Ethical Theory
Seeking a Standard
for Morally Correct Action
Overview




What is an ethical theory?
The two main ethical theories:
consequentialism and
nonconsequentialism
Focus on consequentialism
Consequentialism as applied in business
and public policy
Three Levels of Ethical Judgment


Particular cases: e.g., Mary’s abortion was
morally wrong.
Principles: e.g.:



“Abortion is wrong except to save a human life” (applies
to all cases of abortion)
“Killing another person is wrong except in self-defense.”
(applies to all cases of killing)
The most general principle would apply to
all actions—this is a theory.
A Theory is an Ethical Standard for
all Actions


An answer to the question: what makes
a morally right act right?
What do all morally right acts have in
common?
Consequentialism
The morally right act is the one with the
best consequences.
 Consequentialism also called utilitarianism
 Totally future oriented: looks at results
 Certainly general enough. It can apply to
all actions. But is it correct

Are any actions good or bad in
themselves?
Consequentialism:
 No: an action is right
or wrong depending
on whether its
consequences are
good or bad.
 Right
good
Nonconsequentialism
 Yes: Some actions are
inherently good or
bad.
 Rule-based theory
 Rights-based theory
Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism
Consequentialism
The only thing that
determines the
morality of an action
are its results
(consequences)
Nonconsequentialism
Consequences are not the
only thing to consider
Consequences
one of several
things to
consider
Consequences
are irrelevant
to the morality
of an act
Prima facie
rules or prima
facie rights
(Non-absolute
rules or rights)
Absolute
rules or
rights.
Kantian
ethics
Are any actions immoral in and of
themselves?
Imagine you can save 10 children from
dying of a painful disease by capturing one
child from an orphanage and doing an
experiment that will cause that one child a
painful death.
No other way to save the 10 children.
Would it be morally okay?
Nonconsequentialist



Certain moral rules define correct actions: e.g., “it
is always immoral to act with an intent to kill
innocent people.”
Can be formulated as moral rights of the person
acted on; e.g., “children have an absolute moral
right not to be subjects of dangerous
experiments.”
Any act violating a moral rule or right is inherently
immoral (regardless of results).
Consequentialist Response



Consequentialism not as crude as first
appears.
Would not condone killing if same good
result possible with less harm
Must consider long-term and subtle
consequences as well (e.g., precedent set)
Consequentialism “in practice”



If right act is one that creates good
consequences, good for whom?
Answer: for everyone affected.
Must be impartial: self or family counts no
more (or less) than anyone else
If right act is one with good
consequences, what is “good”?

Happiness as only good



Bentham: quantity of pleasure
Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure
Satisfaction of preferences as the good
(less paternalistic?)


Goes with capitalism
“Preference utilitarianism”
Problem of Preferences



People often want things based on
manipulation or advertising.
People are irrational at estimating risks.
People often desire things for short-term
gain that conflict with genuine happiness
(smoking, spending spree, long-term
environmental damage for quick profits).
Must Choose Best Possible Act
+ 15
+9
+8
-10
-3
-1
5
6
7
How Are These Points
Determined?




Number of people affected
“Intensity” of the effect
Likelihood
(Should we also consider whether effect
will happen sooner or later?)
A weak criticism of
consequentialism: “we don’t know
what’s going to happen”



Consequentialism takes that into account
(likelihood)
Reasonable to “play the odds,” just as we
do in everyday life
Falsely assumes that a good ethical theory
must be simple and easy to apply.
How does utilitarian theory get
applied as cost-benefit analysis?


The “minus points” are costs (e.g., $$$)
The “plus points” are benefits such as





Lives saved
Reduction in risk of dying
Suffering avoided (e.g., days in hospital)
Pleasure gained
Typical: is it worth spending a million dollars
to


Reduce the risk of cancer in a community by 10%?
Satisfy the desire of people for clean air and nice views?
What are the problems of CBA?


The “dwarfing of soft variables”—stuff
that can’t easily be quantified as dollars
like enjoyment of a sunny day.
Defining the value of a human life in
dollar terms.




Expected future earnings?
Willingness to pay for reduction in risks
Wording of surveys
Irrationality of popular perception of risks.
Problems Applying vs. Criticisms



“Problems applying” utilitarianism do not
challenge the whole approach of the theory.
(Criticisms do.)
They are things utilitarians disagree about.
If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is
the right theory, then we may still debate


What things are good (happiness, etc.)?
How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life)
Criticisms of
Consequentialism
Quiz 1
In one clear sentence,
state what the course pack suggests to be
one of the good
criticisms of consequentialism.
Bonus: In one clear sentence, state the
criticism of consequentialism in the excerpt
from the Williams essay.
Key Concepts





Moral rules and moral rights
Justice (as one part of morality)
Morally relevant difference between acts
and omissions
Intuition and “reflective equilibrium”
Testing whether an argument withstands
criticism
Problems Applying vs. Criticisms



“Problems applying” utilitarianism do not
challenge the whole approach of the theory.
(Criticisms do.)
They are things utilitarians disagree about.
If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is
the right theory, then we may still debate


What things are good (happiness, etc.)?
How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life)
Criticisms of Consequentialism
(overview)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Utilitarianism does not take into account rights
and rules.
Utilitarianism does not take into account
justice.
Consequentialism does not take into account
special obligations to special people
Consequentialism does not take into account
the morally relevant difference between acts
and omissions
Consequentialism requires too much of us
(relate this to #3)
Consequentialism ignores moral
rules and moral rights



