficial traits seem to be virtues.
Virtue’s are things we choose to develop, not just character
traits we already possess, thus virtue may lie more in the intent
(e.G., To be industrious) rather than simply in the pattern of
actions themselves.
Evaluating Virtue Ethics




Does virtue lie in the intent to act or in the habit
to act?
Are all beneficial traits virtues? (If not, which
ones are?)
Are any virtues universal, or are they all
relative to specific societies, times, genders,
etc.?
Is virtue ethics really distinct from “act ethics”?
Natural Law Theory




There are prescriptive as well as descriptive
laws of nature, and they are not identical.
These laws are based on human nature and
are thus universal.
These laws are accessible to unaided human
reason.
These laws transcend human laws and
customs.
Examples of the Natural Law in
Literature and History



Sophocles’ Antigone.
The Nuremberg war-crime trials.
Martin Luther king and the civil-rights
movement.
History of the Natural Law



The tradition originates in Aristotle (384-322
B.C.).
It passed through the stoics into Christianity.
It was a major feature of the theology and
philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (12241274).
Aristotle’s Basic Ideas



Natural beings have a built-in principle of order
directing them to their goal, the mature final
form (the “good at which all things aim”).
Species tendencies, capacities and traits
determine good and happy individuals.
Since humans are by nature rational animals,
the good and happy humans are those who
have developed the rational capacity to think
and act well.
St. Thomas Aquinas



The natural law is the expression of divine law
as known through reason and conscience
unaided by faith or revelation.
The purpose and order in nature comes from
the mind of a creator god.
What enhances our species nature is good;
What frustrates it is bad.
Evaluating Natural Law Theory


The emphasis on the objectivity of morality is
appealing as is the emphasis on human
flourishing.
But…
–
–
–
Can humans really read nature?
Can we really derive an “ought” from an “is”?
Does the apparent telos in nature really entail a
planner (Darwin)?
Natural Rights Theory



Human rights are based on natural functioning.
Examples: stoics,roman law, Voltaire,
Jefferson, Geneva convention, U.N.
Declaration of human rights.
Natural rights are said to flow from the natural
law which is accessible to human reason.
Evaluating Natural
Rights Theory




What is the scope of natural rights?
Are these positive welfare rights or negative
noninterference rights?
What does in fact further (or frustrate) human
nature?
What is the actual basis of human rights
(reason, god, language, democracy, justice?)
What Is “Death”?




Whole brain death.
Persistent vegetative state (PVS): Unconscious
but awake (brain stem functions normally).
Coma (brain stem functions poorly.
The question of euthanasia (“good death”)
apples only to the living.
Important Distinctions in the
Euthanasia Debate

The active/passive distinction:
–
–

The ordinary/extraordinary means distinction
–
–

Active is doing something to cause death
Passive is “allowing to die”
Ordinary means have a reasonable hope of benefiting the
patient
Extraordinary means are excessively burdensome
The voluntary/nonvoluntary distinction:
–
–
–
Voluntary is with the patient’s free, rational, informed consent
Nonvoluntary is where someone else decides.
Legal guardianships and advance directives
Morality and the Law


Should everything immoral be illegal?
Should everything morally permissible be
legally permissible?
Euthanasia and the Law





The law currently allows mentally and legally
competent people to refuse even life-saving treatment
for themselves.
Passive euthanasia is now a common practice.
No state currently allows active euthanasia.
Landmark Cases: Quinlan (1975) and Cruzan (1990).
The 2000 Dutch and 2001 Belgian laws (p. 135)
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS)





Suicide statistics (p. 136).
PAS can be seen as a combination of euthanasia and
suicide; It resembles active euthanasia in that the doctor
acts to bring about the death but the causation of the doctor
is indirect.
Dr. Death: The case of Jack Kevorkian
The American Medical Association opposes assisted suicide
but several appeals courts have upheld the practice on
privacy grounds.
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1994 & 1997): primary
reason cited for wanting to kill themselves was not pain or
financial problems but autonomy and personal control.
Pain Medication that Causes Death




This looks like active euthanasia but needs to
be distinguished.
One way is by the principle of double effect.
This principle relies on the idea that there is a
moral difference between intending to kill
someone and intending to relieve pain.
In practice, it may be difficult to know what is
going on (mixed, hidden motives.)
The Moral Importance
of Voluntariness (Consent)



For consequentialists it only matters to the
extent it affects human happiness.
For nonconsequentialists autonomy overrides
results so it is very important if the consent is
autonomous.
There are longstanding theoretical problems
involving self, autonomy and free will that cloud
issues of consent.
How Morally Important Is the
Active/passive Distinction?


