- Where do norms come from?
- How should we study the origin and justification of citizens' duty to obey the law? Should we look at anthropology, history, sociology, etc?
- What does generate a duty to obey the law?
- What's the nature of the agreement envisaged by contractarianists? Does it need to be real, explicit and formalised? Consider Hobbes's state of nature and Rawls's original position.
- How should we characterize the contracting parties (ie the people who are about to agree on a "social contract")? Should they be smart? omniscient? emotional?
- How should we conceive of their conditions of choice? Are deliberations sensitive to time? Is there any external pressure? Should debate be allowed? Are all parties in the same position?
- What should the subject matter of the negotiations be? Should all aspects of social interaction be discussed? What kind of rules (particular or very abstract) should be fixed?
- Do you find it reasonable that you renounce in part to your liberty to be protected from murder, stealing and cheating?
- Why don't people generally free-ride (ie break some rule to reap a windfall) in our society?
- Do we have good reason to do something only if doing it will serve our self-interest?
- In which sense the Stag Hunt is the 'prototype of the social contract'?
- What are the differences\similarities between the prisoners' dilemma and the stag hunt?
- What is an "equilibrium"? Take a look at the game theoretic definition of the stag hunt.
- Are evolutionary game theoretic explanations of social phenomena irrelevant to understand the nature and dynamics of morality? Think about the kind of explanation of the social contract given by Skyrms.
venerdì 26 febbraio 2010
Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. Discussion Questions
In light of the Introduction to Part X Contractarianism in Shafer-Landau R. ed., 2007 Ethical Theory: an anthology, and after having read "The Stag Hunt" by Brian Skyrms, think about the following questions.
Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. The Stag Hunt
Many authors focus on the prisoner's dilemma as the game that best represents the problem of social cooperation.
Some authors believe that the the prison's dilemma is the wrong game to understand social cooperation.
The prototype of the social contract is instead the stag hunt.
The Stag Hunt
Rousseau, in A Discourse on Inequality:
"If it was a matter of hunting a deer, everyone well realized that he must remain faithful to his post; but if a hare happened to pass within reach of one of them, we cannot doubt that he would have gone off in pursuit of it without scruple..."
For a formalization in game theory of the stag hunt check HERE
Tutorial # 7. Social Contract Theory. Few Definitions
Fig. from PrincipiacomicaSee also Contractarianism by Ann Cudd (SEP)
Contract theory places the foundation of morality in an agreement struck and kept by all moral agents. As with consequentialist and deontological theories, there are many variants of the theory.
Contract Theory –
The family of moral and political theories concerned with contract or agreement.
Contractarianism - (Hobbes, Gauthier).
Morality concerned with constraints in the face of rational pursuit of self-interest.
Contractualism – (Rawls, Scanlon).
Morality concerned with understanding and respecting others as rational beings who can justify their actions
venerdì 19 febbraio 2010
Tutorial # 6. Deontologism at Work. Kant on Animals. Discussion Questions
After having read "Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals" by Christine M. Korsgaard, think about the following questions.
- What are the criteria for moral standing according to Kant?
- Do non-human animals have moral standing (moral importance)?
- If animals are not rational nor autonomous, is it okay to treat them in any way we like?
- We kill, eat, hunt, experiment on, "enslave" a wide range of animals. Humans have destroyed large parts of the natural environment depriving animals of a place in which to live. Does any of this matter morally? Why?
- Does Kant think that non-human animals have rights? Does he think that we have duties to them?
- Does deontologism really implicate that animals have only instrumental value? Do you agree with Korsgaard's "reading" of deontology?
- Are animals means to men’s ends?
- Is there anything intrinsically wrong in torturing animals?
- Is it a moral duty to be vegetarians?
- Is it immoral to use animals for scientific experiments?
- Do non-human animals have desires and beliefs that can be satisfied/frustrated and true/false? Why is it morally important to answer that question?
Tutorial # 6. Deontologism at Work. Kant on Animals
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative:
Humanity as an End in Itself
(see Shafer-Landau, Ethical Theory. Introduction to part IX)
- Good Will: Motivation to do one's duty for its own sake.
- Only rational and autonomous beings have a will.
- Autonomy: The capacity to form goals free of external constraints/influence.
- Rationality: The faculty to reason appropriately about the implications of one's goals.
