Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. Virtue Ethics
II. Plato
III. Aristotle
IV. Misconceptions Regarding Virtue Ethics
V. John Dewey
VI. Kant
VII. Social Contract Ethics
VIII. Utilitarianism
IX. John Stuart Mill
X. Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism
XI. Act Utilitarianism
XII. Kantian Utilitarianism (R. M. Hare)
XIII. G. E. Moore’s Utilitarianism
XIV. Intuitionism
XV. Ethical Relativism
XVI. Moral Realism
XVII. Care Ethics
XVIII. F. Nietzsche
XIX. David Hume
XX. John Rawls
Welcome to Ethics
Unless your faculties aren’t working
properly, you have an interest in ethics
and the reason why is simple:
Are some people “better” at being good than others? If so, how
and why?
Does anyone have the right to tell anyone else what is right from
wrong?
Are there certain kinds of acts that are always wrong (e.g.,
torturing children, beating up your mother, lying)?
Virtue is an Aristotle says there Plato (c.427-347c): Plato (c. 427-347) is concerned with the quality of
a person’s inner state & he prized beauty,
excellence of are 2 types of virtue: To be virtuous we must
health, harmony, & strength of a soul as the
intellectual virtues: understand what
some sort. virtues we should emulate.
contributes to our
Originally the excellences of the overall good & have Aristotle (384-322): The function of man is
word meant mind (e.g., ability to our desire (appetitive; reason (the good of the thing is when it
workers), spirit performs its function well) which is peculiar
“strength” understand, reason, & (warriors), & reason to him. Thus, the function of man is reason
and referred judge well); (ruler-guardians) and the life that is distinctive of humans is
to as educated properly so the life in accordance with reason. If the
moral virtues: they will aggregate with function of man is reason, then the good
“manliness.” learned by repetition the guidance provided man is the man who reasons well This is the
In Aristotle’s (e.g., practicing by the rational part of life of excellence (eudaimonia; human
ethics (arete) honesty we become the soul (Books 2 & 3 flourishing & well-being).
of Republic). When
is used which honest. To be virtuous G.E.M. Anscombe (1919-2001) argues we can’t
these 3 parts of the soul
is trans. as rely on moral obligation using a non-
requires knowledge, conflict with each other,
religious ethic but we can rely on the Greek
“excellences practice, & consistent it might move us to act
notion of excellence because it is tied to
in ways that go against
of various effort at character well-being & appropriateness to the kind of
the greater good
types.” building. (become incontinent).
things we are.
Philippa Foot (1920-) ethical naturalist, grounds
Aristotle: “Must have knowledge, second he must choose
the virtues in what is good for human
the acts and choose them for their own sakes, & beings; the virtues are beneficial to their
finally his actions must proceed from a firm possessor or to the community; virtues are
valuable because they contribute to it.
character” (1105a).
Basic Framework of Virtue Ethics:
Premise 1: An action is right iff it is what a
virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.
2. reason: the intellectual component of the soul: "calculates, measures and decides"
3. spirit: "structural element of the soul"; this is our passionate side that desires honor, glory,
and respect
4. appetite: the part of the soul that desires things that help us to satisfy our biological and
material desires
5. moral balance: situation in which reason governs the soul guarding against the excesses of
spirit and appetite.
6. class system: In Plato's Republic, a way of dividing individuals into different social groups
based on their talents. There are three classes: philosopher-kings (rulers [reason] ),
auxiliaries (guardians [spirit]) who serve as warriors, and a combination of craftsmen,
artisans, and traders who are driven mostly by appetite.
7. just society: a society that functions harmoniously by allowing each individual to do the
work suited to his/her talents.
Plato wrestles with the idea of justice in his most famous work
entitled, The Republic.
Plato views social justice exactly parallels his notion of
individual justice. There are three parts of the soul and three
corresponding divisions in the social order. The social order is
constructed as follows:
SOUL SOCIETY
Reason Philosopher-King
Spirit Auxiliaries/Guardians
Appetite Craftsmen/Artisans/Traders
Three Elements in the Soul that are distinguished
by their functions, goal, and activities:
Reason-calculation calculates: calculation is concerned with
the good (i.e., with the best course of action);
3. For Plato the Forms are not merely an unusual item to be added to
our list of existing objects. Rather, they are a source of inspiration
and their discovery is a decisive turning point in one’s life.
Example from Symposium: Love.