Consequentialist: If death is the best outcome
the means shouldn’t matter (in fact, active
might be better.).
Nonconsequentialist: Respect for autonomy
may be limited by a significant moral difference
between killing a letting die.
How Useful Is the
Ordinary/Extraordinary Means
Distinction?


If it is taken to mean “common versus
uncommon” it isn’t morally useful.
The issue of patient benefit/burden is
evaluative and morally relevant, but.
–
–
How do we measure and compare benefits and
burdens?
Should family and social cost/benefit issues be
considered as well?
Infant Euthanasia:
Baby Doe Cases



Downs Syndrome
Anencephaly
Two different moral issues:
–
–
Who best decides?
What are the proper reasons to provide or deny
care?
J. Gay Williams: The Wrongfulness
of Euthanasia





Support is based on unthinking sympathy.
So-called passive euthanasia isn’t euthanasia
at all since there is no intent to kill.
Euthanasia is contrary to nature and thus
inherently wrong.
Euthanasia is contrary to self-interest.
Euthanasia has bad practical effects (like the
“slippery slope”.).
James Rachels on the
Active/Passive Distinction





If PE is justified on humanitarian grounds then why not
also AE, especially when its quicker?
The distinction allows medical decisions to be made on
irrelevant grounds (e.g., Downs Syndrome cases.).
Killing is not inherently worse than letting die (the
Smith/Jones case).
Cessation of treatment can be just as much “the
intentional termination of human life” as AE.
It is not always wrong to cause death.
Abortion: A Volatile Issue







A life and death issue
An issue about the meaning of life itself
A gender issue
A happiness issue
An autonomy issue
A fetal research issue
For many, a religious issue
Stages of Fetal Development



Zygote
– Day 1: fertilization
– Day 2-3: passage through fallopian tube
– Day 7-10: embedding in uterine wall
Blastocyst
– Week 2-8: organs and structures develop
– Week 6-8: brain waves detectable
Fetus
– Week 12-16: quickening
– Week 20-28: viability
– Week 40: birth
U.S. Abortion Statistics (Alan
Guttmacher Institute)





Overall U.S. rate in 2000: 21/1000 (from 24/1000 in 1994)
Rate for women 15-17 in 2000: 15/1000 (from 24/1000 in
1994)
Abortion rates for women who make less than twice the
federal poverty line ($34,000 for a family of 4) rose 25%
between 1994 and 2000
67% of abortions in 2000 were performed on never-married
women, 17% on married women, 16% on previously
married women, 90% on women in metropolitan areas.
Blacks (14% of women 15-44) account for 32% and
Hispanics (13% of women 15-44) account for 20% of
abortions in 2000 (but note that pregnancy rates are
historically higher among minority women)
Abortion Methods








Morning-after pill
RU486 (mifepristone)
Uterine (vacuum) aspiration
Dilation and curretage
Saline
Prostaglandin drugs
Hysterotomy
Dilation and extraction (D&X)
Roe v. Wade





Women’s Constitutional privacy rights must be
balanced with states’ interests in protecting potential
human life.
The fetus is not a legal person.
No state may prohibit abortion prior to viability (3rd
trimester).
Laws regarding the medical safety of abortions are
allowable from the 2nd trimester on.
After viability states may prohibit except when the life
or health of the woman is at stake.
Post Roe v. Wade






Restrictions on Medicaid funding
Timing and procedure requirements
Waiting periods
Risk notification
Bans on the use of public facilities and public
employees
Restrictions cannot place an “undue burden”
on the right to privacy
Arguments That Don’t Depend on
the Fetal-Personhood Issue


Utilitarian consequentialist reasoning makes it
sometimes permissible sometimes not; the
moral status of the fetus isn’t a factor.
Judith Jarvis Thomson’s rights argument says
that the right to life of the fetus does not
obligate a pregnant woman to sustain its life
(the “violinist analogy”)
Arguments that Do Depend on the
Fetal-Personhood Issue


