Applied ethics Flashcards
Explain how utilitarianism responds to stealing
Act: act-by-act basis, utility principle (generally theft is wrong as it hurts people but if the ends justify the means, it is morally permissible). Lawfulness causes security and therefore happiness, so breaking law is generally not good. Also, potential punishment = more potential pain
Rule: secondary principles (stealing = wrong) as ppl generally prefer property to be secure. Strong rule vs weak rule – weak rule wd say that stealing may be acceptable in exceptional circumstances, strong rule wd always follow secondary principle that we should not break laws about property ownership (unless law is unjust – e.g Gandhi led a movement to steal salt that was being taxed by the British – technically stealing from the state, but this wd be fine for rule utilits as the law exploited the people of India)
Preference: people prefer not to be victims of theft
Explain how virtue ethics responds to stealing
We must make the right choice, at the right time using the right means – stealing is almost never the right mean so we should use practical wisdom to work out if we can obtain what we want legitimately.
Aristotle – murder and stealing are never an appropriate course of action (damages our pathway to eudaimonia)
Modern virtue ethicists – judge each situation on a case-by-case basis. Using the DotM, the mean can sometimes be an extreme (in this case, stealing may, on occasion, be acceptable – e.g. prisoners in Auschwitz may have stolen food from the guards to survive)
If stealing is a rare occurance and the moral agent is acting out of benevolence, you may remain eudaimon. If stealing becomes recurrent, then the moral agent is habituating a vicious action – immoral
Explain how Kantian ethics responds to stealing
Kant is very clear; stealing is morally wrong
We have duties not to do certain things which are wrong in themselves. Moral duties, incl duty not to steal, are discoverable by reason
1st formulation of categorical imperative – stealing is wrong as the maxim ‘it is okay to steal’ cannot be universalised without causing a contradiction in conception (because the concept of property ownership would break down) PERFECT DUTY NOT TO STEAL. Also, we cannot rationally will for the maxim ‘it is okay to steal’ to be universalised as we would not want to live in a world where this is the case (contradiction in will) IMPERFECT DUTY NOT TO STEAL
2nd formulation of the categorical imperative – humanity formulation, stealing from someone for your benefit is treating them as a means to an end
Explain how utilitarianism responds to lying
Utilitarianism has two key features – principle of utility and the value of equality in moral decision-making (‘all to count for one and no more than one’)
Act: case-by-case basis, utility calculus, if lying brings about more utility than telling the truth, you ought to lie
Rule: being truthful generally leads to happiness in society (resulting in secondary principle not to lie) - strong rule utilit would therefore say lying is always wrong. Weak rule utilits would may allow lying if it protects against unnecessary harm
Preference: rather than focusing on whether lying would bring more happiness and less pain, preference utilitarianism focuses on whether a lie would satisfy more preferences. Generally speaking, people prefer to be told the truth (some exceptions – e.g. ‘did you enjoy my presentation?’). As opposed to act/rule utilit where a lie may be wrong if it is discovered and causes pain, pref utilit says it is wrong regardless of whether someone finds out because their preference to be told the truth is ignored
Explain how Kantian ethics responds to lying
Kant = very clear – lying is morally wrong
We have moral duties (discoverable by reason) not to do certain things which are wrong in themselves and lying is one such thing – these are categorical
1st formulation – lying leads to both a contradiction in conception and will
Contradiction in conception – cannot universalise ‘it is okay to lie’ bc people would no longer believe the truth so the concept of lying becomes redundant
Contradiction in will – cannot rationally will to live in a world where everybody lies
2nd formulation - ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’ - not respecting a person’s autonomy if you lie to them as it undermines their ability to make a rational choice themselves
Explain how virtue ethics responds to lying
Recognises complexity of morality and considers range of motives involved, as well as which virtues and vices are exhibited in each action
Aristotle – lying is generally wrong (‘falsehood is in itself mean and culpable’)
VE requires us to develop virtues, such as an honest character, if we are to be eudaimon
Honesty, like all virtues, is developed by habituation. Dishonesty can disrupt journey to eudaimonia. Dishonesty can be habituated (e.g. having to tell more lies to ensure a previous lie is not discovered). However if we are generally honest, decieving someone in an exceptional situation will not undermine our tendency to be honest
A lie may free us from further efforts or get us out of a difficult situation (e.g. lying about why you have not done your homework on time) but this could mean we don’t work hard to find more virtuous alternatives (don’t use our phronesis!!)
