Comparing Kant and Mill's Ethical Theories: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism - Prof. Willia, Study notes of Ethics

Download Comparing Kant and Mill's Ethical Theories: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism - Prof. Willia and more Study notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity! 1. What exactly is moral relativism, and how does it differ from other claims that it is often confused with? Moral relativism is a belief that there are no universal objective moral truths. There are no moral truths that hold across cultures or times; there are no objective moral standards by which universally to judge people’s actions as right or wrong across different cultures or times. What is truly right or wrong is relative to the culture or time. It is different from claims like: we should be tolerant of other people’s opinions and shouldn’t go around shoving our views down people’s throats. Its different because it deals more with moral codes and virtues. Moral relativism is 2. What is a blastocyst, and what are some common arguments in favor of the claim that a blastocyst possesses moral personhood? What are some problems with those arguments? A blastocyst occurs in the embryogenesis right before implantation. There are 3 arguments. ONE (argument from humanity): all humans have a full right to life; embryos are human beings; THEREFORE embryos have a full right to life. This argument is structurally valid but not sound because premise two is debatable. Argument TWO (argument from potentiality): A blastocyst is a potential human being; Human beings have a right to life; If an X has a right, then a potential X likewise has that right; THEREFORE a blastocyst has a right to life. This argument is structurally valid but not sound because premises is debatable. Argument THREE: The embryo is the earliest stage in a continuous process whereby a single entity develops into a human being; But there's no place along that continuum of development to draw a sharp and non-arbitrary line and say: this is where it goes from being a non-person to being a person; The only safe thing to do in this sort of continuum situation is to refuse to draw any such line, and instead treat all the different stages equivalently; THEREFORE, the only safe thing to do is to regard an embryo as the moral equivalent of an ordinary human being, possessing the same moral standing. COUNTER This is a lot like the Dusk/dawn metaphor. Just like the line, during dusk/dawn, there is no clear line between night and day; however that doesn’t mean one cannot tell the difference between midnight and high noon. Therefore, just because there isn’t a clear line doesn’t mean you have to treat two different things the same. Instead, it becomes a question of moral status. Moral status can be processed in degrees and not “all or nothing”. Moral status increases gradually as development goes on. It becomes a question on one’s opinion on the amount of moral status something possesses. 3. What does Kant mean by a "hypothetical imperative" and by a "categorical imperative"? What does he mean by an end-in-itself? A categorical imperatives result from objective ends. An objective end is something that exists in its own right and has value in itself. Therefore, categorical imperatives are actions taken to gain an objective end. Categorical imperatives are universal, set in stone. A hypothetical imperative is more self-oriented. Hypothetical imperatives are by circumstance and deal. They are based on the value we put on them EX) If I want to go to the concert tonight then I must go buy tickets. 4. What is "consequentialism" and which philosopher argued for a version of that view? Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind. John Stewart Mill argued for Utilitarianism with is a form of consequentialism. 5. What is divine command theory and how does it differ from other theistic ethical theories? Why might even many theists reject divine command theory? Mortimer: Divine command theory is the metaethical theory that an act is required if and only if, and because, it is commanded by God. The opposite theistic view is performing an act for a particular REASON and not because God commanded you to do so. It is impossible to believe in both so one has to chose what to believe in. PROBLEM: Either God's commands are arbitrary and given for no good reason, or he has good reasons for giving those commands. But the first possibility is unacceptable: it is not rational to give commands without good reasons for giving those commands, and God must be rational. And the second possibility is equally problematic for DCT: If God does have good reasons for commanding us as he does, then it would seem that those very reasons are themselves the reasons why the acts in question are right or wrong (rather than God's commands being what makes the acts right or wrong). Stove example- it is wrong because of the reason and not because you were told. Non-Devine theory- facts about right and worng are inherent outside of God’s commands- natural moral laws. Modified- obeying out of moral obligation because God is good to us 6. What is a hedonistic theory of value? What are some objections to it? What moral theory would it tend to support? Hedonistic theory of value: view that pleasure is the ultimate goal in