MORAL ASSESSMENT

1.Morally Assessing Actions

-An action is morally desirable just in case it is especially morally good and morally undesirable just in case it is especially morally bad.

-An action is morally permissible just in case it violates no moral requirement. (Some permissible actions may be morally undesirable.)

  • An option is morally obligatory (alternatively: justice-obligatory) just in case it is permissible (just) and no feasible alternative is.
  • An option is morally optional (alternatively: justice-optional) just in case it is permissible (just) and some feasible alternative is also.
  • Optional actions may be subdivided as follows:
  • recommended(desirable)= significantly morally better than the worst optional action and not significantly worse than the best optional action
  • If it involves significant sacrifice by the agent relative to his prudentially best optional action, then it is supererogatory.
  • indifferent = either (1) significantly morally better than the worst optional action and significantly worse than the best optional action, or (2) neither of these (in which case the best and worst are close together).
  • discouraged(undesirable) = not significantly morally better than the worst optional action and significantly worse than the best optional action
  • If it involves no significant sacrifice by the agent relative to his prudentially best optional action, then it is suberogatory.

-An action is morally just (in one sense) just in case it infringes no one’s rights (i.e., wrongs no one). (Some just actions may be morally wrong because they violate an impersonal duty or because they have sufficiently bad results for individuals. Some unjust actions may be permissible because they have sufficiently better results for individuals.)

-An action is morally legitimate just in case others are not permitted to interfere forcibly with the action—either because it’s permissible or because it’s non-enforceably impermissible.

  • Note: Some impermissible (e.g., unjust) actions may not be enforceable because the harm involved is not significant enough to justify forcible interference.Also, even an impersonal duty may be enforceable. Enforceable duties thus need not be limited to duties of justice.
  • “Legitimacy” is used in many different senses, and this is but one of them.

Enforceably impermissible -> impermissible -> undesirable (but not in other direction).

Wronging (rights infringements) and Wrongs (impermissible):

Actions wrongs someone:

-Wrong if there is no overriding (lesser evil) justification (e.g., necessary to save a million lives),

-Permissible if there is overriding (lesser evil) justification (for each wronging)

Action wrongs no one:

-Wrong if it violates an impersonal (greater evil) constraint

-Permissible if it doesn’t violate any impersonal (greater evil) constraint.

Note that impersonal constraints are most plausible if they protect the interests of the individuals that are not protected by rights (as opposed something that is in no one’s interests!). Such rights can, however, be equivalent to a certain kind of interest-protecting right.

Objective (external) vs. Subjective (internal) Assessment: An action or agent can be assessed on the basis of the objective facts about actions performed (objective assessment) or on the basis of the agent’s beliefs (or perhaps intentions) about the actions performed. Thus, an action might be objectively permissible by subjectively impermissible. My view is that the most basic assessment of actions is the objective assessment, and that for the purposes of blame and praise of actions, or of agents, some kind of subjective assessment is appropriate.

2.Conclusive vs. Pro Tanto Permissibility, Rights, and Duties

Conclusive (all things considered) moral permissibility/impermissibility: the action is permissible/impermissible based on all relevant considerations.

Pro tanto moral permissibility/impermissibility: the action is permissible/impermissible based on some relevant considerations.

Conclusive (all things considered) right/duty: the agent has a right/duty based on all relevant considerations.

Pro tanto (all things considered) right/duty: the agent has a right/duty based on some relevant considerations (but may not have right/duty based on all considerations).

It can be conclusively permissible to violate/breach a pro tanto right/duty, since the latter need not be conclusive.

It can be conclusively permissible to infringe/breach a conclusive right/duty, since the latter needed not be absolute (never permissible to infringe/breach). It may be non-absolute (=defeasible).

“Prima facie” is usually used as synonymous with “pro tanto”. Sometimes they are distinguished.

When one writes just of permissibility/impermissibility, or of rights/duties, without any qualification, it is understood that they are understood as conclusive (all things considered).

3.The Meaning of “Justice”

Although I use “justice” in the sense of not violating anyone’s rights, it is used in several different senses by others. Here are some of the main uses:

- Justice as moral permissibility of social structures (e.g., laws).

- Justice as fairness (roughly: comparative desert; it is but one consideration for moral permissibility; efficiency and liberty may be others).

- Justice as satisfying the duties we owe each other (including ourselves) [i.e., as what people have a right to]: This is silent about impersonal duties (owed to no one).

- Justice as satisfying the duties we owe others: This is silent about impersonal duties (owed to no one) and duties to self.

- Justice as satisfying the enforceable duties that we have (or more narrowly: owe others): This is silent about duties that are not permissibly enforceable. (Just acts are those that are morally permissible or that are impermissible but not enforceable.)

There are two main views about how the justice of actions and the justice of social structures are related. On one view, the justice of actions is assessed directly, and a social structure is just if and only if it forbids all and only unjust actions. On the other view, the justice of social structures is assessed directly, and an action is just if and only if it is permitted by a just social structure.

1