How will you decide?

• Suppose your state needs to build a new

prison because the number of prisoners is
growing.
• Everybody understands the prison must be
built somewhere in the state, but nobody
wants the prison in their neighborhood.

2-1
1-1
Act Utilititarianism
• A panel of trusted citizens considers a variety of
siting options and, after a series of public hearings
to gather evidence, weighs the pluses and
minuses of each location.
• At the end the process, the pane recommends the
site with the highest total net good. While some will
be unhappy at the prospect of a prison being built
near their homes, an open and impartial process
can speed their acceptance of the decision.

2-2
1-2
2.8 Rule Utilitarianism

1-3
1-3
Applying Principle of Utility to Rules

• We ought to adopt moral rules which, if

followed by everyone, will lead to the
greatest increase in total happiness
• Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility
to individual actions
• Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of
Utility to moral rules

1-4
1-4
Anti-Worm Scenario

• August 2003: Blaster worm infected thousands of

Windows computers
• Soon after, Nachi worm appeared
– Took control of vulnerable computer
– Located and destroyed copies of Blaster
– Downloaded software patch to fix security problem
– Used computer as launching pad to try to “infect” other
vulnerable PCs

1-5
1-5
Evaluation using Rule Utilitarianism
• Proposed rule: If I can write a helpful worm that
removes a harmful worm from infected computers
and shields them from future attacks, I should do so
• Who would benefit
– People who do not keep their systems updated
• Who would be harmed
– People who use networks
– People who’s computers are invaded by buggy anti-
worms
– System administrators
• Conclusion: Harm outweighs benefits. Releasing anti-
worm is wrong.
1-6
1-6
Case for Rule Utilitarianism

• Not every moral decision requires performing

utilitarian calculus
• Moral rules survive exceptional situations
• Avoids the problem of moral luck
• Reduces the problem of bias
• Appeals to a wide cross-section of society

1-7
1-7
Case Against Utilitarianism in General

• All consequences must be measured on a single scale.

– All units must be the same in order to do the sum
– In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a
human life
• Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution
of good consequences.
• Suppose one course of action results in every member of a society
receiving 100 units of good, while another course of action results in
half the members of society receiving 201 units of good each, with
the other half receiving nothing. According to the calculus of utility,
the second course of action is superior because the total amount of
good is higher. That doesn’t seem right to many people.

1-8
1-8
Case Against Utilitarianism in General

• All consequences must be measured on a single scale.

– All units must be the same in order to do the sum
– In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a
human life
• Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution
of good consequences.
– Utilitarianism does not mean “the greatest good of the greatest
number”
– That requires a principle of justice
– What happens when a conflict arises between the Principle of
Utility and a principle of justice?
• Despite weaknesses, both act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism are workable ethical theories
1-9
1-9
Act Vs. Rule Utilitarianism

• Suppose I hear that one of my aunts is in

the hospital, and I send her a bouquet of
flowers. After the bouquet is delivered, she
suffers a violent allergic reaction to one of
the exotic flowers in the floral arrangement,
extending her stay in the hospital. My gift
gave my aunt a bad case of hives and a
much larger hospital bill.
2-10
1-10
Act Vs. Rule Utilitarianism

• Suppose I’ve made a promise to A. If I

keep my word, I will perform an action that
produces 1,000 units of good for him. If I
break my promise, I will be able to perform
an action that produces 1,001 units of
good for B.

2-11
1-11
2.9 Social Contract Theory

1-12
1-12
Basis of Social Contract Theory
• Thomas Hobbes
– In a “state of nature” our lives would be “solitary, poore, nasty,
brutish, and short”
– We implicitly accept a social contract
• Establishment of moral rules to govern relations among citizens
• Government capable of enforcing these rules
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
– In ideal society, no one above rules
– That prevents society from enacting bad rules
– Since everyone is in the same situation, no
– community members will want to put unfair burdens on others
because that would mean putting unfair burdens on themselves.

1-13
1-13
Basis of Social Contract Theory

• Social Contract:
– (1) the establishment of a set of moral rules to
govern relations among citizens, and
– (2) a government capable of enforcing these
rules.

1-14
1-14
Why system for enforcing the law?

• While everyone might agree to this in theory, it’s easy for a single person to
rationalize selfish behavior.
• How do we prevent individuals from shirking their duties to the group?

• Suppose Bill owes the government $10,000 in taxes, but he discovers a way
to cheat on his taxes so that he only has to pay $8,000. Bill thinks to himself,
“The government gets billions of dollars a year in taxes. So to the
government another $2,000 is just a drop in the bucket. But to me, $2,000 is
a lot of money.”

• What restrains Bill from acting selfishly is the knowledge that if he is caught,
he will be punished. In order for the social contract to function, society must
provide not only a system of laws, but a system of enforcing the laws as well.

2-15
1-15
James Rachels’s Definition

“Morality consists in the set of rules,

governing how people are to
treat one another, that rational
people will agree to accept, for their
mutual benefit, on the condition that
others follow those rules as well.”

