Questions for Johnson, Ch 2 on Philosophical Ethics
What is a dialectic?
A cycle of moving from claims to reasons and arguments, then reformulating the claims…
Descriptive vs. Normative ethics
Ethical Relativism:
Positive claim (what is claimed)
Right and wrong are relative to your society.
The examples given do not prove that there are no moral absolutes.
Negative claim ( what is denied)
What is right for me may not be right for you
Is seemingly self-contradictory (e.g. “kill all bigots”)
E.g. Hitler’s Germany: actions of killing were OK because sanctioned by society
Utilitarianism is a form of Consequentialism:
Everyone ought to act so as to bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. What’s important is the consequence of the action.
Intrinsic (valued for its own sake) goods vs. Instrumental (valued because it leads to something) goods.
Egoism: bring about greatest happiness for yourself (only)
Rule vs. Act utilitarianism: e.g. “Do you like my dress?” (If it is ugly). Rules says tell the truth, Act says look at the potential happiness in each situation, rules are only guidelines.
Problem: There are some absolutes that don’t fit in, such as slavery (could bring about more happiness for the majority), or organ transplants. E.g. What is the criteria for deciding who gets what transplanted organ in WI and IL? (e.g. Walter Payton)
Deontological (Science of Duty) Theories:
The internal character of the act itself has more meaning than the consequence (what were your motives?).
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Never treat humans merely as a means to an end, but rather as an end in themselves.
Since we have the capacity for rationality & making choices, happiness cannot be the highest end.
- We are moral because we are rational. (Can one be rational but immoral?)
Rights (sometimes thought to be part of deontological theories.)
Negative vs. Positive rights.
Negative: I have a right not to be killed by others. (some argue individuals only have these)
Positive: If I see someone being mugged, I have an obligation to help them.
Social Contract Theories: A social contract explains and justifies the obligations we have toward one another.
? Does morality exist prior to the social contract?
Rawlsian Justice:
Individuals are self-interested. We have to imagine a “veil of ignorance”, where decision makers imagine generic human beings and don’t know into which class they themselves would fall.
Virtue Ethics:
Moral character, excellence, not just action and decision making.
Individual vs. Social Policy Ethics:
How it affects the individual vs. how it affects society
E.g. Grazing cattle (everyone did it, grass was totally eaten up),
E.g. Large jug of wine in Morocco outside residence when king came to visit
Questions (taken from Position paper assignment)
- Consider a situation where there is a very expensive piece of software you want to use for a semester at school, and you can get a copy of it for free from a friend even though it violates copyright laws. Do you copy it?
- Secondly, consider a hypothetical situation where you discover the bank you are working for is illegally discriminating against poor loan applicants. You can report the problem, but you will surely lose your job if you do so and your family is depending on you during a difficult financial time. Do you report it?
Now think about your reasons for deciding what you do for each of the above cases and give your philosophical justification. Compare your justification to the approaches to philosophical ethics given in the readings.
In a group, see what differences there are in how to handle these scenarios. What are the reasons each group member gives for their decision? Are the given reasons logically consistent?