Ethical Pluralism Ch. 15 Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Crisp, Ethical Pluralism...

Description

Ethical Pluralism (Panel 6-Chapter 15) Ethical Pluralism - the view that there are at least two, and possibly more, fundamental moral rules. A moral rule is fundamental if its justification does not depend on other more general or basic moral rules.  Absolute moral rule - A rule is absolute when it is never permissibly broken-violating or breaking that rule is always wrong.  How is Ethical Pluralism different? All of the moral theories we have studied so far have all been examples of ethical monism, (the view that there is only one moral rule that is fundamental and absolute). Ethical Pluralists do not find it possible to “systematize” morality under one rule.  Two types of Pluralists: Absolutists: Pluralists that think it is always wrong to violate the fundamental moral rules The Other Guys: Pluralists that think it is morally acceptable to break a fundamental moral rule under special circumstances.1  Attractions of Absolutism: The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) Absolutists often rely on this principle that states: “Provided that your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain types of harm, though you must never intend to cause such harms.” i.e. “collateral damage” For example… “Imagine that a runaways trolley is headed for five innocent people and that you can pull a lever that switches the trolley to a side track, where (you guessed it) one unfortunate person is trapped. Shouldn’t you pull that lever?” It is not your intention to harm the one person trapped, it is your intention to save the other five people. Problem with DDE: The Doctrine of Double Effect cannot be relied on with confidence because, “we lack a clear basis for distinguishing between intention and foresight. Without clarity on this point, the DDE will either fail to provide guidance about the morality of actions or will give us results that seem deeply mistaken.” 

1 Consider this argument… On March 1, 2003, CIA officers captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center--and flew him to a detention center in Poland that did not officially exist and was run without legal oversight. Over the next two weeks, Sheikh Mohammed was tortured a variety of ways, including being slapped, being subjected to frigid temperatures, and being water boarded more than 100 times. The purpose of this torture was to extract information that would stop other terrorists from committing similar crimes. Was this treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed morally acceptable? Absolutists: Acts of inhumane violence and torture are never morally acceptable, therefore, engaging in such acts is wrong. The Other Guys: If torturing a terrorist has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of innocent people and refraining from such torture would put those lives at risk, it is morally acceptable.

Attractions of Absolutism: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA) The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA) is the view that it is always morally worse to do harm than it is to allow that same harm to occur. This doctrine supports the idea that you must “keep your hands clean,” even if doing so leads others to cause even greater harm. The DDA is the biggest defense of the absolutists claim: “We are always forbidden to act in certain ways, though we are not always required to prevent such acts from occurring.” Problem with the DDA: The line between doing and allowing is hard to draw.2  Challenges to Moral Absolutism: 1. Critics of absolutism will say that if performing seemingly wrong actions will prevent a horrible catastrophe, it is morally acceptable to do such things.3 (aka the Argument from Disaster Prevention) 2. If each moral rule is absolute, and some conflict with others, then moral conflict leads to contradiction.4 3. There is something fundamentally inconsistent about the absolutist position on morality.5 

2 For example… Consider a doctor taking a brain dead patient off of life support. On one end, the doctor is turning off the respirator that breathes for the patient--the doctor is DOING something--but on the other end, the patient is unable to breathe or function on their own, so removing such life support is letting nature take its course--the doctor is ALLOWING an ongoing chain of events continue on its way.

3 Argument from Disaster Prevention 1. If there are any absolute moral rules, then we are never permitted to break them. 2. Every moral rule may be permissibly broken, since doing so may be necessary to prevent a catastrophe. 3. Therefore, there are no absolute moral rules. Critics of absolutism will say that if performing seemingly wrong actions will prevent a horrible catastrophe, it is morally acceptable to do such things.

4 Argument from Contradiction: 1. If there is more than one absolute moral rule, then those rules are bound to conflict at some point. 2. If absolute rules ever conflict, then this generates contradiction. 3. If a theory generates contradiction, then it is false. 4. Therefore, any theory that endorses the existence of more than one absolute moral rule is false.

5 Argument from Irrationality: 1. If perfect obedience to a rule can frustrate the underlying purpose of the rule, then the rule is irrational. 2. Perfect obedience to any absolute moral rule can sometimes frustrate its underlying purpose. 3. Therefore, absolute moral rules are irrational If values can be better served by violating absolute rules, then the rules should be broken, making them not really absolute after all....