According to Diotima’s account, those who are in
love are searching for something they do not yet
understand; whether they realize it or not, they
seek the eternal possession of the good, and
they can obtain it only through productive activity
of some sort. Physical love perpetuates the
species and achieves a lower form of
immortality, but a more beautiful kind of offspring
is produced by those who govern cities and
shape the moral characteristics of future
generations.
Example from Symposium: Love.
Best of all is the kind of love that eventually attaches
itself to the Form of Beauty, since this is the most
beautiful of objects and provides the greatest happiness
to the lover. One develops a love for this Form by
ascending through various stages of emotional
attachment and understanding. Beginning with an
attraction to the beauty of one person’s body, one
gradually develops an appreciation for the beauty
present in all other beautiful bodies; then one’s
recognition of the beauty in people’s souls takes on
increasing strength, and leads to a deeper attachment to
the beauty of customs, laws, and systems of knowledge;
and this process of emotional growth and deepening
insight culminates in the discovery of the eternal and
changeless beauty of Beauty itself.
Aristotle Rejection of Plato:
Mill agrees with Aristotle, but Kant thinks that duty is desirable solely for
its own sake.
What is a virtue?
The fully virtuous do what they should without a struggle against contrary
desires; the continent have to control a desire or temptation to do otherwise.
Character:
When Aristotle says that a virtuous person’s virtuous acts
proceed from a firm character, he means to distinguish virtue
from other sorts of character. Consider…
1. The acts of a virtuous person do not arise out of some quirk of
circumstances. Rather, a virtuous person’s acts are typical of
that person because virtue is his/her set of habits of passion,
desire, pleasure, thoughts, & the like. Therefore, he/she is not
out-of-character. In other words, the virtuous person can be
counted on to perform such acts.
Character
3. The acts are not the result of outside pressure or persuasion but
come instead from within the person.
4. The act should not be performed by an effort of will against
temptation. The virtuous person is not conflicted-not pulled
one way be desire and another by duty. He or she is in
harmony with himself or herself. Thus even though the
continent person is reliably good and internally motivated,
his/her act does not “proceed from a firm character.”
1. Heroic person possesses supererogatory virtue, acting & feeling even better than ordinary virtuous
people
2. Virtuous person has right passions & desires, makes right choices based on right principles, &
reliably performs right acts.
3. The continent person overcomes temptation by will power. He has wrong passions & desires but
makes right choices & performs right acts.
4. The incontinent: fails to overcome temptation because of weakness of will: he has wrong passions
& desires & makes right choices but performs wrong acts (1150a15).
5. The vicious & brutish characters need no further explanation.
Character:
Aristotle goes onto characterize virtue
further when he states [1106b-1107]:
1. Habits,
2. Passion,
3. Pleasure,
4. Thoughts, &
5. the like.
The bottom line is that your passions and desires are under your
control. To be sure, you can’t change them quickly or easily, but over
time you can modify your passions and desires. In fact, Aristotle says
that you should use your reason to determine which passions and
desires to have and then go on to develop these passions and desires.
You should cultivate a taste for virtue, just as some people cultivate a
taste for gourmet coffee (1113a-1114b).
Relationship between Virtue and Vice:
Aristotle describes ethical virtue as a “hexis” (“state” “condition” “disposition”)—a
tendency or disposition, induced by our habits, to have appropriate feelings
(1105b25-6).
Defective states of character are hexeis (plural of hexis) as well, but they are
tendencies to have inappropriate feelings.
Although Aristotle frequently draws analogies between the crafts and the virtues
(and similarly between physical health and eudaimonia), he insists that the virtues
differ from the crafts and all branches of knowledge in that the former involve
appropriate emotional responses and are not purely intellectual conditions.
Relationship between Virtue and Vice:
Degree
Vice
(cowardice)
Duration
Vice
(Rashness)
Objects
Occasions
Brutish
A Character Trait is a Virtue IFF it is conducive to eudaimonia
Virtue Excess Deficiency Sphere
The enkratic:
The akratic:
The enkratic is the
The akratic is the morally strong
morally weak person person who shares
who desires to do the akratic agent’s
other than what he desire to do other
knows ought to be than what he knows
done and acts on this ought to be done, but
desire against his acts in accordance
better judgment. with his better
judgment.
1. Comes only with the experience of life. The virtuous are mindful of the
consequences of possible actions. How could they fail to be reckless,
thoughtless and short-sighted if they were not?