life. Mill: Mill believed that there can be different levels of pleasure - higher quality pleasure is better than lower quality pleasure. Mill also argues that simpler beings (he often references pigs) have an easier access to the simpler pleasures; since they do not see other aspects of life, they can simply indulge in their pleasures. The more elaborate beings tend to spend more thought on other matters and hence lessen the time for simple pleasure. It is therefore more difficult for them to indulge in such "simple pleasures" in the same manner. OBJECTIONS- the experience machine objection- suggest if you didn’t want to about using someone as a means. Evidently we have to do so in any cooperative scheme of action. If I cash a check I use the teller as a means, without whom I could not lay my hands on the cash; the teller in turn uses me as a means to earn his or her living. But in this case, each party consents to her or his part in the transaction. Kant would say that though they use one another as means, they do not use one another as mere means. Each person assumes that the other has maxims of his or her own and is not just a thing or a prop to be manipulated. In contrast, using someone as a mere means is where someone doesn’t understand your maxim and cannot know the intention of the actions, therefore cannot consent or otherwise wouldn’t consent if they knew in full the intention or maxim. (example: false promising/false pretenses/deception/coercion of others where one can’t consent b/c they don’t know what really is going on). Kant says this is wrong. Respect others and their maxims and what they wish to achieve with them to better happiness for all. Clear distinction between justice and beneficent acts between this formula and utilitarianism. Therefore, if there is such a thing as morality, then there must be some ends that aren't just "subjective ends" of ours, but are rather "objective ends" or "ends-in- themselves"--that is, things "whose existence has in itself an absolute worth", so that they recommend themselves to reason universally, as ends for everyone and as objectively relevant, regardless of anyone's contingent desires. You treat something or someone as a mere means if you treat it (or him or her) as having only extrinsic value or value relative to your interests, i.e. as a tool to be used for your purposes. (Note that it's okay to treat mere things as mere means.) In order to treat persons as ends in themselves, you must (i) refrain from treating them as mere means (see above), (ii) respect their intrinsic value, which means (1) refraining from anything that would exhibit callous indifference to them (such as indiscriminately putting people in danger), and (2) positively promoting their development and exercise of their rationality, which includes helping them promote at least some of their own ends. 2. In what way does Regan attempt to extend Kant’s notion of an end in itself? Why does Regan think that we must count creatures other than human beings as ends in themselves? What does this mean and what does it imply? Are there problems with Regan’s view? Are there problems with Kant’s restriction of ends in themselves to rational agents? How would you get around these problems? This deals with the idea of animal rights and the question whether they apply to Kant’s level of rationality. Do the same rules apply to them when looking at Kant’s formula’s? Regan extends Kant’s notion of an end in itself: Regan's View: Extension of Kant's idea of ends-in-themselves to a broad range of non-human animals. What matters for having intrinsic value and being an end-in-yourself with a full right to life and respect, according to Regan, is not being a rational being, but being "an experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to [it] whatever [its] usefulness to others." Kant would disagree b/c animals are not autonomous nor do they have full capacity to make decisions on their own with the reason of a human being. Regan believes that we must count creatures as ends in themselves because all animals that are "experiencing subjects of a life" have an equal inherent value (i.e. equal to ours) and an equal right to life. To think otherwise, he thinks, is mere "speciesism". It is an all or nothing deal for Regan. This implies that intrinsic value should viewed equally across the board, abolishing the use of animals in science, agricultural uses, and hunting. Problems with Regan’s point of view: According to teach: Also depends on the kind of life that the being embodies (worm versus chimpanzee). The life of a worm may be seen as less valuable than a chimp. Is there an in between? For Regan it is all or nothing. Intrinsic value is to have it equally – he would make no distinctions based on intrinsic values. Teach would. Problems with Kant’s point of view: If you limit it to just rational beings, where do children and the mentally challenged people lie? They cannot fend for themselves or make rational decisions on their own. So do they not have the same intrinsic values as a “normal” human being? They are seen as such, but then why aren’t animals given the same equal rights when they too aren’t “rational beings” nor do they make “rational decisions on their own.” Why can’t they be seen at the same level? Ways around these problems: Alternative suggestion by adding a third category to Kant’s two categories. First, there are “mere” things with no intrinsic value. Then there are full-blown ends in themselves with both intrinsic value and rights for being an autonomous being capable of designing and freely pursuing a reasoned good life. Then add a third category, “morally significant being” which are more than just mere things, since they possess intrinsic value and rights against inhumane treatment but less than ends in themselves since they don’t possess genuine autonomy. Animals would be placed in the third category. 