- Autonomy and Rationality generate the moral demand to treat others with respect.
Principle of Humanity:
"Act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only"
+ Immanuel Kant "We Have No Duties to Animals"
(from Lectures on Ethics - in Ethical Theory. An Anthology, pp. 395 - 396)
"If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog... but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealing with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."
"... so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. ... Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity."
"Vivisectionists. who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man's instruments."
venerdì 12 febbraio 2010
Tutorial #5. Deontologism. Discussion Questions
Try to think about these questions in light of "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant (pp. 525 - 536 On our "Ethical Theory" textbook) .
Another very good reference is the "Deontological Ethics" entry by Larry Alexander & Michael Moore in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Another very good reference is the "Deontological Ethics" entry by Larry Alexander & Michael Moore in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
- What should motivate moral action, according to Kant?
- What is the ‘good will’ and how does Kant argue that it alone is good without qualification?
- What is a categorical imperative and is Kant right about the validity and content of the categorical imperative?
- Do you think the good will is something subjective? In what sense?
- Kant writes (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 626): “… in a being that has reason and a will, if the proper end of nature were its preservation, its welfare, in a word its happiness then nature would have hit upon a very bad arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry out its purpose. For all the actions that the creature has to perform for this purpose … would be marked out for it far more accurately by instinct”. Do you agree? Does instinct serves happiness better than reason?
- Kant (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 627) argues that “the true vocation of reason must be to produce a will that is good in itself”. The premises of the argument are three: (I) “Reason is not sufficiently competent to guide the will with regards to its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (II) “Reason is nevertheless given to us as practical faculty, that is, as one that is to influence the will” (III) “Nature has everywhere else gone to work purposively in distributing its capacities”. Assess this argument.
- How do we know that an action is made not only in conformity with duty but also from duty?
- Can love be commanded?
- How does the representation of the law determine the will? Is respect for the law a causal relation?
- “You shall not murder”, or “You shall not lie” are examples of categorical imperatives: That is, they are duties that all rational beings ought to respect (recall Kant’s “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”). Now, do you think we ought to respect a categorical imperative - no matter what?
- Consider this maxim: “Steal when you are too poor to feed yourself”. Would it pass the universalizability test? Would it be a moral law?
- Does Kant give us a moral theory that we can follow?
- Would the universalizability test solve moral dilemmas? E.g. consider the following. A mental with a gun in her hand ask you where your best friend is because she wants to kill your friend. Should you tell the truth to the mental? Or should you lie in order to protect your friend?
- For Kant the consequences of an action don’t bear on the moral status of the action. Do you agree? Imagine, e.g., a baby-sitter who by acting from duty keeps a baby warm by putting it in the microwave. Do you think that an unintentional bad consequence of an action made from duty don’t bear on the moral status of that action?
Tutorial # 5. Deontologism. Kant's Life. Some Anectodes
From Andreas Teuber's webpages:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
"Years of living frugally, increases in his salary, and honoraria for his publications enabled Kant in 1783 to buy a house on Prinzessinstra and to hire a cook. (A few years previous he had employed as his footman Martin Lampe, a retired Prussian soldier remembered for his dullness). At this time Kant reorganized his daily routine, which changed little for the rest of his life. He subjected himself to the severest regimen to maintain his health, for he was a small, frail man with a delicate constitution. He arose punctually at five o'clock and drank a few cups of tea while he thought about the day's lectures. At seven he went downstairs to the room reserved as his classroom and taught until nine. Then he wrote until lunch, which always began precisely at one o'clock. He looked forward to this meal with keen anticipation, not only because it was the only one he permitted himself but because it was a social event. Since he thought conversation aided digestion, and he was gregarious by nature, there were always from three to nine guests--never fewer than the graces, never more than the muses, he explained. As he did not like to talk shop in his free time, he selected the guests from a variety of occupations--politicians, doctors, lawyers, officers, merchants, students, colleagues, or anyone who happened to be passing through town and wanted to see him. The food was plentiful, the wine flowed freely, the atmosphere was casual, the conversation was stimulating. Women were not invited. This exclusion, coupled with his lifelong bachelorhood, led to speculation that he disliked women. This notion is incorrect. He often said about himself that when he needed a wife he was too poor to feed one, and when he was at last able to feed one he did not need one anymore.
