class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Normative Ethics ] .date[ ### MSA 2025 ] --- class: center, middle What is morality? Under which conditions a moral statement is true or false? Given a moral statement, where do we need to look at to check if it is true or false? --- class: middle, center # Ethics The study of morality, including morally right and wrong actions, and other concepts such as rights, justice, obligation, and responsibility. --- # Work in Groups Discuss the following questions and take notes on your answers: 1. Think of an action that most people would consider morally wrong. Why is it viewed that way? 2. Think of an action that most people would consider morally right. Why is it seen as right? 3. What is one action that some people consider morally wrong, but others see as morally acceptable? 4. What is an example of something that is morally wrong but not illegal? 5. What is an example of something that is illegal but morally right? --- # Normative ethics Under which conditions a moral statement is true or false? Potential answers (_moral theories_): 1. Utilitarianism 2. Kant's categorical imperatives 3. Virtue ethics 4. Divine Command Theory 5. Natural Law Theory --- # Trolley Problem: The Switch A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. The only action you can take to help is to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track, where it will kill one person instead. What would you do? a. Pull the lever, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. --- # Trolley Problem: The Switch Most people think that is is morally permissible (or even required) to pull the lever. This response aligns with the moral theory of _consequentialism_. **Consequentialism**: The rightness or wrongness of an act is a matter of what effects that action has. Right actions cause good outcomes and wrong actions cause bad outcomes. A popular version of consequentialism is called _utilitarianism_. **Utilitarianism**: An action is morally required for a person if, and only if, out of all of the actions available to this person, such action maximizes the good and minimizes the bad for all of those affected by the action. --- class: medium-font ## Readings: _Utilitarianism_ by J. S. Mill (1861) and _Foundations_ by Kant (1785) Questions for _Utilitarianism_ (Mill) 1. According to Mill, is it better to be “a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”? Is it better to be “Socrates dissatisfied” or a satisfied fool? Why so? 2. For a utilitarian, whose happiness counts—the individual's or the community's? Questions for _Foundations_ (Kant) 1. What is the good will? 2. How does a categorical imperative differ from a hypothetical imperative? 4. What is the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative? --- # Utilitarianism .shadow[ .emphasis[ **Utilitarianism**: An action is morally required if, and only if, out of all of the actions available, such action maximizes the good and minimizes the bad for all of those affected by the action (that is, if and only if it produces the largest net amount of utility overall.) ] ] - Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, the idea that the morality of an action depends only on its consequences. - Utility is understood as whatever has intrinsic value (hedonism, desire-satisfaction, objectivism, etc.). - Early utilitarians were hedonists: what has intrinsic value is _pleasure_. --- # Discussion questions .shadow[ .emphasis[ **Utilitarianism**: An action is morally required if, and only if, out of all of the actions available, such action maximizes the good and minimizes the bad for all of those affected by the action (that is, if and only if it produces the largest net amount of utility overall.) ] ] - According to an utilitarian, what is the right thing to do in the trolley problem (bystander/footbridge)? - According to an utilitarian, is lying wrong? Under what conditions? --- # The trolley problem .w40.pull-left[ A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. The only action you can take to help is to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track, where it will kill one person instead. What would you do? ] .w60.pull-right[<img src="assets/trolley-bystander.jpg" alt="" width="600"/>] .w99.pull-left[ a. Pull the lever, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. ] --- # Features of utilitarianism - Simplicity - Impartiality - Moral flexibility --- # Problems of utilitarianism ### The surgeon > Imagine a surgeon that has five patients who need five organs (lungs, kidneys and a heart). If they do not get those organs today, they will all die. A young backpacker has come into the hospital for a routine checkup. It turns out he is in excellent health, and has exactly the right blood type to guarantee success if the surgeon transplants his organs into the patients. All she needs do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them. What is the morally right action, according to utilitarianism? --- ### Drowning child > Imagine it’s 1930. You are walking next to a shallow pond when you see a person drowning in it. Fortunately, you are a very good swimmer and save this person successfully. You didn’t know at the time, but the person you saved was Adolf Hitler. Had Hitler drowned, millions of other people might have been saved from suffering and death between 1938 and 1945. According to utilitarianism, was your action morally right or wrong? --- ### The scapegoat > Imagine a small town where a terrible crime against a child has been committed. People become upset and angry, while riots and violence occur as a result of the crime. If riots continue, there will be some losses of life (from violence, lack of services, etc.). The