19S1 HY0001 PPT Week4-Deontology Part 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Ethics & moral reasoning Lecture slides: Sequence 4...

Description

Slide 1

Deontology - Part 1 HY0001 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Authors: Andres Luco | Preston Greene | Grace Boey | Christina Chuang | Shen-yi Liao

Notes: NA

Slide 2

Tax Evasion Retrieved October 25, 2016 from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Countries_with_Largest_Tax_Evasion_Amount_v3.jpg

Notes: NA

2

Slide 3

Learning Objectives By the end of this lesson, you should be able to: • Explain the difference between consequentialism and deontology. • Explain the two formulas of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. • Evaluate some “attractions” that make Kant’s deontology plausible as an ethical theory.

3

Notes: NA

Slide 4

Deontology • Deontological ethics is a family of moral theories in . • Deontological ethics

.

• According to the moral status of an action, policy, motive, or rule depends only on whether it . • According to ethics, the moral status of an action does not just depend on the consequences of the action it produces. Some . 4

Notes: The “moral status” of an action is its moral rightness, wrongness, or permissibility. The root word “deon” means duty in Greek. So the adjective “deontic” means of or relating to duty.

Slide 5

Kant’s Deontological Ethics

• By far the most influential version of deontological ethics is the moral theory of Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), a German philosopher. • Kant believed that moral truths are

• Ultimate standard of morality:

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804)

5

Notes: Kant believed that moral truths are based on reason. He argues that all the correct moral principles are logically derived from an ultimate standard of morality that any rational person would accept. He calls this standard the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s moral theory is a version of deontological ethics, since the Categorical Imperative is a rule that’s supposed to , and the regardless of an action’s consequences.

Slide 6

The Categorical Imperative (CI) “Morality is not properly the doctrine of how me make ourselves happy, but how we make ourselves worthy of happiness.” ~ Immanuel Kant Kant developed three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. He thought that all these formulas of the Categorical Imperative are “practically equivalent”. 6

Notes: Kant insisted that all the formulas of the Categorical Imperative are “practically equivalent” in that they imply the same conclusions about what we morally ought to do.

Slide 7

The Categorical Imperative (CI)

Here we will focus on two formulas of the CI: The Principle of • An action is morally right if and . The Principle of • An action is morally right if and only if it , and

7

Notes: Kant insisted that all the formulas of the Categorical Imperative are “practically equivalent” in that they imply the same conclusions about what we morally ought to do.

Slide 8

The Principle of Universalisability The Principle of Universalisability: • An action is morally right if and

.

The first formula of the CI is called the Principle of Universalisability. According to the Principle of Universalisability, an action is morally right if and only if it is universalisable. Kant proposed a for universalisability of an action.

the

8

Notes: NA

Slide 9

The Principle of Universalisability: • An action is

.

T t whether an action is universalisable, follow these steps: 1.

in which

the action.

2. Confirm that in such a world, both of these two statements are true: • The of this action can be . • , given that everyone in this world does this action. If both statements are true, then the action is universalisable, and hence, morally right. 9

Notes: According to the Principle of Universalisability, any action that is universalisable is morally right. On the other hand, according to the Principle, (morally wrong). The “

is the

who

in question.

Slide 10

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Kant discusses a couple of examples to illustrate how the Principle of Universalisability should be applied. • The first example has to do with lying. Kant uses the Principle of Universalisability to demonstrate that .

10

Notes: NA

Slide 11

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Imagine that there is something really expensive that you want to buy, but you don’t have enough money. • However, you happen to have a very wealthy acquaintance, and you know that he will give you a loan if you ask for one. The loan would cover the cost of the thing you wanted to buy. • Suppose in this case, even if you never repaid the loan, you will not suffer punishment or retaliation from your acquaintance, nor from anyone else.

11

Notes: NA

Slide 12

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Question: • In this scenario, is it morally permissible to lie to your acquaintance by promising to repay the loan, when really you have no intention of doing so?

12

Notes: Kant reasons that statement 1 would be false. In a world where everyone makes a lying promise to repay a loan, the . In such a world, would of getting money. Here is Kant’s argument: If everyone in the world makes a lying promise to repay a loan in cases like this one, then . In such a world, if I asked you for a loan to buy a car I can’t afford, and I promised that I’d pay you back, you would know I’m lying. You’d know I’m lying, to repay loans in order to get something they want. Knowing this, people would not be so foolish as to give loans to those who make lying promises for them, because they would know that they will never get the money back. In a world where everyone makes lying promises to repay loans, the act of making such lying promises would So, Kant concludes, the to repay loans is

Slide 13

The Universalisability Test: Examples

To answer this question, apply the Universalisability Test: • First, imagine a world in which everyone makes a lying promise to repay a loan, in cases like the one imagined.

