ENGR 482 Lecture 4
« previous | Wednesday, September 4, 2013 | next »
Housekeeping
- Reading quiz due on Thursday
- Updated schedule on eCampus
Wisdom from Pop Culture
Dilbert comic.
Pervesion of Golden Rule, Universalization, Reversibility (applying actions globally or to others)
Review
- Relativistic Moral Positions
- Moral nihilism (morals don't exist)
- Ethical subjectivism (each person has his/her own morals)
- Cultural relativism (what's ethical for one cutlure may not be ethical in another culture)
- Universal Moral Positions
- Virtue Ethics
- Duty Ethics
- Utilitarianism
Duty Ethics
- A secular foundation for a universal moral law
- Separation of morals from theology (bad move in my opinion...)
Notion that a universal moral law is possible just as Newton's universal laws of motion were possible
Kant Pondered how to apply individual experiences to a global law. This global moral law is grounded in the structure of reason itself.
There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will. Immanuel Kant
"good without qualification" = something intrinsically good
- duty
- A motivation distinct from self-interest, self-preservation, sympathy, and happiness
- conformance of will to universal moral law
- "the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law" (Ak. 400)
- Maxim
- A subjective principlel that one uses to determine a course of action
- example: "I should never tell a lie."
- A "presumptive" statement of the will
Now we can find out how maxim relates to universal moral law
Categorical Imperative
Imperative = order
Categorical = all rational beings
vs. hypothetical imperatives
First Formulation
Universal law: "I should never act except in such a way that I can also will my maxim should become a universal law." (Ak. 402)
A more precise statement of the idea of universalizability in The Golden Rule Approach (p. 44) and of The Self-Defeating Approach (p. 45)
Second Formulation
Law of the end-in-itself: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." (Ak. 429)
Similar to Self-Defeating Approach in the book: "it fails to treat [others] with appropriate respect.
Third Formulation
Autonomy: "The idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law." (Ak. 431)
Implies "Rights approach" (p.47) to respect moral agency of others
Differs from universal law in that it refers to law-making rather than law-following
W.D. Ross's List of Duties
Prima facie (At first glance)
- Duties of fidelity
- Duties of gratitude
- Duties of justice
- Duties of beneficence
- Duties of self-improvement
- Duties not to injure others
Kant said these duties come from rationality. Ross says they come through relationships and self-responsibility
Unlike Kant's, these are not categorical
Prima facie duties are simple (atomic/quantal) and universal, yet always in conflict
Moral principles are self-evident and can be "discovered" by the intuition
Utilitarian Ethics
Morality of an act is based on consequences
Act Utilitarianism
Act is considered morally appropriate if it leads to the "greatest good for the greatest number"
BUT
What do we mean by "good", and who is included in "the greatest number"?
good = happiness, bad = reverse of happiness
happiness = intended pleasure, unhappiness = pain and privation of pleasure
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule is morally appropriate if it leads to "greatest good for greatest number"
Similar to maxim ideas of Kant
Specific act is moral if it follows a correctly-applied rule.