authorities cannot control the situation nor find the person responsible for the crime; but think that if they charge an innocent person for the crime, peace would finally be restored. Is it morally right to punish an innocent person to avoid life losses? a) Yes, it is morally right to sacrifice the innocent person to avoid a riot that will cause more losses of life. b) No, it is not morally right to sacrifice the innocent person to avoid a riot that will cause more losses of life. What is utilitarianism's response? --- ### The footbridge .w50.pull-left[ A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. You are standing on a footbridge next to a very large person. You know that you could stop the trolley by pushing the large person onto the tracks, which would undoubtedly result in their death. However, it would save the lives of the five people. What would you do? ] .w50.pull-right[<img src="assets/trolley-footbridge.jpg" alt="" width="500"/>] .w99.pull-left[ a. Push the large person, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. ] What is utilitarianism's response? --- # Act vs. Rule utilitarianism __Act Utilitarianism__: An action is morally required if and only if it produces the largest net amount of well-being overall. __Rule Utilitarianism__: An action is morally required if and only if it conforms to a rule that (if accepted) would produce the largest net amount of well-being overall. --- # The golden rule .center[ “_Treat others as you would like to be treated._” “_Don’t treat others as you wouldn’t like to be treated._” ] - Is this a good moral rule? - What are the attractions of the golden rule? - What are potential problems of the view? --- # Kant's Categorical Imperative (v1) .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Universal Law of Nature__: Act only on those maxims that you can reasonably will that they become a universal law. ] ] - What is a maxim? A maxim is a statement of _what_ one is doing and _why_ one is doing it. - I will study in order to do well on my test. - I will cheat in order to do well on my test. - I will make an honest promise in order to receive a loan. - I will make a lying promise in order to receive a loan. - Universalizability: A maxim is universalizable if its reasonable, in such a way that everyone would be able to achieve their goals and agree with them if it became a universal law. - Which of the maxims given above are _universalizable_? --- # Universalizability Universalizability: A maxim is universalizable if the goal of your action can be achieved in a world where everyone supports and acts on such maxim. Three-part test: - Formulate the maxim clearly (its action and reason/intention) - Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim. - Ask yourself: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world? - If no, the maxim is not universalizable, and the action is morally wrong. - If yes, the maxim is universalizable, and the action is permissible. --- # Benefits - Preserve our notions of _fairness_. - It explains why rights-violations are wrong. --- # Kant's Categorical Imperative (v2) .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Formula of Humanity__: Always act so as to treat persons—whether it is your own self or others—as an end in themselves and never merely as a means to an end. ] ] Human beings, for Kant, have two important features: - Rationality - We are able to use reason to pursue our goals - We are able to contain our impulses and instincts. - Autonomy - We can decide for ourselves how to live our life. - This makes us responsible for our choices. - Human beings have as their ends to act rationally and autonomously. --- # Problems Mill (1863): The categorical imperative reduces to (rule) utilitarianism. Example: What’s wrong about a world where people cheat on their taxes to save money? - Perhaps there will be less tax revenue, and thus we will have poorer roads, less military equipment, less public education. - Perhaps there would be a different tax collection system. - It’s unclear whether there is a contradiction in Kant’s sense (one could still save money). - Better explanation: Universalizing such maxim is undesirable because of its consequences. - This is exactly what rule utilitarianism suggests. --- # Inquiring murderer's case > Suppose a person knocks on your door with an axe in her hand and asks for your roommate. The person with the axe is a would-be murderer that is there to kill your roommate. You know your roommate is in their room. Would it be morally permissible to lie to the would-be murderer? What would Kant say? --- # How to construct maxims? > Suppose a person knocks on your door with an axe in her hand and asks for your roommate. The person with the axe is a would-be murderer that is there to kill your roommate. You know your roommate is in their room. What would Kant say? - Maxim: “Lie to others to deceive them.” - Deceiving people (through lies) in a world where everyone is allowed to lie to others involves a contradiction. - People's rationality and autonomy could not be exercised. - Maxim is not universalizable. The action is morally wrong. --- # Problems with universalizability Anscombe (1958): There are no principles to construct maxims. Is lying always morally wrong? If so, which maxim (regarding lying) is not universalizable? - “Lie to others to deceive them.” - “Lie to others on Tuesday June 11 at 11am, to deceive them.” - “Lie to others on Thursday June 11 at 11am, regarding the location of people whose first name starts with letter D, to deceive them.” If it’s unclear which maxim one’s action corresponds to, then it’s impossible to determine its morality. --- # Agenda Thursday Jun 12 Theme: Ethics and Values 1. Lecture & Discussion: Other Moral Theories 2. Poster: Ethics 3. Readings: The Experience Machine & De Brigard's paper 1. Lecture & Discussion: Value Theory --- # Moral theories > _Under which conditions a moral statement is true or false?