After lunch came the famous walk, which he took every day regardless of the weather. It lasted precisely one hour, and the route rarely varied. He always walked alone, convinced that breathing through the mouth, which conversation necessitates, was unhealthy. This ritual was not without problems during the summer, for perspiration disgusted him; at the slightest indication he would seek out a shady spot and stand perfectly still until he was dry again. He spent the evening reading or writing. At precisely ten o'clock he went to bed. Unlike the rest of the house, the bedroom was never heated, even during frigid weather. The window was never opened, and he refused to keep a candle in the room; if he had to get up during the night he felt his way along a rope running from the bed to the door. When he was ready to fall asleep he always pronounced the name "Cicero" a few times.
In 1802, Kant discharged the man (named Lampe) who had faithfully served him for many years. He proved unable, however, to dismiss Lampe from his mind. The troubled philosopher finally entered a memorandum in his notebook: "Remember," it read, "from now on the name of Lampe must be completely forgotten."
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
"Years of living frugally, increases in his salary, and honoraria for his publications enabled Kant in 1783 to buy a house on Prinzessinstra and to hire a cook. (A few years previous he had employed as his footman Martin Lampe, a retired Prussian soldier remembered for his dullness). At this time Kant reorganized his daily routine, which changed little for the rest of his life. He subjected himself to the severest regimen to maintain his health, for he was a small, frail man with a delicate constitution. He arose punctually at five o'clock and drank a few cups of tea while he thought about the day's lectures. At seven he went downstairs to the room reserved as his classroom and taught until nine. Then he wrote until lunch, which always began precisely at one o'clock. He looked forward to this meal with keen anticipation, not only because it was the only one he permitted himself but because it was a social event. Since he thought conversation aided digestion, and he was gregarious by nature, there were always from three to nine guests--never fewer than the graces, never more than the muses, he explained. As he did not like to talk shop in his free time, he selected the guests from a variety of occupations--politicians, doctors, lawyers, officers, merchants, students, colleagues, or anyone who happened to be passing through town and wanted to see him. The food was plentiful, the wine flowed freely, the atmosphere was casual, the conversation was stimulating. Women were not invited. This exclusion, coupled with his lifelong bachelorhood, led to speculation that he disliked women. This notion is incorrect. He often said about himself that when he needed a wife he was too poor to feed one, and when he was at last able to feed one he did not need one anymore.
After lunch came the famous walk, which he took every day regardless of the weather. It lasted precisely one hour, and the route rarely varied. He always walked alone, convinced that breathing through the mouth, which conversation necessitates, was unhealthy. This ritual was not without problems during the summer, for perspiration disgusted him; at the slightest indication he would seek out a shady spot and stand perfectly still until he was dry again. He spent the evening reading or writing. At precisely ten o'clock he went to bed. Unlike the rest of the house, the bedroom was never heated, even during frigid weather. The window was never opened, and he refused to keep a candle in the room; if he had to get up during the night he felt his way along a rope running from the bed to the door. When he was ready to fall asleep he always pronounced the name "Cicero" a few times.
In 1802, Kant discharged the man (named Lampe) who had faithfully served him for many years. He proved unable, however, to dismiss Lampe from his mind. The troubled philosopher finally entered a memorandum in his notebook: "Remember," it read, "from now on the name of Lampe must be completely forgotten."
Tutorial # 5. Deontologism. Kant's Ethics. A Very Short Primer
From http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
Prof. Andreas Teuber's webpage
"In answering the question of what ought to be, Kant says that instead of our actions conforming to the facts--the situations in which we find ourselves or the inclinations we happen to have--they should conform to our principles. These principles are derived from reason. A true moral act, he says, depends on the motive of the action, not on the outcome. The only motive that is good in itself, without qualification, is the good will: that is, the desire to act according to duty. Duty is discovered by reason and is the same for everyone at all places and at all times. He formulates the moral law in his famous categorical imperative:
"Handle, so da die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könnte"
(Act in such a way that the principle of your will could at any time also become the principle of a universal law). In other words, if an action could not be made universal without contradicting itself, that action is immoral. Kant illustrates this principle with the example of the false promise.