Explain how Kantian ethics responds to simulated killing
Does not necessarily go against one’s moral duties unless it causes you to neglect your duties towards others or damages your rational will
Could apply Kant’s concern about cruelty to animals leading to treating humans cruelly to this issue – can become desensitised to violence? (butchers and doctors not allowed to serve on English juries at the time of Kant’s writing as they were hardened towards suffering)
Actors in violent movies are free agents who chose to take part and people in video games are not real people, so engaging with violent content in these forms is not undermining anybody’s autonomy (making it compatible with the second (humanity) formulation of the categorical imperative)
Not incompatible with 1st formulation – no contradiction in conception (universalising ‘it is okay to engage with simulated killing’ is not self-defeating) nor contradiction in will (no reason why we cannot rationally will for that maxim to be universalised as there is not sufficient evidence to suggest a link between simulated killing and violation of moral duties)
Explain how utilitarianism responds to simulated killing
Consequentialist theory – what would be the consequences of engaging with simulated killing?
Act: ‘pushpin is equal to poetry’ so all forms of pleasure are valid. Players of violent games or viewers of violent movies get pleasure from consuming this kind of content and there is no pain caused, so allowing simulated killing maximises utility. Furthermore, may get more unhappiness from banning them. However, if there is a link between violent games and violent behaviour, then playing these games may bring about more unhappiness and be wrong
Rule: Mill argued that there are higher and lower pleasures (video games = lower as they appeal to our violent, animal side rather than our intellectual side). However, Mill was a passionate advocate of liberty, so we should be free to pursue our own pleasures as long as they don’t harm anyone else
Preference: Peter Singer, in his article ‘Virtue Vices’, uses evidence supporting the link between violent video games and violent behaviour
Explain how virtue ethics responds to simulated killing
Aristotle, using his experience of Greek tragic plays, argues that simulated killing can bring emotional benefits to the audience, as they can be cathartic (reducing likelihood of violence in daily life). This also applies to modern cinema.
Engaging with simulated killing occasionally does not concern the virtue ethicist, but doing so over and over again may habituate an attitude of violence
The habits you develop playing games or watching movies are ‘virtueless’ and takes away from time to develop virtuous dispositions
Modern virtue ethicist Matt McCormick addresses simulated killing in his paper ‘Is it wrong to play video games?’ - moral intuitions tell us that there is ‘something morally objectionable’ with people playing games that graphically mimic murder
He argues ‘engaging in simulated moral acts erodes one’s character and makes it more difficult to live a fulfilled eudaimonic life’
Explain how utilitarianism responds to eating animals
Utilitarianism uses the utility principle to consider what is right or wrong
Act: Bentham argues ‘the question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But can they suffer?’ Implied that rationality does not differentiate us from animals and their rights should be considered (argued that a fully grown horse or dog is more rational than an infant)
Bentham did, ultimately, support eating meat – this is because animals farmed in humane conditions suffer less than animals left to die in the harsh wilderness
Rule: Mill did make distinction between humans and animals as humans are able to enjoy higher, intellectual pleasures (‘It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.’). Rule utilit does also follow utility principle, so wd consider pleasure and pain caused by eating meat, but with less consideration for animals than Bentham
Preference: difficult to know preferences of animals but we can assume that they would prefer not to suffer. Humans may prefer to be able to eat meat. We can reconcile both of these seemingly clashing preferences by advocating for humane farming methods.
Explain how Kantian ethics responds to eating animals
According to Kant ‘a human being is altogether different in rank and dignity from things such as irrational animals’ as they do not have the ability to rationalise. They lack autonomy and are driven by instinct
This means that animals do not have moral status, resulting in Kant’s insistence that we do not have direct duties towards animals
Eating meat is compatible with the 1st formulation of the categorical imperative as it does not cause a contradiction in conception (as universalising the maxim ‘it is okay to eat meat’ is not self-defeating) nor does it cause a contradiction in will (it is not irrational to imagine a world in which people want to eat animals)
Eating meat is compatible with the 2nd formulation as animals, unlike humans, can be treated as a means to an end
However, Kant argues that this does not mean we can treat animals in any way we choose. We ‘must practice kindness towards animals as he who is cruel to animals becomes hard in his dealings with men’.
Explain how virtue ethics responds to eating animals
Virtue ethics does not give absolute moral answers. Instead, it comes down to whether virtuous people would eat meat and, if so, in what circumstances
Aristotle believed in a natural hierarchy of living things (a function of things lower down the hierarchy, like animals, is to serve the needs of those higher up)
Hursthouse argued that eating animals may often reflect a vice-like character rather than a virtuous one – we should be mindful of how we source the meat we eat as if we are aware that animals have suffered when buying our meat (such as those slaughtered through factory farming), but continue to source our meat the same way for our convenience, this shows a lack of compassion.
Eating meat can be virtuous in some situations (e.g. feeding your child meat for the sake of their health), and mandating vegetarianism can be vicious (e.g. making somebody follow a vegetarian diet if their health suffers because of it).
VE emphasises doing things for the right reasons – if we choose to eliminate meat from our diet, this only has moral value if done for the right reason
VE does not offer clear guidance