Method I: For the various stages of fetal
development ask what is present, when it is
present and why it is morally significant to
possessing a right to life.
Method II: Comparing what we say about
fetuses to what we say about beings other than
fetuses and asking “Why do people generally
have rights?”
Some Examples of Method I


Conception: A unique full genetic code is
present but there is no structure or
differentiation yet and no individual.
Detectable brain waves: The brain is the locus
of consciousness and the cessation of brain
activity is the criteria for death but brain activity
develops gradually and early stages aren’t
much different than the brains of animals.
More Examples of Method I


Quickening: Indicates self-initiated movement but
plants and animals do this too.
Viability: Indicates sufficient completeness and the
capacity for independent, separate existence but
–
–
–
–
It’s a floating norm
The viable fetus is still dependent on others
Moral status shouldn’t be a function of independence
birth would be a better choice if separateness and
independence is what matters.
Method II:
What Is It to Be a Person and Have
a Right to Life?

Species Membership
–
–

Being a member of the human species is what counts.
Being a member of a human-like species is what counts.
Individual Capacities Views:
–
–
–
Having the potentiality to develop human or human-like
characteristics is what counts.
Having the actuality of possessing human or human-like
characteristics is what counts.
As potential gradually develops the moral status of the being
also grows (=the evolving value view: potential counts, but not
as much as actuality).
Marquis: Why Abortion is Immoral




Marquis assumes that the moral permissibility of abortion
rests on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life
it is seriously wrong to end.
Both sides have difficulties coming up with an acceptable
moral principle (free of difficulties and counter-examples)
that will tie their “facts” with their conclusions about the
morality of abortion.
The standoff can be broken by asking “Why is it wrong to kill
us?”
What makes it wrong is not its effect on the murderer nor its
effect on the victim’s friends and relatives but its effect on
the victim, the loss of the value of his or her future.
Marquis II.: Defending the Thesis







The fact that the theory covers nonhumans as well as humans is a
plus.
The theory does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong.
The theory straightforwardly entails that it is prima facie seriously
wrong to kill children and infants.
Because the relevant category is “having a valuable future like
ours” and not “personhood”, the theory is not committed to the
invalid inference that, since it is wrong to kill persons, it is wrong to
kill potential persons also.
The structure of this argument against abortion parallels nicely the
structure of the common argument against the wanton infliction of
suffering on animals.
Note that the argument establishes prima facie wrongness, not
wrongness in all circumstances.
It does not entail that contraception is also prima facie wrong.
Sexual Trends: Good or Bad?





Early sexual activity
Sexual explicitness in ads, movies and the
general culture
Pornography
Homosexuality and gay rights
Sex education
Factual Issues




The effects of celibacy
The effects of promiscuity
The effects of homosexual activity
The connection between sexual practices and
sexually transmitted diseases
What’s The Issue?



Consequentialists frame the issue in terms of sexual
behavior that is good or bad, better or worse.
Nonconsequentialists frame the issue in terms of
sexual behavior that is enhancing or using, fair or
unfair, right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable.
Natural law theorists frame the issue in terms of sexual
behavior that is natural or unnatural, proper or
perverted.
Consequentialist Considerations




Negatives: Physical and psychic harm, unwanted
pregnancy, effects on family and others.
Positives: Pleasure, physical and psychological
benefits.
The pain of one may be offset by the pleasures of
others.
Since only consequences matter, there is no problem
per se with extramarital sex, nonmarital sex or
homosexuality.
Nonconsequentialist
Considerations





Respect for persons
Reciprocity
Agreement (consent)
No coercion
No deceit
Naturalness Considerations




Since sex has the biological aim of procreation, what
interferes with or frustrates this aim may be seen as
morally objectionable.
“Natural” refers to common human (species) nature,
not individual natures.
Sexual perversions aren’t abnormal in the factual
sense of being rare but in the prescriptive sense of
violating a moral norm of nature.
Is there a normal sex drive with a natural object?
What Is Pornography?