To get himself out of a financial difficulty, a person proposes to borrow some money. He knows that he will never be able to pay the money back, but he also knows that he will not receive the loan unless he promises to repay the lender. Should he, then, falsely promise to pay the money back? A moment's reflection shows that if such an action were made universal--if everyone made false promises-the institution of promising would go out of existence, because no one would accept a promise anymore. Thus the false promise would, if made universal, negate or contradict itself; and self-contradiction is the epitome of irrationality. Immorality, then, is equivalent to irrationality
Prof. Andreas Teuber's webpage
"In answering the question of what ought to be, Kant says that instead of our actions conforming to the facts--the situations in which we find ourselves or the inclinations we happen to have--they should conform to our principles. These principles are derived from reason. A true moral act, he says, depends on the motive of the action, not on the outcome. The only motive that is good in itself, without qualification, is the good will: that is, the desire to act according to duty. Duty is discovered by reason and is the same for everyone at all places and at all times. He formulates the moral law in his famous categorical imperative:
"Handle, so da die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könnte"
(Act in such a way that the principle of your will could at any time also become the principle of a universal law). In other words, if an action could not be made universal without contradicting itself, that action is immoral. Kant illustrates this principle with the example of the false promise.
To get himself out of a financial difficulty, a person proposes to borrow some money. He knows that he will never be able to pay the money back, but he also knows that he will not receive the loan unless he promises to repay the lender. Should he, then, falsely promise to pay the money back? A moment's reflection shows that if such an action were made universal--if everyone made false promises-the institution of promising would go out of existence, because no one would accept a promise anymore. Thus the false promise would, if made universal, negate or contradict itself; and self-contradiction is the epitome of irrationality. Immorality, then, is equivalent to irrationality
venerdì 5 febbraio 2010
On How to Improve your Essay...
The most common comments you are likely to receive on your essays - and that I also receive on my own essays, are the following:
- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"
MORALS:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus your essay will improve.
If your essay does not receive the mark you expected, don't be discouraged.
Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.
- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"
MORALS:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus your essay will improve.
If your essay does not receive the mark you expected, don't be discouraged.
Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.
On Referencing
Here is some examples for referencing:
For a book:
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: Free Press.
For a joural article:
Thaler, R. H. (1988) "Anomalies: The Ultimatum Game", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, pp. 195–206.
For an article reprinted in a volume:
Cartwright, N. (1983) "Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?", in Curd, M. & Cover, J. A. eds. (1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. London: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 865-877.
For an online article:
Beyer, C. (2007). “Edmund Husserl”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/husserl/.
For an "old" classic - there are a few ways:
Anselm, St., Proslogion, in St. Anselm's Proslogion, M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965
or
Kant, I., 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1781, vols. 3 and 4 of Gesammelte Schriften, de Gruyter & Co., 1969; page references are to the English translation, Critique of Pure Reason,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
or
Kant, I., 1780 (1965), The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, J. Ladd, Trans., Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
- Finally, here is an example for brief quotations in the body of your essay:
"… thus we come to see that ‘”meanings” just ain’t in the head!" (Putnam 1977, p. 704).
For a book:
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: Free Press.
For a joural article:
Thaler, R. H. (1988) "Anomalies: The Ultimatum Game", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, pp. 195–206.
For an article reprinted in a volume:
Cartwright, N. (1983) "Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?", in Curd, M. & Cover, J. A. eds. (1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. London: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 865-877.
For an online article:
Beyer, C. (2007). “Edmund Husserl”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/husserl/.
For an "old" classic - there are a few ways:
Anselm, St., Proslogion, in St. Anselm's Proslogion, M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965
or
Kant, I., 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1781, vols. 3 and 4 of Gesammelte Schriften, de Gruyter & Co., 1969; page references are to the English translation, Critique of Pure Reason,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
or
Kant, I., 1780 (1965), The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, J. Ladd, Trans., Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
- Finally, here is an example for brief quotations in the body of your essay:
"… thus we come to see that ‘”meanings” just ain’t in the head!" (Putnam 1977, p. 704).
Tips for your Essay
Here is Some Suggestions for your essay.
- First, Jim Pryor has an excellent website, where you can find some Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper. They are very useful! Try to take a look.
- Second, make clear the structure of your paper right at the beginning. State the goal of your paper: What is your aim? What are you going to do? Give a brief outline of how you are going to proceed to make your point: What are you going to do first?; What are you gonna do then? How are all the steps in your argument related?