1-16
1-16
Kantianism vs Social contract theory

• Kantianism has the notion that it is right for

me to act according to a moral rule if the
rule can be universalized.
• Social contract theory holds that it is right
for me to act according to a moral rule if
rational people would collectively accept it
as binding because of its benefits to the
community.
2-17
1-17
Kinds of Rights
Rights can be classified according to the duties they put on
others:

•Negative right: A right that another can guarantee by

leaving you alone
•Positive right: A right obligating others to do something
on your behalf
•Absolute right: A right guaranteed without exception
•Limited right: A right that may be restricted based on
the circumstances

1-18
1-18
Correlation between Types of Rights

• Positive rights tend to be more limited

• Negative rights tends to be more absolute

1-19
1-19
John Rawls’s Principles of Justice

• Each person may claim a “fully adequate”

number of basic rights and liberties, so long as
these claims are consistent with everyone else
having a claim to the same rights and liberties
• Any social and economic inequalities must
– Be associated with positions that everyone has a fair
and equal opportunity to achieve
– Be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the difference principle)

1-20
1-20
Rawls’s First Principle of Justice

1-21
1-21
Rawls’s Difference Principle

1-22
1-22
Evaluating a scenario using social
contract theory: DVD Rental Scenario

1-23
1-23
Evaluation (Social Contract Theory)

1-24
1-24
Case for Social Contract Theory

• Framed in language of rights

• Explains why people act in self-interest in
absence of common agreement
– Suppose we are living in a city experiencing a gasoline
shortage. If every car owner uses public transportation
two days a week, there will be enough gasoline to go
around. I need to decide if I will take the bus two days
a week.

1-25
1-25
2-26
1-26
Case for Social Contract Theory

• Framed in language of rights

• Explains why people act in self-interest in absence
of common agreement
• Provides clear analysis of certain
citizen/government problems
– Why okay for government to deprive criminals of certain
rights
– Why civil obedience can be morally right action
• Workable ethical theory
1-27
1-27
Case Against Social Contract Theory

• No one signed social contract

• Some actions have multiple characterizations
• Conflicting rights problem
• May unjustly treat people incapable of upholding
contract
• Despite weaknesses, a workable theory

1-28
1-28
2.10 Virtue Ethics

1-29
1-29
Critique of Enlightenment Theories

• Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory

ignore important moral considerations
– moral education
– moral wisdom
– family and social relationships
– role of emotions
• Virtue ethics
– arete, virtue, excellence: reaching highest potential
– Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (4th century BC)
1-30
1-30
Virtues and Vices

• Two types of virtue

– intellectual virtues: virtues associated with reasoning
and truth
– moral virtues: virtues of character (e.g., honesty)
• Moral virtues
– developed by habitually performing right action
– deep-seated character traits
– disposition to act in a certain way and feel in a certain
way

1-31
1-31
Aristotle: Happiness derives from
living a life of virtue.

1-32
1-32
Summary of Virtue Ethics

A right action is an action that a virtuous

person, acting in character, would do in
the same circumstances.

A virtuous person is a person who

possesses and lives out the virtues.

The virtues are those character traits

human beings needs in order to flourish
and be truly happy.

1-33
1-33
Vices

• Vices are opposite of virtues

• Vice: a character trait that prevents a
human being from flourishing or being truly
happy
• Often, a virtue situated between two vices
– Courage between cowardliness and rashness
– Generosity between stinginess and prodigality

1-34
1-34
Case for Virtue Ethics

• It often makes more sense to focus on virtues than

obligations, rights, or consequences
• Personal relationships can be morally relevant to decision
making
• Our moral decision-making skills develop over time
• With this theory there are no irresolvable moral dilemmas
• Emotions play an important role in living a moral life

1-35
1-35
Case Against Virtue Ethics

• Reasonable people may disagree on character

traits needed for human flourishing
• Cannot use virtue ethics to guide government
policy
• Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people
responsible for their bad actions
• Despite weaknesses, virtue ethics a workable
theory

1-36
1-36
2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical
Theories

1-37
1-37
Objectivism vs. Relativism

• Objectivism: Morality has an existence

outside the human mind
• Relativism: Morality is a human invention
• Divine command theory, ethical egoism,
Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract
theory, and virtue ethics examples of
objectivism

1-38
1-38
Workable Ethical Theories

• We seek theories with these characteristics:

– Based on the ethical point of view
– Objective moral principles developed using logical
reasoning based on facts and commonly held values
• Workable ethical theories
– Kantianism
– Act and rule utilitarianism
– Social contract theory
– Virtue ethics
1-39
1-39
Comparing Workable Ethical Theories

1-40
1-40
2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law

1-41
1-41
Social Contract Theory Perspective

• Everyone in society bears certain burdens in

order to receive certain benefits
• Legal system supposed to guarantee
people’s rights are protected
• Everything else being equal, we should be
law-abiding
• Should only break law if compelled to follow a
higher-order moral obligation
1-42
1-42
Social Contract: A Prima Facie
Obligation to Obey the Law

1-43
1-43
Scenario:

• illegal action: violating a licensing

agreement by copying a CD containing
copyrighted music and giving it to a friend

2-44
1-44
Social contract theory:

• That means, everything else being equal, we should be law

abiding. In return, our own legal rights will be respected.
• Our obligation to obey the law should only be broken if
we are compelled to follow a higher-order moral
obligation.

• It is wrong to give a friend a copy of a CD containing

copyrighted music, because that action violates the legal
rights of the person or organization owning the copyright, and
the desire to do something nice for a friend is not an
overriding moral concern.

2-45
1-45
Kantian’s perspective?

• Ist imperative?

• 2nd imperative?

2-46
1-46
Rule utilitarian?

2-47
1-47
Act Utilitarian?

2-48
1-48
Kantian Perspective

• Everyone wants to be treated justly

• Imagine rule: “I may break a law I believe to
be unjust”
• If everyone acted according to this rule, then
laws would be subverted
• Contradiction: Cannot both wish to be
treated justly and allow laws to be subverted

1-49
1-49
• End of chapter 02

2-50
1-50