Neutral definition: Sexual material whose
primary purpose is sexual stimulation.
Nonneutral definition: Degrading and
demeaning portrayals of females as sexual
objects to be used, exploited and manipulated
by men.
The Legal Definition of Obscenity:
The Miller Standard

Material is legally obscene if
–
–
–

It is “patently offensive to local community
standards”
Appeals primarily to “prurient interests”
Taken as a whole it “lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value” (the LAPS test)
This is called the “Miller Standard” (Miller v.
California, 1973)
Liberty Limiting Principles





The harm principle (Mill): Liberty may be limited to
prevent harm to others
The social-harm principle: Liberty may be limited to
prevent harm to society
The offense principle: Liberty may be limited to prevent
others from being offended
Legal paternalism: Liberty may be limited to prevent
one from harming oneself
Legal moralism: Liberty may be limited to minimize
immoral conduct
Catharine MacKinnon: Feminism
and Pornography




Pornography differs from erotica.
Pornography depicts with approval the
degradation and subordination of women and
violence against women while perpetuating
sexist stereotypes of women.
Pornography “eroticizes hierarchy” and violates
the civil rights of women.
Free speech is not an absolute right.
Richard Mohr: Prejudice and
Homosexuality






There are more gays than most think and they are discriminated
against.
The descriptive immorality of gays does not entail their
prescriptive immorality.
Basing anti-gay laws on Biblical arguments involves a selective
reading and violates church-state separation.
Homosexuality is not unnatural in any morally meaningful sense.
Homosexuality is not a matter of choice.
The social acceptance of gays would produce more benefits than
harm.
Civil Rights Laws I





1868: 14th Amendment (equal protection)
1920: 19th Amendment (women’s vote)
1954: Brown v. Board of Education (reversed “separate
but equal” schools.)
1963: Equal Pay Act
1964: Civil Rights Act, Title VI (no discrimination in
employment or sex-segregation of jobs, established
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications)
Civil Rights Laws II




1978: Bakke v. U.C. Davis Medical School (no racial quotas
in school admissions)
1979: Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum (allowed affirmative action
as a means of remedying past discrimination)
1991: Congressional Civil Rights Act (no practices with
discriminatory impact without business necessity, no quotas
unless needed to correct past or present discrimination,
sexual harassment in terms of rewards for favors or creating
a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination.)
1995: Adarand v. Pena (government preference programs
must undergo strict scrutiny to see if there is a “compelling
government interest”)
Racism and Sexism


Race and sex become key identifying features
to denigrate, hold inferior, and make false and
harmful judgments.
Racism and sexism are associated with, but
not the same as, prejudice (=judging positively
or negatively on the basis of insufficient
evidence.)
Why Are Racism and Sexism
Wrong?
They are unjust, unfair and harmful.
 They violate the Principle of Equality:

–
–
Treat equals equally and unequals unequally.
More precisely: It is unjust to treat people differently
in ways that deny to some significant social benefits
unless we can show that there is a real difference
between them that is relevant to the differential
treatment.
Challenges to the Principle



Group differences are average differences, so applying
the principle based solely on group membership is
unfair to individuals who differ from the group profiles.
Not every member of a discriminated group has
suffered discrimination, and not every member of a
discriminatory group is discriminatory.
The equality/inequality dilemma for women; the
principle doesn’t go far enough.
Affirmative Action Programs


Secondary discrimination may remain even after
primary discrimination is gone, so ceasing
discrimination is not enough.
A.A programs:
– Enlarging the pool
– Preferences among the equally well-qualified
– Preferences for the less well-qualified
– Goals versus quotas
Consequentialist Considerations:
Pro A.A.



A.A. breaks the cycle of poverty and lack of
equal opportunity
A.A. provides positive role-models
Without A.A., no change is likely
Consequentialist Considerations:
Con A.A.