These aspects coalesce in the description of the practically wise as those who
understand what is truly worthwhile, truly important, and thereby truly
advantageous in life, who know, in short, how to live well. In the Aristotelian
"eudaimonist" tradition, this is expressed in the claim that they have a true grasp of
eudaimonia.
What does it take to be fully
virtuous?
1. No struggle against contrary desires.
2. For Plato, and the Stoics, virtue is both necessary AND sufficient.
On the Stoical view that it is both necessary and sufficient, a
eudaimon life is a life that has been successfully lived (where
"success" of course is not to be understood in a materialistic way)
Given the shared virtue ethical premise that "the good life is the virtuous
life" we have so far three distinguishable views about what makes a
character trait a virtue.
Eudaimonia
There is a conceptual link between virtue and eudaimonia,
further links are matters of dispute and generate different
moral versions:
3rd: Relates the virtues to the pursuit of a good for human beings the
conception of which can only be elaborated and possessed within an
ongoing social tradition (i.e., the goods of particular lives have to be
integrated into the overall patterns of a tradition informed by a quest for
the good and the best).
For example: Aristotle rejects life of money-making for he observes that money can’t be the
ultimate of eudaimonia because it is instrumentally valuable; it is desirable only because of
what it can buy (1196a).
Aristotle rejects the political life because honor depends on the bestowers of honor and is
easily lost whereas eudaimonia does not depend on fickle opinions of others and is not easily
lost. Moreover, people can be honored even if they do nothing or little and even if they
suffer great misfortunes, but eudaimonia requires activity and precludes tragedy (1195b).
Type of Life Aim or Goal Abilities Exercised
Ethical life & Virtuous activity & practical reason & moral
money-making life money virtue & desire for money
Ethical life & virtuous activity & practical reason & moral
religious life love & obey God & soul.
Ethical life & virtuous activity & practical reason & moral
contemplative life contemplation virtue & theoretical reason.
1. Combination of ethical and money-making lives does not exercise all essential human abilities.
Moreover, there are times when you must choose between profitable and moral paths.
2. Combination of ethical and religious seems most promising. But people like Kierkegaard
argue that conflicts arise between virtuous activity and obeying God (Abraham ordered to kill
Isaac). I personally disagree with this because of the commandment to love God with your
mind, to meditate upon Him, etc. (Psalm 19).
3. Ethical and contemplative combination exercises all essential human abilities according to
Aristotelians (Book X; 1177a-1179 suggest that he thinks contemplative life is supreme &
ethical life is secondarily).
Overview of Ethical Systems: Care Ethics:
Rather than the starting point being rationally derived universal
principles, ethics starts in caring relationships. Care ethics is the
narrative of relationships that extend through time.
Criticisms:
Well-being is a master-value & all other things are valuable only to the
extent the can contribute it.
Leaves us hostage to luck: Some will attain moral maturity and others
will not.
Problems with Aristotelian Ethics by
virtue-care ethicists.
Aristotelian ethics seems unable to address, much less
resolve, certain crucial issues of contemporary moral
philosophy. For example, there is no commitment to
generalized humanitarianism.
Utilitarianism: how to justify its claim that the only thing that really
matters morally is consequences for happiness or well-being.
For example:
“Rule deontologists know that they want to get “don’t kill’, ‘keep promises’,
‘cherish your children’, and so on as the rules that meet their specification,
whatever it may be. They also know that any of these can be disputed, that some
philosophers may claim, of any one of them, that it is reasonable to reject it, and
that at least people claim that there has been, for each rule, some culture which
rejected it. Similarly, the virtue theorists know that they want to get justice,
charity, fidelity, courage, and so on as the character traits needed for eudaimonia;
and they also know that any of these can be disrupted, that some philosopher will
say of any one of them that it is reasonable to reject it as a virtue, and that there
is said to be, for each character trait-some culture that has thus rejected it.”
She goes on to say, “Each theory has to stick out its neck and say, in some
cases, ‘This person/these people/ other cultures (or would be) in error,’ and find
some grounds for saying this.
Misconceptions about Virtue Ethics by
Rosalind Hursthouse:
6. Virtue ethics is said to subject to the threat of moral skepticism, pluralism, or
cultural relativism. This is too a problem for both utilitarianism & deontologists,
esp. in view 2 their second premises.