13

Notes: NA

Slide 14

The Universalisability Test: Examples Second, confirm that in such a world, both these two statements are true: • Statement 1: The goal of this action can be achieved in this world. • Statement 2: Nothing essential to the agent’s will would be endangered, given that everyone in this world does this action. Kant reasons that statement 1 is false. Therefore, the action is immoral (morally impermissible). 14

Notes: Kant reasons that statement 1 would be false. In a world where everyone makes a lying promise to repay a loan, the goal of lying in this way cannot be achieved. In such a world, making a lying promise to repay a loan would not be an effective means of getting money. Here is Kant’s argument explaining why statement 1 is false: Start by imagining a world where everyone makes a lying promise to repay a loan in cases like the one we’re thinking of. If everyone in the world makes a lying promise to repay a loan in these cases, then everyone would see through the lie. In such a world, if I asked you for a loan to buy a car that I can’t afford, and I promised that I’d pay you back, you would know I’m lying. You’d know I’m lying, because in this world everyone, including you, makes lying promises to repay loans in order to get something they want. Knowing this, people would not be so foolish as to give loans to those who make lying promises for them, because they would know that they will never get the money back. In a world where everyone makes lying promises to repay loans, the act of making such lying promises would not be an effective means of achieving the goal of getting money. So, Kant concludes, the act of making lying promises to repay loans is immoral.

Slide 15

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Let us take another example where Kant uses the Principle of Universalisability to demonstrate that it is immoral not to help other people in need; even if you don’t know them. • Imagine that a prosperous man comes across people who are in great distress, whom he could easily help.

15

Notes: NA

Slide 16

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Question: • In this scenario, is it morally permissible not to help these people?

16

Notes: Strictly speaking, this question asks whether a . can be philosophers call ”.

to

, too. Moral

Slide 17

The Universalisability Test: Examples

To answer this question, apply the Universalisability Test: • First, imagine a world in which no one helps others whom he or she can easily help.

17

Notes: NA

Slide 18

The Universalisability Test: Examples Second, confirm that in such a world, both these two statements are true: • Statement 1: The goal of this action can be achieved in this world. • Statement 2: Nothing essential to the agent’s will would be endangered, given that everyone in this world does this action. In this example, Kant argues that statement 2 is false. Therefore, the action is immoral. 18

Notes: In this example, Kant argues that statement 2 would be false. In a world in which no one ever helps other people in need—even people whom he or she can easily help—something essential to . Here is Kant’s argument for why statement 2 would be false: By “ Kant means a faculty or . Kant also speaks of a person’s “ , thoughts, plans, and actions. Something is something quickly comes to mind as something essential to your will: . But other things may be essential to your will, such as health, education, and political freedoms. Poor health can upset and even destroy your plans in life. Education develops thinking skills, and thinking skills are needed to make good choices (many of which are related to your survival and health). Without political freedoms, you may very well be forced to live a life under the control of others. In any person’s life, occasions may arise when one needs the help of others. You may be afflicted by an accident, disaster, or disease. You may be the victim of a crime, or you may be lost in an unfamiliar place. In these situations you would (freely) by others. Even your for food, shelter, and protection of others. But imagine what it would be like in a world where no one ever helps others whom he or she can easily help. The severity of world poverty today gives us a hint of what such a world would be like. Millions of people are dying of preventable malnutrition and disease, because they are not getting the help they need. That’s what the real world is like. Just imagine how difficult it would be to live in a world where no one ever helps others, even when they could easily do it! Many things essential to one’s will would be endangered in this world. And for this reason, Kant concludes that .

Slide 19

Universalisability: Attractions • The fundamental thought behind Kant’s Principle of Universalisability is that . • In Kant’s view, to be impartial is to and . • An example of a failure to be impartial: a student cheats on her exams, knowing she’ll get away with it. • The Principle of Universalisability is meant to be a . 19

Notes: The fundamental thought behind Kant’s Principle of Universalisability is that acting morally requires being impartial. In Kant’s view, to be impartial is to treat similar cases similarly, and not to treat people differently for no good reason. Kant seems to be right about the importance of . It seems that failures to be . Think of cheating on an exam when the cheater knows she can get away with it. A reason this sort of cheating is wrong is precisely that it involves a failure of impartiality. , since the whole point of cheating is to gain an advantage over others. Instead, cheaters want to be able to do well on exams the easy way—by cheating—while they want others to prepare for exams the hard way—by actually learning the material. In this sense, : they act as if they are more important than others, and as if rules that apply to others do not apply to them. The Principle of Universalisability is meant to be a test for being impartial in the way one treats others. are , making the and of the agents themselves. Therefore, if you follow the Principle of Universalisability, you will be following a rule that can apply to everyone, and you will not be making a special exception of yourself by taking actions that couldn’t be justified under a rule that applies to everyone. The Principle of Universalisability is a impartial and it

, since it captures the importance of being .