A.A. doesn’t benefit the most disadvantaged
A.A. is useless without additional assistance
Lawsuits are more effective than A.A.
A.A. stigmatizes recipients
A.A. increases racial and gender tensions
Nonconsequentialist
Considerations



Pro: A.A. is just compensation for past wrongs.
Con: Race and sex are irrelevant characteristics for
treating groups or individuals differently, so A.A. itself
violates the principle of equality and is thus a form of
reverse discrimination.
Con: A.A. compensates groups without consideration
of individual responsibility for past discrimination, but
only those individuals actually harmed should be
compensated and only those who actually wronged
them should pay.
Lisa Newton


Since moral justice and equality are predicated
on political justice and equality (equal
treatment under the law), violating political
justice to promote greater moral justice is a
form of reverse discrimination.
A.A. also faces great practical difficulties
–
–
–
Who to compensate?
How much?
For how long?
Robert Fullinwider



A.A. is not about dividing up social benefits by race
and gender or promoting equality, but about preventing
discrimination and securing equality of opportunity.
Because discrimination is deep and hidden (secondary,
institutional) and not shallow and open (primary),
strong measures are needed (giant-land, curb-world
examples.)
If A.A. is unfair to some whites, no A.A. would be more
unfair to more nonwhites; hence, we must choose the
lesser injustice for a time.
Moral Issues in Economics





Do people have a right to make and keep as
much money as they can?
Does society owe everyone an equal chance at
success?
Is profit the only work-incentive?
Is welfare a matter of charity or justice?
Should wealthy nations help poorer ones?
The Widening Gap








Currently, the gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. is the widest
since record-keeping began in 1947.
In 2000 the bottom 5th had 4.5% of total family income while the top 5th
had 45.4%
In New York the average person in the top 5th makes almost 13 times as
much as the average person in the bottom 5th (California, 11X)
In 2001 women who worked full time earned 73% of what men who
worked the same amount of timee made.
In 2000 the median annual earnings of full-time men workers was
$37,399 to women’s $27,355.
In 2001, 43,662 men earned at least $1,000,000 but only 3,253 women
did.
Women without children working at jobs with similar skills earn 98% of
what men do.
In 2000, black men earned an average of $30,409, black women
$25,117, Hispanic men $24,638, and Hispanic women $20,527.
Economic Values



Efficiency
Liberty
Justice
Distributive Justice



Basic Question: Who gets what and why?
Process views say that whatever distribution
emerges from a fair process (like capitalism?)
is just.
End-state views say that a just distribution
requires good reasons why some have more
than others.
Proposed End-State Views


Egalitarianism (equality of wealth, income,
satisfaction or welfare.)
Distribute by need, merit, talent, effort,
contribution, moral-worth, or some combination
of these.
Justice as Equal Opportunity





Equal opportunity may be defined as each having either no
barriers or equal barriers.
Do children in America have an equal opportunity to achieve
economic success?
How can initial starting points be equalized without seriously
infringing on personal and family autonomy?
Harry Frankfurt: The whole emphasis on equality is misplaced and
distracts us from what is really important, sufficiency.
John Schaar: Objects to the “natural aristocratic” meritocracy that
underlies equal opportunity and thinks that stress on equal
opportunity contributes to the gap between rich and poor and
threatens the very notion of equality and democracy and human
solidarity.
Four Political and
Economic Views




Libertarianism
Capitalism
Socialism
Modern Liberalism
Libertarianism and Capitalism


Libertarianism
– Freedom as noninterference
– Sole function of government is to protect negative,
noninterference rights.
– Free market economy
– Process over end-state justice.
Capitalism
– Capital owned by people and corporations
– Free-enterprise system bases value on supply/demand
– Values: liberty, limited government, profit maximization
– Process justice (but sometimes associated with end-state
meritocracy)
Socialism






Government and/or society as a whole should own and control
capital.
Criticizes capitalism for unemployment, poverty, unpredictable
business cycles, and conflicts between workers and capitalists.
Production should be geared to the needs of all not just to the
enrichment of a few.
Justice overrides efficiency.
Socialist end-state principles of justice lean towards egalitarianism
Basic needs and positive rights outweigh negative noninterference
needs and rights.
Modern Liberalism


The just society combines the economic
efficiency of capitalism and the protection of
noninterference rights of libertarianism with the
socialist emphasis on justice and the promotion
of basic needs and positive liberty.
To achieve this we may need welfare rights
and a social safety net that will require
redistributive taxation.
Rawls: Justice As Fairness


The principles of justice are those principles governing
the distribution of social goods that rational selfinterested people would pick in a fair bargaining
situation characterized by the veil of ignorance (the
original position.)
Rawls argues that we would pick two:
–
–
Each has an equal right to the same basic liberties (the
equality principle)
Social and economic inequalities must benefit all and be
attached to positions and offices open to all (the difference
principle which justifies redistributive taxation.)
Nozick’s Libertarian Entitlement
Theory of Justice