For example:
“Rule deontologists know that they want to get “don’t kill’, ‘keep promises’,
‘cherish your children’, and so on as the rules that meet their specification,
whatever it may be. They also know that any of these can be disputed, that some
philosophers may claim, of any one of them, that it is reasonable to reject it, and
that at least people claim that there has been, for each rule, some culture which
rejected it. Similarly, the virtue theorists know that they want to get justice,
charity, fidelity, courage, and so on as the character traits needed for eudaimonia;
and they also know that any of these can be disrupted, that some philosopher will
say of any one of them that it is reasonable to reject it as a virtue, and that there
is said to be, for each character trait-some culture that has thus rejected it.”
She goes on to say, “Each theory has to stick out its neck and say, in some
cases, ‘This person/these people/ other cultures (or would be) in error,’ and find
some grounds for saying this.
Misconceptions about Virtue Ethics by
Rosalind Hursthouse:
7. There is the rejection that virtue ethics has un-resolvable conflict built into
it. ‘It is common knowledge,’ it is said, ‘that the requirements of the
virtues can conflict; charity may prompt me to end the frightful suffering of
the person in my care by killing him, but justice bids me to stay my hand.
To tell my brother that his wife is being unfaithful to him would be honest
and loyal, but it would be kinder to keep quiet about it. So which should I
do? In such cases, virtue ethics has nothing helpful to say.’ So which
should I do? In such cases, virtue ethics has nothing helpful to say.”
In other words, virtue ethics does not always answer the question, ‘What
should I do?”
Aristotle's claim that rules are based on virtues, which are derived
from an understanding of the telos. The Enlightenment reversed this
and predicated virtues on an understanding of subjective (but
purported to be universal) principles.
A. Theistic:
1. Given to us by God;
2. Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);
A. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves her own
best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.
our own law- 2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing the
maxims were natural laws, there would be a society
making ought to of that kind. In other words, we are obligated to act
only by maxims which would harmonize a possible
harmonize with a kingdom of ends.
possible kingdom of 3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
create incoherent or impossible states of natural
ends as a kingdom affairs when we attempt to universalize them;
of nature." We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that
promote unstable or greatly undesirable states of
Grounding for the affairs.
“Kant seems to assume that those who apply the categorical
Metaphysics of imperative to their maxims will come out with answers that
agree when the maxims tested are alike.” J.B. Schneewind,
Morals, 4:436/104. “Autonomy, Obligation, & Virtue,” pg. 338.
Third Categorical Imperative introduces a
social dimension to Kantian Morality
The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the
maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible
kingdom of ends” (4:439).
It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions
to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down
universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that
those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members
equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence
must be treated always as an end in itself.
The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral
obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a
community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in
legislating these principles for their community.
Summary of first three categorical
imperatives:
The Categorical Imperative requires that I act
only on maxims that I can will as universal law.
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end.”
Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our
action, he presupposes that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection
with the first formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be
willing to eliminate all individual reference from the maxim of her action. The most
significant exclusion here is that of herself. Therefore, be prepared go on willing the
maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action
must be such that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity
as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in
his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first
formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the
agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore the
other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and
1st Categorical Imperative:
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of
an action must be such that any other free and rational person can
adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting
our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting
our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by
the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede
the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means
is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are
those of coercion and deception.
1. Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one
can’t will that would be universal will.
"A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture
might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in
comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather
than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural
capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his
natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, agrees
also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of nature could
indeed subsist with such a universal law although men (like the South
Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve to devote their
lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation of their species-
in a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will that this should be
a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as such by a natural
instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties
be developed, since they serve him and have been given him, for all
sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles
of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
3rd example: Developing One’s
Habits
“When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my
talents rust.”
1. Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.
3. Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about
non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a
universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
2. If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that
non-help be a universal law.
3. Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking
about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be
a universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each
other.
3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.
4. Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?
5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what
is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.
7. Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human
beings.
There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts
consider the following:
a. Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask
for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must
tell the truth (illustration by Kant).
But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is given
in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we cannot
will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as
persons.
Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral
conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth and
preserve life are moral obligations.
Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:
Mill did not regard all pleasures equally. He made a distinction between
higher and lower pleasures.
Mill rejects Bentham's hedonic calculus because he believes that
pleasures and pains are incommensurable.
Individuals who have not taken the time to develop their intellectual capabilities are
unlikely to share the view that the improvement of the human condition is of
paramount importance.
