© 2002, Karey Perkins

The Commandant ExampleThe Commandant Example

The Baby?

- or-The 5,000?

ACT-BASED THEORIES

Kinds ofKinds of ETHICAL THEORIESETHICAL THEORIES

Consequentialist

-or-Deontologicalist

© 2002, Karey Perkins

The morality or immorality of an ACT (and hence the rightness or wrongness of an act) is a function solely of the consequencesconsequences of the act, and the natural tendency of those consequences to produce one or another of the following: pleasure or pain, or goodness, or happiness, in some degree and in some way.

Consequentialist (teleological) views

The morality or immorality of an act has basically nothing to do with the consequences, but resides within the nature nature of the act itself.of the act itself.

Deontologicalist views

Act Based TheoriesAct Based Theories

Other theories

Care EthicsCharacter-based EthicsVirtue EthicsDevelopmental EthicsEthical SkepticismEthical NihilismEmotivism (Logical Positivism)

© 2002, Karey Perkins

All moral theories have a:

Theory of the GOOD: • What in the world is good or valuable

Theory of the RIGHT: • What agents need to do in response to valuable

properties (the good)

WHO matters: • Individual? Community? Universal (all rational or

sentient beings?

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Options for the good:

Hedonism: • pleasure/absence of pain = good

• Pain/absence of pleasure = bad

Preference satisfactionWelfare

• (satisfaction of interests, or preferences in ideal choice situation)

Pluralism (a variety of things)

© 2002, Karey Perkins

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Assuming that some acts are and can be known to be RIGHT or WRONG, how do we determine which are right or wrong? In other words, what is the answer to this question:

"An act is right, if and only if, __________________ .”

Some Act-Based TheoriesSome Act-Based Theories

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Ethical EgoismEthical HedonismAct UtilitarianismRule Utilitarianism

Some Kinds of Some Kinds of CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIESCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

© 2002, Karey Perkins

…the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of happiness happiness for the agent. (Ayn Rand, Max Stirner)

ETHICAL EGOISMETHICAL EGOISM

• Self-interest vs. Selfishness• Egoism vs. Altruism• Descriptive vs. Normative Egoism

What would an egoist do?

Lifeboat?Loaning class notes?Robbing a bank?Going to school?

© 2002, Karey Perkins

© 2002, Karey Perkins

…the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of pleasurepleasure for the agent. (Epicurus)

ETHICAL HEDONISMETHICAL HEDONISM

• Happiness vs. Pleasure

• Long term vs. short term pleasure

• Higher vs. lower pleasure

What would a hedonist do?

Eat a whole chocolate cake?Drink a bottle tequila?Run a marathon?Drive a big comfortable vehicle that

pollutes the air?

© 2002, Karey Perkins

© 2002, Karey Perkins

…the act tends, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest amount of good or pleasure for the greatest numbergreatest number of all those affected by the act. (Jeremy Bentham)

ACTACT UTILITARIANISMUTILITARIANISM

• Applies only for this particular act, this particular time

• No general rules, each situation is different

•Mill’s greatest happiness principle

What would an act utilitarian do?

• Would Jones stand in a long line to cast his vote in on a cold rainy day ?

• Would Smith rob a bank if assured anonymity and the bank’s ability to absorb the cost?

• The Sheriff case

© 2002, Karey Perkins

© 2002, Karey Perkins

…the act tends, when adopted as a rulewhen adopted as a rule, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time, to produce the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number of all those affected by the act. (John Stuart Mill)

RULE UTILITARIANISMRULE UTILITARIANISM

Anyone in the same position should act in the same manner: Jones should vote; Smith should not rob the bank; the sheriff should not accuse an innocent man.

Ambiguity Objection: How can we know, and how should we choose?

Distribution Objection:

Ten people receive ten units of happiness equally? –OR--

Two people receive 30 units, and 8 people receive 5 units.

More problems with utilitarianism:

Punishes the innocent (sheriff case)Lets the guilty go free

• Diplomat case

• Evil Scientist case

Epistemic problemDemandingness Objections (three)

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Demandingness Objection One

Meaning and Value in Life: if we always act to promote greatest happiness, we won’t have sufficient time and resources to enjoy life (Ex: CNN Heroes).

Reply: If world were better, we could have time.

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Demandingness Objection Two

Partiality Objection: No special duty to friends and family

Lifeboat caseFather who leaves child in burning building to

rescue others If anyone stops to think about what to do in this

case, that’s one thought too many.Reply: If we are/everyone were partial,

everyone’s interests are maximized.© 2002, Karey Perkins

Demandingness Objection Three

Compromises integrity; alienates us from what we hold most dear:

George example: • Ph.D. in chemistry, has chance at job to create

chemical/biological weapons.

Jim example:• Biological researcher, honored visitor to primitive

country, ten natives are about to be put to death; he can save nine by killing one.

© 2002, Karey Perkins

More cases:

John and Linda case Lisa and Helen caseReply: Rialton:

• Alienation sometimes good

• Paradox of hedonism (tennis, friendship)

© 2002, Karey Perkins

Bibliography

Almeder, Robert. Human Happiness and Morality: A Brief Introduction to Ethics. New York: Prometheus, 2000.

Baier, Kurt. “Egoism.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1991. 197-204.

Goodin, Robert E. “Utility and the Good.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden: MA: Blackwell, 1991. 241-248.

Pettit, Philip. “Consequentialism.” A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer. Malden: MA: Blackwell, 1991. 230-240.

Railton, Peter. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13. 1984. 134-171.

Williams, Bernard. “Consequentialism and Integrity.” Consequentialism and its Critics, ed. Samuel Scheffler. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988.

Thiroux, Jacques P. Ethics: Theory and Practice. 7th Ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, 2001.

© 2002, Karey Perkins