A person who acquires a holding by just original
acquisition (without violating the natural rights of
others) or just transfer (without force, fraud, or
coercion), or just rectification is entitled to it.
If each person’s holdings are just then the entire
distribution is just.
A distribution is just if it arises from another by
legitimate means.
This is an historical rather than end-state or patterned
view of justice.
Justice and the Minimal State




Patterned principles of justice require redistributive
activities to maintain the pattern.
Such redistributive activities violate entitlement rights
under the entitlement theory.
The just (minimal) state taxes only for the purpose of
protecting entitlement rights from interference by
others.
Any other state must involve governmental interference
in entitlement rights.
The U.S. Criminal
Justice System






In 2002 about 2 million people were in U.S. prisons or jails (5x
larger than in 1980), giving the U.S. the world’s highest
incarceration rate (5x England’s, 6x Canada’s, 7x Germany’s).
Annual cost of imprisonment: 40 billion and rising ($20,000$70,000 per inmate).
72% of the U.S. federal prison population and 23% in state prisons
are there for drug-related crimes.
The prison population is disproportionately minority; 25% of black
males and 16% of Hispanic males but only 1.4% of white males
are projected to enter the prison system at least once in their lives.
16% of the U.S. jail population suffers from some sort of mental
illness.
Crime rates have been declining in the past decade but still more
than 15,000 were murdered in the U.S. in 2001 (most by firearms,
of which there are more than 200 million in circulation.)
Death Penalty Statistics







In 2001, 3726 people awaited execution in the U.S., 592 were in
California and 450 were in Texas (67% of all executions occur in just five
states).
From 1976 to August 1999, 560 people had been executed.
97 countries have the death penalty while 70 have either abolished it
(including every European country) or use it only for exceptional wartime
crimes.
Between 1973 and 1995, the national average of death penalty reversal
was 68% (compared to an overturn rate in non-capital cases of 10%).
Nationwide since 1989, there have been over 100 reversals because of
DNA testing.
In January, 2000 the governor of Illinois imposed a moratorium on
executions; Maryland also has one.
As of August 2002, about 100 people who had committed crimes as
juveniles were on death row in the U.S. (the only other countries that
allow such executions are Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).
Legality of Capital Punishment in
the U.S.



1968 on: Public support for executions rises
(why?).
1972: Supreme Court revokes death penalty as
cruel and unusual as then administered.
1976: reinstates death penalty for convicted
murderers if jury safeguards are in place (no
“discretionless juries”).
Legal Punishment


The infliction of harm or suffering on those who
break the law by authorized legal authorities for
the crime committed in accordance with a set
of legally established rules and procedures.
Includes imprisonment, fines, forced work, and
corporal punishment.
Deterrence Theory


Legal punishment (LP) is only justified if it prevents or deters
future crime (a consequentialist approach).
Problems and Considerations:
– Crimes of passion may not be deterrable.
– This won’t work if the benefits of crime are perceived to be
greater than the risks.
– If LP isn’t working in this way it should be stopped (no
“punishment for punishment’s sake”.)
– If something works better in this way than LP it should be used
instead.
– The best deterrence/prevention schemes may target the
innocent.
Retributivism

Justice requires that those responsible for a
crime pay for it by a punishment equivalent to
the crime.
–
–
Egalitarian equivalency: eye-for-an-eye (lex talionis)
Proportional equivalency: The degree of the severity
of the punishment (relative to other punishments)
must match the degree of the severity of the crime
(relative to other crimes.)
Retributivist Considerations


The theory responds to the two major problems of
deterrence theory; only those responsible should be
punished and only to the degree they are responsible.
But there are objections:
–
–
–
Punishing the criminal doesn’t undo the wrong done the victim
It seems to focus on and condone vengeance and revenge,
but the primary purpose of a legal system should be ensuring
social order.
The problem of responsibility.
The Problem of Responsibility





Responsibility of the punished for the crime is crucial for retributive
theory and arguably important for deterrence theory.
The free-will/determinism problem; is anyone ever responsible?
Strict liability asks only if you did it, but shouldn’t duress, insanity,
and mental competence (mens rea) also be considered?
The irresistible impulse test.
The McNaughton Rule: An agent is not legally responsible for his
or her acts if either
– They didn’t know that what they were doing at the time they
were doing it or
– They didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong at the
time they were doing it
Does the Death Penalty Prevent or
Deter Future Crime?