On Democracy:
Although he favored democracy, Mill sees the possibility for domination of the
minority by the majority under a strict system of "mob rule.“
Accordingly, Mill argues that safeguards be put in place to protect the interests and
viewpoints of minorities in the political process. Note that the term minority is not
meant to denote racial minorities, but rather all types of political and social
minorities that do not share majority/mainstream views.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics:
Regarding how 1st Argument: 2nd Argument: Why is this naturalistic fallacy?
Because good is a non-natural property.
good is to be To identify good with Suppose good were But even it were a natural one, there
defined, Moore some other object definable. Then the would still be a fallacy: Definist fallacy.
result would be even The Definist fallacy is attempting to
contends that (i.e., to define good) worse that that of define good by any means. This
there can be only is to commit the reducing ethical argument is often known as the open
one answer: good naturalistic fallacy. propositions to non- question argument because whatever
To commit this ethical propositions- purported definition of good anyone
is good or good is
fallacy is to reduce ethical propositions offers, it would always be an open
indefinable; would be tautologies! question whatever satisfies the
ethical propositions
For example, define definition really is good.
Thus, good to either good as pleasure.
denotes a “unique, psychological Then suppose you
simple object of propositions or maintain that pleasure In last portion of book Moore discusses
reportive definitions is good. All you would what sorts of things are the greatest
thought” that is as to how people use be asserting is that goods which we are acquainted. He
indefinable and words. pleasure is pleasure, a argues for the view that they are
tautology. personal affection and aesthetic
un-analyzable.
enjoyments.
Moore’s Threefold Contribution:
1. “Good” is the name of a simple indefinable, non-natural property.
2. Act utilitarianism states we ought to consider the consequences of each act separately.
The consequences of the act under consideration determine what one ought to do.
They are alike in Act Utilitarians Rule Utilitarians Best Proof offered for
requiring us to can claim that can claim that Utilitarianism is experience
acts are similar to
produce the ought to Just as the only way in which
one another and
greatest amount consider only we know that something is
so can be thought
what will or is visible is its being seen, and the
of happiness or of as practices.
only way we can show that
pleasure for the likely to happen, Since we should
something is audible is if it can
greatest number not what would make the same
be heard, so, also, the only proof
judgment in
of people happen if we that we have that something is
similar cases, we
acted in certain desirable is its being desired.
They differ in should judge this
ways but is not Because we desire happiness, we
act by comparing
what they thus know it is desirable or
going to happen it with results of
good. In fact, happiness is the
believe we ought the actions of
because we are only thing we desire for its own
to consider in everyone in
not going to act. sake. All else we dire because
estimating the similar situations.
we believe it will lead to
consequences. happiness. J.S. Mill
Act-Utilitarian Framework:
Act-utilitarian model begins with a premise that provides
a specification of right action:
Some rule utilitarians hold that actions are right provided that are
permitted by rules the general acceptance of which would maximize utility
in the agent’s society, and wrong only if they would be prohibited by such
rules.
Two arguments are offered against rule-utilitarianism by J.C.C. Smart via David
Lyons:
A difficulty for rule-utilitarianism is on rules like “do not walk on the grass” or “do
not fail to vote at an election” or “do not fail to vote at an election.”
In these cases it seems that it is beneficial if some people, though not too many,
to break the rule (pg. 11).
Lyon points out that we can distinguish the act of doing something (e.g., walking
on the grass) after some largish number n other people have done it from the
action of doing it when few or no people have done it (pg. 11).
When these circumstances are written into the rule, Lyons holds that the rule will
come to enjoin the same circumstances as would the act-utilitarian principle (pg.
11).
Act-Utilitarianism vs. Rule-Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism states that in all cases the morally right action is the one
which produces the most pleasure.
rule utilitarianism states that the morally right action is the one that is in
accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would create the
most happiness.
Common Morality
Professional Ethics
Personal Morality
Three Kinds of Intuitive Level
Principles:
Common Morality emerges when members of society face similar problems.
This is expected because of the universal features of the human condition as
evidenced in the common moralities of various cultures at different times and
places.
Personal Morality. Dr. Varner writes, “And insofar as individuals differ in their
abilities to reason critically under various circumstances, critical thinking will
lead different individuals to train themselves to adhere to different sets of
intuitive level rules, including "metaprinciples" for deciding when to engage in
critical thinking and when to stick unquestioningly to one's intuitive level
principles.”
Regarding the Critical Level (Act Utilitarian):
When you encounter (1) an unusual situation, (2) determine that two prima facie
rules contradict each other, (3) or where the normal rules would specify a course of
action that is clearly not the most beneficial, changing one’s mode of moral
thinking to the critical act utilitarian level is necessary (utility needs to be
maximized).