A fundamental question of all ethics:
Do we need the notion of rights?
Big problems: Where do rights come from?
What rights do we have?
But can we have an acceptable ethical
theory without rights?
A Test Case for Consequentialism
A friendly country turns over to the United States
someone with close ties to, and information
about, terrorist activities planned against the
United States. You think that gaining this
information could prevent a terrorist attack and
many deaths.
The man is hostile and not ready to talk.
What is it morally acceptable to do to extract
information from this man? What are the limits?
“We Broke
Him”



For three months of interrogation, Mr.
Faruq provided investigators with only
scraps. "He was a hostile interrogation,"
said a Western intelligence specialist.
Then, two weeks ago, the interrogators
"broke him," the specialist said.
He declined to provide any details of the
techniques employed in the
questioning.
Theory and Particular Cases




Can’t decide on particular case first and
then pick the theory that matches. Why
not?
But we do test theory by application to
specific cases. (Analogy with science.)
Debate on role of intuition.
Reflective equilibrium.
Utilitarianism Ignores Justice
Everyone has freedom
Total happiness not as
great
10% of population
becomes slaves.
90% are extremely
happy.
Society has greatest
balance of +/- points.
Utilitarian chooses
this.
Justice in 2 Areas

Distributive justice:



how should economic goods be distributed?
Is it fair that some are rich and others poor
Criminal justice: what is the justification for punishment?
Two main approaches:

Utilitarian




Protection of society
Rehabilitation, if possible
Deterrence
Retributive



People freely choosing evil deserve punishment
The punishment should fit the crime
Only the guilty should be punished
(We didn’t discuss criminal justice in class; see course pack)
Utilitarianism Ignores Special
Obligations to Special People
But why should I save my daughter over 100
starving children?



Cannot appeal to feelings
Cannot appeal to what most people would
do.
Need an ethical principle.
What principle might justify special
obligation of…





Parents to their children?
Children to their parents?
Person to a 2-year-old brother?
Person to a cousin?
Person to a friend?
Williams: kill one Indian to save 19
others?



Why does Williams think utilitarianism is
wrong?
What does he mean by “integrity”?
a special responsibility for what we do in
contrast to what others do or what we let
happen.
Morally Relevant Difference
Between Acts and Omissions

What if killing can reduce the number who die, as
Williams’ Indian example?

Is it morally worse to kill a patient who wants to die
than not to treat?

Is it morally worse to bomb innocent civilians than to
allow them to die by not acting?

Is it wrong to buy running shoes when the money
could save many people’s lives?

Some criticize utilitarianism for requiring too much.
Think About




What is the strongest criticism of
utilitarianism? Why?
Can utilitarianism withstand criticism?
Basic: A claim is well-grounded if the
arguments for it can withstand criticism.
A “well-grounded claim” is one more worthy
of belief.
Quiz 2
(answer either one for up to 5 points;
answer both for possible bonus points)
1. In one clear sentence, state one
formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative.
(The course pack discusses 2 of them)
2. In the Kant excerpt, he gives 4 examples
of how the categorical imperative would
apply. State one of them.
Kantian Ethics





Difference between acts and omissions: action is
done with a particular intent
When I buy running shoes, I don’t intend to kill
innocent people
Kant: utilitarianism doesn’t understand the
meaning of a moral agent.
Kant: consequences are irrelevant to morality
Happiness and unhappiness can result from
earthquakes, sunsets, puppy dogs.
Consequentialism and
Nonconsequentialism
Consequentialism
The only thing that
determines the
morality of an action
are its results
(consequences)
Nonconsequentialism
Consequences are not
the only thing to consider
Consequence
s one of
several things
to consider
Consequences
are irrelevant to
the morality of
an act
Prima facie
rules or prima
facie rights
(Non-absolute
rules or rights)
Absolute
rules or rights.
Kantian
ethics
Kant’s 2 main concepts (review)


The good will
The categorical imperative
Kant’s view of human action
Events in the world
 Causeevent
 No freedom
 No moral praise or blame
Actions of moral agent
 Actionpurposes,
reasons, values
 Free will
 Can formulate idea of a
moral rule
 Can choose whether or
not to act
 Can be morally
praiseworthy or
blameworthy
The “Good Will” and Kant’s Concept of a
Person as Moral Agent
Events
in the world
Actions
of persons as
moral agents
Cause
ACTION
EVENT
Intentions,
purposes
Kant: desires and inclinations are
irrelevant




Two neighbors: one desires to kill you and
doesn’t; one has only loving desires
Kant: one is not praiseworthy or
blameworthy for feelings, desires. These
are result of heredity and environment.
One can choose whether to follow desires
or moral rule when they conflict.
One is responsible for this choice
Categorical Imperative:
2 Formulations
For a rule to be a moral rule, it must be one
that

you could will to universalize.

treats persons as ends in themselves
and not mere means.
“Could will to universalize”



Not that you would want everyone to follow
it. (Then it would change with each person’s wants.)
Ideally: impossible to will everyone to
follow; e.g., “never help others but always
be helped by other people.”
Also rules possible for everyone to follow
but you couldn’t will it.
Criticisms of Kant’s Ethics



It is too abstract to generate rules that can
guide concrete action.
Kant’s ethics has no way to resolve
conflicts of rules (or rights)
Kantian rules are too rigid. (They fail to
consider consequences!)