Intuition arguments
Statistical (comparison) arguments
Van den Haag’s “Uncertainty Argument”: Even
if we are uncertain that CP deters we should
still execute since it is better to risk the lives of
guilty murderers than innocent future murder
victims.
More Van den Haag on “The
Ultimate Punishment”





Maldistribution of the death penalty is unjust but not a
reason to abolish it
Miscarriages of justice in capital cases do not warrant
abolishing the death penalty.
The Uncertainty of deterrence is not a reason to
abolish the death penalty.
Execution no more encourages murder than
imprisoning a burglar encourages burglary.
In spite of the physical similarity between execution
and murder the the relevant moral difference is social;
murder is unlawful but execution is not.
The Retributive Debate


Egalitarian: Only murder warrants CP
Proportionality: Is death is the only fitting
punishment for certain crimes or is life in prison
without parole another (better, harsher)
alternative?
Common Objections to The Death
Penalty





It has no prevention or deterrence benefits.
It is state-sanctioned killing or murder.
Most other Western nations have abolished it
as uncivilized, brutalizing, degrading,
barbarous, and dehumanizing.
It is playing God.
It violates the right-to-life.
How We Treat Animals Differently
From Humans






As food
As clothing
As sport
As entertainment
As pets
As experimental research subjects
The Importance of Sentience




A sentient being has feelings; it can experience
pleasure and pain.
Descartes: Animals aren’t sentient because they lack
minds.
Kant: Animals aren’t rational, so cruelty to them is only
bad if it harms humans.
Bentham: The suffering of animals is bad per se, so we
must include the effects of our acts on sentient animals
in our “hedonic calculus”
Some Questions



Can good ends to be achieved for humans or
other animals overcome animal suffering?
Do different degrees of sentience produce
different degrees of moral status?
Nature is cruel. Must we simply not cause
additional suffering or are we obligated to
relieve animal suffering regardless of the
cause?
Animal Rights




“Its bad to harm animals” versus “Animals have a right
not to be harmed”
A right is a strong, legitimate claim.
Rights may be contractual, positive or negative, legal
or moral, absolute or conditional, actual or contingent.
Having duties to X need not imply that X has rights, but
X having rights does imply that others have a
corresponding duty to respect these rights.
What’s the Basis for
Having a Right?



Being able to claim it?
Being a moral agent, a rational and social
being aware of self and others?
Being a moral patient, a sentient but
nonrational, nonsocial being lacking awareness
of others and their rights?
Four Views on Animals




Joel Feinberg: Animal interests (=awareness+wanting)
are the basis of animal rights.
Tom Regan: Animals have rights because they are the
“subject of a life.”
Peter Singer: Animal interests give them rights equal to
humans; failure to recognize this is “speciesism”.
Bonnie Steinbock: Differences in potential and abilities
mean that animal interests don’t carry the same weight
as human interests.
Endangered Species



WWF predicts that 1/5 of all species will be extinct
within twenty years.
Historically, the rate of replacement has exceeded the
loss rate producing greater diversity, but this is
changing.
Why does it matter?
–
–
–
–
Harm to or violation of rights of humans
Harm to or violation of rights of individual animals
Harm to or violation of rights of species
Harm to or violation of rights of the entire ecosystem (deep
ecology)
What Is a Species?



A collection of individuals (but since a collection can’t
have interests or desires how can they have rights?)
A convenient classificatory concept that doesn’t really
exist “out there” and thus can’t have rights (Darwin)
A living historical form of life expressed in organisms;
to kill one is to shut down a unique story, so duties to
species are like duties to causes or ideas rather than
like duties to individuals (Holmes Rolston)
Three Positions on
Animal Research



Never (or very seldom), because animals have equal
moral status with humans (Singer: Only if we would
replace with a human equivalent)
Always (or almost always), because animals have no
moral status (Descartes and other anthropocentrists)
Sometimes (when the benefits to humans are
important enough) because animals have only partial
moral status, less than humans (Steinbock)