Slide 20

The Principle of Humanity

The Principle of Humanity is Kant’s . The Principle of Humanity: • An action is .

20

Notes: NA

Slide 21

The Principle of Humanity

The Principle of Humanity requires us to do two things: 1.

as mere means.

2. Always

21

Notes: NA

Slide 22

The Principle of Humanity • To use other people as mere means is to that are not their purposes. For example, a . • However, the Principle of Humanity

using . For example, in voluntary exchanges between buyers and sellers.

• According to Kant, treating human beings as , as beings endowed with and 22

Notes: To use other people as mere means is to use them as tools for purposes that are not their purposes. For example, a lying promise to repay a debt. When you make a lying promise to repay a debt, your purpose is to take money from someone without paying it back. If the other person gives you the money because he or she believes your lie, their purpose is to give you a loan that you will eventually repay. Their purpose is not to let you take their money without paying it back. However, the Principle of Humanity permits using others for purposes that they do share with you. For example, in voluntary exchanges between buyers and sellers. In voluntary purchases, the buyer wants to obtain a good or service from a seller in exchange for money, and the seller wants to give the buyer that good or service in exchange for money. So, in voluntary purchases, the buyer and seller share more or less the same purpose. According to Kant, treating human beings as ends-in-themselves means treating them with respect, as beings endowed with intrinsic value and dignity. To say that something has , and that its value is the

means that . .

Slide 23

The Principle of Humanity

The term “human beings” in the Principle of Humanity refers to • Rational agents have the , which they use to . • is the capacity to govern one’s own life by one’s own free choices. • According to Kant,

. Moreover,

they have 23

Notes: According to Kant, all rational, autonomous agents are intrinsically valuable. Moreover, they have equal intrinsic value. This fundamental equality is not affected in any way by social and economic status, racial or ethnic characteristics, the possession of power, etc.

Slide 24

The Principle of Humanity • What moral claim does the Principle of Humanity imply? • Kant and his students have used the Principle of Humanity to argue that we have a great many moral obligations. • For one thing, the Principle of Humanity (including one’s own). 24

Notes: NA

Slide 25

The Principle of Humanity

• Some of the examples of this principle are etc. • These actions involve they are

. Thus and we have a from

doing them.

25

Notes: NA

Slide 26

The Principle of Humanity • In addition, the Principle of Humanity

• For example: moral obligations to ,” such as saving a toddler from drowning in a pond. , autonomous

• beings. So it would be

. 26

Notes: NA

Slide 27

The Principle of Humanity

• Onora O’Neill, a contemporary Kantian, uses the Principle of Humanity to argue that there is a and powerlessness” (O’Neill 1980). • These because and pursue a as others. 27

Notes: NA

Slide 28

Principle of Humanity: Attractions • The Principle of Humanity offers a plausible explanation of what it is about people that is valuable and demands respect—namely, rationality and autonomy. • It implies that

—based on their

rationality and • It also explains why . 28

Notes: It seems that there is something about . The Principle of Humanity offers a plausible explanation of what this “something” is: persons are intrinsically valuable due to being rational and autonomous. The Principle of Humanity implies that all people have moral rights based on their rationality and autonomy. This is consistent with some powerful intuitions. The Principle of Humanity explains why people are morally responsible for what they do. Because we are autonomous agents, we and are thus responsible for those choices.

Slide 29

Summary Here are the key takeaways from this lesson: • Deontological ethics is a family of moral theories in normative ethics. • Deontological ethics denies consequentialism. According to consequentialism, the moral status of an action, policy, motive, or rule depends only on whether it produces the best consequences. • The two formulas of Kant’s Categorical Imperative are Principle of Universalisability and Principle of Humanity. • The attractions of Kant’s deontology explains the importance of impartiality to morality (and rationality); explains why persons are intrinsically valuable; gives a foundation for the idea that people have moral rights; explains why people are morally responsible. 29

Notes: NA

Slide 30

Deigh, John (2010). An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Driver, Julia (2006). Ethics: The Fundamentals. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Korsgaard, Christine (1996). “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law,” in Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Neill, Onora (1993). Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rachels, James and Stuart Rachels (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill. Shafer-Landau, Russ (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30

Notes: NA

Slide 31

Thank You Andres Luco +65 65927827 [email protected] HSS 03 88 (PHILO)

Notes: NA...