- Third, try to "delimit your own territory".
Focus! Make small points; be "modest" in your claims.
Don't be afraid of using such expressions as "it seems", "it may be the case", "it might be".
Always give reasons! Motivate your claims.
- Fourth, polish, polish, polish!
Use short sentences, with very few adjectives, and connect the sentences logically with the right conjunctions.
- Fifth, use relevant references and the right referencing.
- First, Jim Pryor has an excellent website, where you can find some Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper. They are very useful! Try to take a look.
- Second, make clear the structure of your paper right at the beginning. State the goal of your paper: What is your aim? What are you going to do? Give a brief outline of how you are going to proceed to make your point: What are you going to do first?; What are you gonna do then? How are all the steps in your argument related?
- Third, try to "delimit your own territory".
Focus! Make small points; be "modest" in your claims.
Don't be afraid of using such expressions as "it seems", "it may be the case", "it might be".
Always give reasons! Motivate your claims.
- Fourth, polish, polish, polish!
Use short sentences, with very few adjectives, and connect the sentences logically with the right conjunctions.
- Fifth, use relevant references and the right referencing.
Tutorial # 4. Consequentialism. Discussion Questions
After having read Singer, Peter “Famine, affluence and morality” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1972): 229-43, try to think about the following questions.
An online version of Singer's article can be found HERE.
An online version of Singer's article can be found HERE.
- Should we be doing more to relieve poverty?
- Why do we have a strict obligation to save a nearby drowning child but no comparable obligation to save faraway starving children through charitable donations?
- What are the differences, if any, between, Singer’s cases and the cases in the trolley problem? Take a look at the video.
- If we understood the psychology underlying our moral intuitions in Singer’scases, would we be any more sensitive to distant suffering? Why?
- What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
- How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
- Does great poetry create more pleasure than sex, drugs and dub?
- Why some kinds of pleasure may be more desirable than others?
- Is it better to be deluded but happy than be unhappy but for “real”? Why?
- If happiness amounts to the satisfaction of our desires, and some kind of happiness is more desirable than others, how can we try to educate our desires to reach that kind of happiness?
- How would you calculate the expected utility of an action? In your utilitarian calculus, should you take into account also the consequences that would affect animals? For instance, how would you weigh up your pleasure for a burger at McDonalds’ and the pain suffered by that animal?
- How is utility inter-personal comparison possible? Put it in English, how can you compare, for example, the pleasure of a sadist with the suffering of a victim? How can you compare the mental pleasure of watching a football match with the physical pleasure of having a freshly baked pizza?
- If it turned out that hanging an innocent publicly once a month dramatically reduces crimes, should we hang innocent people?
- Should we impose pleasure to others? For example, If putting LSD in water makes people happier, would you be justified to pour LSD in the aqueducts of Edinburgh?
- How would a consequentialist argue to explain why it is wrong (or right) to bake a stranger who agrees to be baked? Would it make sense such kind of consequentialist explanation?
Tutorial # 4. Consequentialism. The Trolley Problem
Think about the following pair of scenarios offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:
…
The Trolley Problem. VIDEO
What should a consequentialist do?
What is the difference that motivates these different moral judgements?
A runaway trolley rushes towards five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto another set of tracks where it will kill only one person instead of five.
What should you do?
Same scenario as before. A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. This time, you are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
…
The Trolley Problem. VIDEO
What should a consequentialist do?
What is the difference that motivates these different moral judgements?
Tutorial # 4. Consequentialism. A Few Distinctions
Fig. from Principia Comica
What is Consequentialism?
Excerpts from Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2006). ‘Consequentialism’ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Def. The view that the value of an action is determined by the value of its consequences rather than by the principle on which the action is performed or the virtue it expresses.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, where the relevant value is individual happiness or well-being.
[Distinctions]
"Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act consequentialism: an act is morally right if and only if that act causes "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," as the common slogan says.
Classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts:
Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).
Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the consequences).
Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).
Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).
Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).
Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).
Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).
Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).
Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).
…
Any consequentialist theory must accept the claim that I labeled ‘consequentialism’, namely, that certain normative properties depend only on consequences. If that claim is dropped, the theory ceases to be consequentialist.
It is less clear whether that claim by itself is sufficient to make a theory consequentialist."
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
