Normative Ethics the conceptual analysis of certain ethical terms o what does morality justice goodness etc mean Four basic questions o what constitutes a good life what is the best kind of life ambiguity good as had experienced or as how you lead your life o what makes a human being good worthy of respect or esteem o what are the fundamental principles that should govern human action ambiguity group vs individual decisions choices policies vs individual acts o what kind of human relationships are worth striving for Utilitarianism Kantian Deontology Contractualists deal with question 3 o Kant is concerned about what makes a human being good but out of that comes concern for question 3 o Contractualists in terms of justice are concerned with question 4 Virtue Ethics are concerned with questions 1 and 2 John Stuart Mill 1806 1873 Jeremy Bentham founder of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism species of Consequentialism moral theory Consequentialism an action is right if it results in the best overall consequences and wrong if it doesn t result in the best overall consequences o Utilitarianism takes the measure of goodness as a consequence of the measure of happiness or unhappiness in the world Utilitarianism one ought to bring about the highest overall balance of pleasure over pain Hedonistic Consequentialism looks only to the amount of pleasure and pain when evaluating circumstances Evaluative Hedonism individual pleasure happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good pain unhappiness is the only thing that is intrinsically bad o the worth of things is judged by how they generate pleasure intrinsic instrumental p 186 Greatest Happiness Principle o Refining Principle of Utility o maximizing vs non maximizing versions max do that which brings about the greatest good to not do so is morally wrong no conceptual distinctions between dutiful and supererogatory going above and beyond acts non max do more good than harm o impartial no one person may count any more than others no preference is given to friends or family o o o o objective naturalistic we are pleasure seeking pain avoiding creatures our nature helps determine what morality should be for us quantitative cost benefit analysis qualitative not all pleasures count equally higher level pleasures count more than lower level ones HLP pleasures that are more distinctively human intellectual pleasures LLP pleasures we share with animals intention what the agent wills to do what the morality of an action depends upon motive the feeling which makes the agent will to do an action doesn t determine morality of actions Premises of HLPs over LLPs the most important way of determining which of two types of pleasures is best is to defer to what someone who is acquainted with both types prefers if so called competent judges disagree we should defer to majority opinion we should adopt the most impartial method everyone who is acquainted with HLPs and LLPs always prefers HLPs false people don t always prefer HLPs over LLPs o o Mill s responses weakness of will exists but it doesn t show that HLPs aren t preferable simply that people sometimes don t choose them people can involuntarily lose the capacity to prefer HLPs p 189 one should not always choose HLPs they aren t always preferable o Shifts to kinds of lives you don t constantly have to be seeking HLPs but you s you need some pain to understand pleasure therefore HLPs are always preferable to LLPs p 188 189 Pig Philosophy Objection qualitative vs quantitative no amount of lesser pleasure can make up for a lack of a higher pleasure happiness of all people is important further objections no competent judges have lived a whole life to be able to judge pleasures do the competent judges feel the same pleasure that I will feel intuitively we care about why someone did what they did when evaluating actions PU Principle of Utility could justify punishing an innocent person and bearing false witness PU could justify violations of rights transplant case kill Bertie and donate organs according to PU even though that violates his rights to his body PU can t explain the moral weight of promises or any backward looking reasoning o o o Are consequences all that matter o o o o backward looking punishment always counts as a negative utilitarians tend to avoid it because it causes pain deserving a punishment or doing something in the past doesn t come into account Arguments Validity and Soundness argument a set of more than one statement which includes at least 1 statement designated as a premise and at least 1 statement designated as a conclusion cannot be true or false an argument is valid iff its conclusions follow as a matter of logic from its premises contradiction is needed to prove every argument true an argument is sound iff first it is valid and second all of its premises are true Worries 1 PU would in certain circumstances justify bearing false witness or punishing an innocent person 2 PU would under certain circumstances justify a violation of rights 3 PU cannot account for the moral weight of promises or more generally backward looking reasons eg punishment it s not the case that maximizing utility means in every second going for the HLP maximizing utility means having a life with those kinds of activities in balance with other things that are enjoyable even when it looks easier to tell a lie in the short term it s better to tell the truth because it will bring about more utility to life o long term and indirect effects need to be calculated into telling a lie moral rules are under some circumstances subject to exceptions objection from expediency has to find a way to explain away pain caused when we don t violate rights break promises etc focusing on each act we have to calculate the utility for each act individual actions aren t justified by PU only but are right wrong insofar as they are in accordance or at odds with a set of rules RU rule of Utilitarianism an action is right wrong insofar as it conforms with or is at odds with a rule the imposition of which brings about the greatest happiness for the aggregate of people example rule whenever it is expedient an innocent person should be punished this kind of rule will not maximize utility people won t want to live in this type of society because others will do what is expedient instead of what is right o o Proof of Utilitarianism 1 Desire Happiness Argument 1 each person desires his own happiness 2 if each person desires his own happiness