Prole:
Archangel:
1. Only uses critical moral 1. Human weaknesses to an extreme
thinking; no intuitive principles degree.
are needed.
2. Superhuman, god-like powers 2. Must rely upon intuitions and
of knowledge, thought, and no sound prima facie principles all
human weaknesses. of the time.
Ross states: Pleasure is not the only thing we recognize as being intrinsically
good; we recognize other things such as a good character & an intelligent
understanding of the world as having intrinsic value.
i. R.M. Hare’s 2 Level Utilitarianism whereby he bridges both act and rule
utilitarianism.
Ross states: Productivity of maximum good is not what makes all actions
right.
Counter-Intuitive Objection by Bernard Williams
They are What do you do Prima facie duties are 4 Central Views at the center of
moral, conditional
different from when these moral
guidelines which can Ross’s Intuitionism:
feelings when principles or truths
be overridden, 1. Moral Realism (metaphysics): it is built
come into conflict? trumped by other
you It is often difficult to
into our everyday ethical discourse &
duties; they are not thought.
experience be sure what the rules without
them; the exceptions. 2. Non-Natural Properties (metaphysics):
stronger duty is.
Transparency argument (we use term
truths of Nevertheless that We apprehend P.F. “good” without defining it) & open
intuitions is uncertainty doesn’t duties the same way argument (infinite regress on def. of good);
infect the general we apprehend it is this worldly (non-natural moral).
self-evident.
principles. mathematics.
They are 3. Irreducible pluralism about the right and
Therefore, I carefully There is no ranking of good (normative theory).
objective facts consider which duty priority with P.F.
which are 4. Moral propositions are self evident
is more “weighty”; it duties but some are
(epistemological); we have a priori
applicability more incumbent than
will then become knowledge (no special faculty).
others.
dependent. obvious.
Provides no principle for determining what our actual moral obligations are in a
particular situation in contrast to both Kant and Mills who do.
Genealogy of Morals Morality is not “located” in forms; it does not have a starting
The essence of the Our natural desire
questions the value of point (no origins) but is a nature- process; it is earthly as
individual is the is to dominate and opposed to spiritual; it is empirical, not metaphysical. Moral
morality.
will-the will to reshape the world terms become vacuous. In his typology of morals there are 2
power (Dionysus Self-deception is a to fit our own types: master morality & slave morality: Moral codes have
represents frenzied particularly destructive preferences & to originated “either among a ruling group whose consciousness
& passionate); characteristic of Western of their difference from the ruled group was accomp. by
asset our personal
reason (Apollo culture. delight or among the ruled, the slaves. Noble proclaimed
represents order &
strength to the good out of self-affirmation; evil is the slave’s primary
Moral phenomena does fullest degree concept. Both types “can have each other.” Every morality is
reason) is to
facilitate by not exist; there is only a possible. Struggle, against nature & reason (but not an object.)
moral interpretation of through which
organizing
phenomena. But once individuals achieve
efficiently the Regarding asceticism: We could go so far as to say that
freed, realize a degree of power
conditions of we are the "inward-looking animal," and that this inward
independence is only for
action. The height commensurate w/ looking has only been generated by a constant struggle
the strong.
of Greek civ. their abilities is the against ourselves and our own nature. The greatest
blending of both. The greatest power is basic fact of human triumph is to delight in and affirm this self-torture and
We are under found in those who can existence. struggle, to see it as a willful act of creation, whereby
Apollo & are in control their passions & we free ourselves of our instincts and our evolutionary
need of Dionysus. use them creatively. past, and fully create ourselves. The will is the will to
truth.
There are only verbs; The bird is the will; “their knowing is creating”; "There is only a perspective seeing, only a
perspective ’knowing’; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can
use to observe one thing, the more complete will our ’concept’ of this thing, our ’objectivity,’ be.“ Absolute truth
means that a certain interpretation has become suspiciously compelling (Third Essay of Genealogy of Morals)..
Summary from Stanford Encyclopedia:
2. Guilt/bad conscience in GM 2.
“The strongest and highest Will to Life does not find expression in a
miserable struggle for existence, but in a Will to War, a Will to Power, a
Will to Overpower.”