_ 1. Utilitarianism 2. Kant's categorical imperatives 3. Virtue ethics 4. Divine Command Theory 5. Natural Law Theory --- ## What is the best action? - __Joan__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register, and sometimes has considered stealing some money from it, but she is afraid of being caught. In fact, this is the only reason why she has not stolen from the store yet. - __Jane__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register, and sometimes has considered stealing some money from it. However, she has not done it because she follows the rules (which don’t allow stealing). - __Jean__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register. She has never considered stealing from it. She would feel sick by the very thought of doing it. She knows from deep down that stealing is not the right thing to do. --- # Virtue ethics .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Virtue Ethics__: An act is morally right just because it is one that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation. ] ] - Actions are right or wrong not because of their results or because they follow some hard-and-fast rule. - Actions are right or wrong because they would be done by someone of true virtue. - What are the virtues? - What makes a virtue a virtue? - What does it mean to act virtuously? --- # What are the virtues? A virtue is an __excellent character trait__, a _disposition_ not only to act in a certain way, but also to feel, think, desire, choose, and react in a certain way. - Honesty - Loyalty - Benevolence - Courage - Justice - Wisdom - Self-control - _Prudence_ --- ## What does it mean to act virtuously? - __Joan__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register, and sometimes has considered stealing some money from it, but she is afraid of being caught. In fact, this is the only reason why she has not stolen from the store yet. - __Jane__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register, and sometimes has considered stealing some money from it. However, she has not done it because she follows the rules (which don’t allow stealing). - __Jean__ works at a handmade gift store. She handles the cash register. She has never considered stealing from it. She would feel sick by the very thought of doing it. She knows from deep down that stealing is not the right thing to do. --- ## Discuss 1. We saw that courage is a virtue. Can someone be too courageous? 2. How, if at all, can virtues become vices? -- ### Golden mean - Virtues are in equilibrium between _two vices_. - Example: Courage lies between cowardice and recklesness. - According to Aristotle, the basic virtue that we need to act virtuously is _phronesis_ (_prudence_ or _practical wisdom_). --- # Divine Command Theory .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Divine Command Theory__: An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it. ] ] If moral rules must be grounded on some authority for it to have real normative force on us, then God seems to be the best candidate for such a role. ### Discuss 1. What are your thoughts on this view? 2. What problems or objections might this view face? --- # Euthyphro Dilemma Does God command a particular action because such an action is morally right, or is the action morally right because God commands it? -- Let's say that _God command a particular action because it is morally right_. - If so, then the basis of morality would not be God's commands, but whatever reasons God is using to choose his commands. Let's say that _the action is morally right because God commands it_. - If so, then God's commands are _arbitrary_, as he would have no reasons to issue them. --- # Natural Law Theory .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Natural Law Theory__: An act is morally right just because it is consistent with the Natural Law, and morally wrong just because it is inconsistent with the Natural Law. ] ] What is the Natural Law? According to Aquinas: - Natural law is participation in the eternal law. - The eternal law is the __rational plan by which all creation is ordered__. - The natural law shows itself in our intrinsic directedness toward various goods. - Something is good when it _completes or perfects_ a being, in the sense of realizing such a being's nature. --- # Human nature We should act in ways that accord with our _human nature_. - Pursuit of life - Procreation and education of offspring - Seeking God - Living in society - Social order - Knowledge of all things. Morally wrong actions are those that are not in accordance with our human nature. ### Discuss 1. What are your thoughts on this view? 2. What problems or objections might this view face? --- class: small-font # Poster: Ethics Work in groups and decide what to put in the poster. Some ideas: 1. Sentences, concepts, definitions, word cloud. 2. Drawings of thought experiments. Some key concepts: - Utilitarianism / Consequentialism - Happiness / Pleasure - Categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives - Morality as practical reasoning - Universal laws - Treat people never as mere means - Virtue ethics, and the virtues - Golden mean, prudence - Divine Command Theory - Natural Law Theory --- # Reading 1. Before dispersing, agree on a place to meet with your group after the reading. 2. Do the reading and answer the questions (~20 minutes). 3. Meet in your groups and discuss your answers. 4. At that point, I will give you an additional sheet. Read it, answer the questions, and then discuss your answers.