3. How does Kant approach morality contrast with Mill’s? Kant’s approach to morality: Act on maxims. Act only in such a way that the maxim or principle or policy is fit to be a universal law or can be applied to everyone. This maxim should not be self-destructing. Take for example “lying to get money b/c I’m in need of money and I’m going to borrow money out of self-interest and promise to repay knowing that I can’t” Test for moral legitimacy. In order to be legitimate, a maxim must be capable of being universalized, or something used by everyone without self-destructing. Ask would this action make sense if everyone used it? And if so, then it is ok according to Kant. If not, it is morally wrong. To act on that maxim. Mill’s approach to morality: treat others as you would be treated to promote a universal good/happiness. Based on happiness. Motives should be for the greater good of society. “the utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself good. A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness is considered wasted.” Principle of Utility - you should do what will produce the greatest total amount of value (in terms of pleasure) in the world. Believes in three main elements. Consequentialist Theory of Rightness and Wrongness – The righness and wrongness of an action or policy depends solely on its consequences for the sum total of intrinsic value in the world. An action or policy is only right if it will lead to at least as high a level of total intrinsic value in the world as any alternative action available to you. Hedonistic Theory of Value – claim that only pleasure is intrinsically good (good in itself, for its own sake) and that all pleasure is at least somewhat good (even if it outweighed by competing pains). Aggregative Theory of Goodness of Consequences – what matters is the greatest sum total of value in the world. In other words, the best state of affairs is the one where the total positive value of all the pleasure in the world MINUS the total negative value of all the pain in the world yields the greatest total positive value in the world. Problems – seems to give us a lot of wrong answers to a lot of questions. Even if these lead to intuitively right answers, doesn’t mean the rationale is adequate (killing a hemophilia infant to have another “better” baby) 4. What similarities are there between Kant’s focus on persons as ends in themselves and Rawl’s political philosophy? Similarities between Kant’s focus on persons as ends in themselves and Rawl’s political philosophy - ends in themselves means that you act on something that is universally understood and done by all for the betterment of society. Rawl’s policital philosophy states that for a just society, people should engage in social cooperation together, in one joint act, and decide the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. “Justice as fairness.” - principles are agreed upon to an initial situation that is fair. Two principles of Justice – each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties for other. &. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. Intuituve idea is that the social order is not to establish and secure the better people of society unless those that are better off advantage the less fortunate and thus everyone. Contractualist Starting Point – a set of principles governing the basic structure and institutions of a free society, understood as a system of mutual cooperation is morally legitimate if and only if the principles can be justified to each person in the society, so that it would be reasonable to expect them all to accept such principles and to live under a system. Combine this with an equivalence claim – a system can be justified to each and every person as something it is reasonable for him or her to accept if and only if its principles treat people as free and equal beings?? (maximin??? – rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes to find the best answer) ask aaron about this…really confusing and long. This view is similar but more egalitarian. Veil of ignorance – rules set up justly that agree to all and don’t favor one group over the other. Kant states that moral law and principles begin with rational choice that govern an ethical commonwealth. These should be agreed upon under conditions that characterize men as free and equal rational beings. Kant says someone is acting autonomously when he is acting as a free rational person. This is where the difference lies. Not acting on social position or natural endowments or on the specific things he wants. Add the veil of ignorance from Rawl and you have parties acting according to what will bring about justice and betterment for all because principles are set for the betterment of all, and not