6. All ethical theories which conceal the hard facts of existence and
teach the repression of the will to power are insidious. Thus, he
believes that Judeo-Christian thought and rationalism of
traditional philosophy have had a debilitating influence of
Christianity by holding up the ideal of a human being as a
rational animal and suppression of our desires.
Key Elements to Know:
10. The worry is that nihilism or “pity” will prevent those who are
strong from keeping their strength; that the weak are infecting
the strong (e.g., democracy levels precludes the possibility of an
over-rising man from rising).
12. The weak can triumph but that doesn’t make them strong (e.g.,
his view of Christians).
Key Elements to Know:
13. Two stories of conscience: The relationship between the creditor and the debtor. If the
debtor doesn’t pay back the debts, the creditor will punish him. But on the other hand,
there is this attachment to “norms” which is through “cruelty” which we are made to
remember how we ought to behave;
14. Being in debt is being guilty and you should be made to suffer and so the origin of
cruelty there is an element of pleasure the debtor takes; there is pleasure in being cruel.
16. Bad conscience emerges as a result of urbanization; the hostility and joy in attacking.
17. In this moment that our instincts turn upon ourselves we are at war; we level
ourselves.
20. We can overcome our nature which gives us the capacity that we can become strong or
we can become inward, and thus, weak.
Key Elements to Know:
21. The aesthetic ideals: poverty, chastity, and humility;
22. The aesthetic ideals give an explanation for our suffering. This is where our
sin comes in. We can be used in great service but he is concerned with the
aesthetic ideals for Christians; for them they are ends in themselves. For
Christians Aesthetic ideals have come to absolute. First claim he makes is
that the aesthetic ideals show us something of the human will. We need
meaning ultimately and aesthetic ideals and the needs that give rise to them,
show us that we need meaning (this is in the last section of the genealogy; the
aesthetic ideals that we need a human goal; he turns to the aesthetic priest,
who re-directs the blame (what is the cause of your suffering? It is your own
fault for being bad says the priest). So, the story he tells of the aesthetic ideals
is fascinating. The aesthetic ideals de-value life: this life is worth doesn’t
matter; only this life does. But how did this come to be? How has this view
of sin become widespread? Well, the aesthetic ideals grew out of a need to
preserve life.
Key Elements to Know:
23. The aesthetic ideals in the end de-value life…they help us overcome and give
meaning.
24. In the twilight of the idols, it is a profound moment in the decadence of
Greece whereby Socrates to comes to the scene. These ideals, Christians,
who de-value life gives us a reason (you are sinful). He is both appalled and
marveled by it.
25. Sin is not falsifiable; it has tremendous explanatory power.
26. Who can I blame, though a weak disposition itself, says it is your fault-says
the aesthetic priest.
27. Suffering makes you stronger (for Anselm you are paying off that debt).
30. The strong says yes (the eternal return); When Zurathrusta; Absolute
affirmation of the will; it is an existential compartment; the aesthetic priest
wishes to be elsewhere and Nietzsche affirms life as it is.
Significant Points by Paul J.M. Van Tongeren on
Nietzsche & Ethics
5. Nietzsche himself can’t escape this criticism since his own critique is
inspired and molded by the morality he criticizes.
6. Nietzsche can’t escape this criticism since his own critique is inspired and
molded by the morality he criticizes.
His basic arguments are self-defeating (in view of his belief in perspectivalism).
His view isn’t livable (as he himself demonstrated in his own life).
15. Hume disagrees with Locke (and Rawls) about the idea of
humanity being involved in a highly cooperative domain of
law-governing citizens for the following reasons:
Some argue that pleasure and pain cause these 4 passions others
believe these 4 passions make up the pleasure or pain.
2. Justice is “dynamic”:
1. Hume reduces ethics to a matter of taste (e.g., A.J. Ayer & C.L.
Stevenson), relativism, and subjectivism.
Hume replies: since people have the same psychological makeup, moral
responses will be comparable. To be sure, this doesn’t mean everyone will
agree about but if provided the same data, they will generally tend to
respond similarly:
a. Common Nature
b. Same Data;
= Similar response.
Benevolence;
Justice;
Political Society.
Chapter 2: On Benevolence:
Hume writes:
2. Rawls believes that basic social agreements must be such that they are
acceptable in perpetuity, i.e., contracts are not conditional upon on the
happenstance of one’s position in a society at a given time.
Rawls vs. Hume:
Why Rawls is different than Hume?
1. Hume states, “There is a maxim very current in the world, which few
politicians are willing to avow, but which has been authorized by the
practice of all ages, that there is a system of morals calculated for
princes, much more free than that which ought to govern private
persons.” Treatise pg. 597.
While morality may extend to princes, it does not have the same force as
that of private persons.
2. Hume believes that neither justice or injustice is in the state of nature
because justice and injustice are conventional. Questions of justice arise
exclusively in connection with social rules, adopted in the expectation of
mutual benefit, & observed in expectation of mutual conformity.
1. Marx contends that only in a classless society, where all people become
workers, where the means of production are socially owned, can all
participate equally in making the decisions that shape their lives. Only
socialism allows us to have “an association , in which the free
development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
(The Communist Manifesto, 491).
“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association , which the free development
of each is the condition for the free development of all” (pg. 491). In
other words, a society without class conflict will permit all people to
freely develop their human powers. Human freedom is the self-
actualization as conscious, human beings. Moreover, he argues, “Human
emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual man has
absorbed into himself the abstract citizen” (pg. 46).
Rawls vs. Marx:
Why Rawls is different than Marx (1818-1883):
D. “Society of Peoples” means “all those people who follow the ideals and
principles of the Law of people in their mutual relations. These peoples
have their own internal governments, which may be constitutional liberal
democratic or non-liberal but decent governments.
E. Rawls rejects the difference people on global level.
F. He has a deeper view of pluralism; he doesn’t want to impose
“liberalism” upon other countries. It is about the principle of toleration
seriously (respecting others); there is a much deeper level of pluralism
on the international society that is required.
1. There is diversity among liberal societies and illiberal societies.
2. Recognize the autonomy of societies as I do for individuals; I don’t have to
enforce
E. 5 Types of Societies
Non-liberal societies
Honor human rights but whose basic institutions
denied meaningful meet certain conditions
participation in political of political right &
decision-making Reasonable justice (e.g., just law;
Liberal Peoples participation in politics)
Well-ordered
peoples
Benevolent
Decent Peoples
Absolutisms
Types of
Societies
Not well-
Conditions of ordered
societies whose peoples
historical, social, Non-compliance:
and economic they refuse to
Not well-
circumstances ordered comply with a
Societies
make their peoples reasonable Law
achieving a well- burdened
Outlaw states of People (e.g.,
ordered regime by unfavorable war advances
difficult if not Conditions national
impossible interests).
“The aim of the Laws of Peoples would be fully achieved when all societies have been able to
establish either a liberal or a decent regime, however unlikely that may be (pg.5).” pp. 3-5.
I. Basic Argument: Political
liberalism or “realistic utopia”
F. Rawls presupposes a series of actions based upon rational
principles, developing the ideas of justice and public reason
to argue that a reasonable Law of Peoples based upon the
tenets of political liberalism is both possible and realistic.
Several features mark this argument.
a. Not aggressive
b. Engages in war only in self-defense.
c. Common good idea of justice that assigns human rights to all its
members.
d. Includes a decent consultation hierarchy which protects these and
other rights and ensures that all groups in society are decently
represented by elected bodies in the system of consultation
e. Fair, reasonable, & sincere judicial system.
f. Laws grounded by force are grounds for rebellion and rebellion.
g. A slavery cannot belong to a decent society.
I. Basic Argument
7. Rawls's methodology thus places peoples behind a suitable veil
of ignorance, and inquires about what principles could be
developed to guide the interactions between them. The analysis
proceeds in three stages:
The second extends the analysis to illiberal peoples, and tries to show
the acceptability of the principles to illiberal peoples as well.
Illiberal are states that do not respect freedom and equality but are not
expansionist and offer some sort of legal system that is able to impose
moral duties on its citizens (benevolent absolutisms; societies burdened
by unfavorable conditions).
The final stage extends these principles of ideal theory to such non-
ideal contexts as partial compliance and unfavorable conditions (other
burdened and benevolent peoples but we must condemn outlaw states).
I. Basic Argument
Liberal or illiberal—which are able to take
responsibility of their collective political life, maintain
minimally decent political institutions, and have
acceptable moral relations with outside nations have an
obligation moral to assist all societies become a well-
ordered society. Such a duty is based upon the notion of
the international community as itself a well-ordered
society of well-ordered societies, in which each state is
enjoined to respect and tolerate the different methods of
governance of each other state.
I. Basic Argument”
8. Rawls international ethics is a weaker form of his
domestic ethics. Consider the following:
Rawls states:
Rawlsian response: