Philosophy 323

1
Philosophy 323

• Normative Ethical Theory
• Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology

2
Our Task

• If we are going to make any headway towards our
  goal of increasing our capacity to manage the
  moral dimensions of our business lives, we have
  to develop answers to this question What
  constitutes an acceptable ethical standard for
  business practice, and by what authority is the
  standard acceptable (18).
• We considered (and considered reasons to reject)
  two possible standards relativism and egoism. We
  also identified some features of any theory that
  would be successful.

3
A Family of Theories

• Consequentialism is the name given to a family of
  more specific normative ethical positions, all of
  which share the conviction that it is the
  consequences of actions which determine their
  moral worth.
• All of these positions are committed to the
  following claims.
• Right action is to be understood entirely in
  terms of the overall intrinsic value of the
  consequences of the action compared with the
  overall intrinsic value of the consequences
  associated with alternative actions an agent
  might perform instead. An action is right iff its
  consequences would be at lest as good as the
  consequences of any alternative action that the
  agent might instead perform.

4
Implications

• There are a number of important implications of
  these claims.
• Consequentialist theories are value-based.
• They are comparative theories. They make specific
  reference to alternative actions and the
  rightness or wrongness of any action is dependent
  on the value of the consequences of those
  actions.
• The consequentialist account of right action is a
  maximizing conception.
• Consequentialism is an impartialist ethical
  theory. We have to consider the consequences for
  everyone and everyone counts equally.

5
Its all in the family

• The various specific forms of consequentialism
  share a commitment to these basic claims.
• They differ in their Theory of The Good (19) the
  identification of the value which the ethical
  theory picks out.
• The TG of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic
  value with human welfare or happiness (the
  expression of human welfare).

6
Utilitarianism

• The basic idea of U is that the rightness or
  wrongness of actions is determined by the their
  effect on human welfare or happiness, with
  maximization and impartiality assumed.
• Measure of this effect is called Utility the net
  value of the consequences of actions.
• Result is the Principle of Utility, the theory of
  right action of utilitarianism.
• An action is right iff its performance would
  likely produce at least as high utility as would
  any other alternative action.

7
What Makes You Fare Well?

• An important issue that all utilitarians must
  address is how to understand human welfare.
• Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham)
  identify happiness (and thus human welfare) with
  pleasure and pain.
• For this reason they are labeled Hedonistic
  Utilitarians.
• How does adopting the hedonistic point of view
  alter the PU?

8
Mills Greatest Happiness Principle

• We can see how specific accounts of the good
  produce specific instances of the principle of
  utility by thinking about the consequences of
  Mills identification of the good as happiness.
• Mills TRA is called the Greatest Happiness
  Principle, and it states, Actions are rightin
  proportion to their tendency to promote happiness
  or the absence of pain, and wrong insofar as the
  tend to produce pain or displeasure (19).

9
The GHP and Business

• There are some clear points of contact between
  Mills Utilitarianism and values typically
  articulated in the business world.
• The maximizing implications of U, when approached
  in terms of efficiency are clearly congenial to
  business interests.
• Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment,
  management by objectives are all business tools
  significantly influenced by U.
• The TG of classical utilitarianism is no longer
  as influential as it once was, but has been
  replaced by a preference theory.
• Finally, one particularly attractive feature of U
  for business people is its explicit reference to
  measurement.

10
Utilitarianism in Action

• Applying consequentialism requires calculation
  and comparison.
• Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a
  more informal estimation. The explicit goal of
  the calculation is to identify the action/rule
  that maximizes the specified value(s).
• Comparison must include all parties affected (in
  a relevant or significant way) by the proposed
  action.

11
Act v. Rule Utilitarianism

• Consideration of the role of calculation leads to
  an important distinction between Act and Rule
  Utilitarianism.
• Act Utilitarianism in all situations one ought
  to perform that act that leads to the greatest
  good for the greatest number (21).
• Rule Utilitarianism in all situations one ought
  to act in accordance with the rule that leads to
  the greatest good for the greatest number.

12
Evaluating Utilitarianism

• Remember our evaluative features?
• Determinacy produces normative verdicts
• Consistency in normative verdicts
• Intuitive Appeal verdicts should be consistent
  with our intuitions.
• Explanatory Power ability to account for
  considered moral judgments.
• How does Utilitarianism do?

13
Criticisms of Utilitarianism

• One sort of criticism often directed at U
  concerns the difficulty of measuring the good(s)
  which the theory highlights.
• This problem is often cited as an advantage of
  preference utilitarianism.
• Another sort of criticism concerns Us inability
  to account for goods other than the specified
  one.
• Problem of Justice

14
Philosophy 323

• Normative Ethical Theory
• Kantian Ethics

15
Immanuel Kant

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) revolutionized
  philosophical ethics. Prior to Kant, people
  sought the origin of morality in the natural
  order, in the ends proper to human beings, or in
  feelings. In contrast, Kant seeks the conditions
  of the possibility of morality and locates them
  in autonomy the wills capacity for
  self-legislation.
• Why in a capacity of the will? Because a good
  will is intrinsically good, other features of our
  character are potentially turned to evil, and as
  a matter of psychological fact reason is not
  particularly suited to produce happiness.

16
Deontological Ethics

• Due to its focus on the will, Kants ethics are
  deontological actions are morally right to the
  extent that they derive from motives of duty, as
  opposed to motives of inclination.
• When we think about moral obligation, he argued,
  what we need to account for is its categorical
  character, the fact that it commands us
  absolutely.

17
Whats with the Categorical?

• Kant is convinced that everything in nature acts
  according to laws. We are unique in that we do so
  consciously, in obedience to laws of reason.
• These laws of reason Kant calls imperatives.
• Following his account of obligation, Kant makes a
  distinction between hypothetical and categorical
  imperatives.
• A law of reason (imperative) is hypothetical when
  the will is conditionally commanded relative to
  some end (think prudence).
• A categorical imperative, on the other hand,
  commands absolutely, that is unconditionally.

18
What about the TRA?

• Reflection on the categorical character of moral
  obligation leads Kant to a TRA that is also his
  fundamental moral principle the Categorical
  Imperative.
• Applying the categorical imperative to proposed
  actions provides a principle of moral evaluation,
  directing us to the right actions.
• There are a number of formulations of the CI. We
  are going to look at two one that emphasizes the
  moral dignity of persons, and one that focuses on
  the universalizability of moral claims.

19
CI Humanity Formulation

• CIHumanity An action is right iff the action
  treats persons (including oneself) as ends in
  themselves rather than as means to our ends.
• There is both a negative (dont treat them as
  means) and a positive (treat them as ends in
  themselves) requirement contained in the
  formulation.
• The positive requirement is captured by Kant with
  the notion of dignity, which all rational agents
  possess by virtue of their being rational.

20
CI Universal Law

• CIUniversal Law Act always in such a way that
  you can will the maxim of your action to be
  universal law.
• Maxim the subjective principle of an action (In
  situation X, I will do Y to accomplish Z).
• Despite the proximity of this formulation to the
  Golden Rule, it is really quite different. The UL
  formulation imposes a consistency requirement.
• You should only act in such a way that everyone
  else should act and that it is possible for them
  to act.

21
Criticisms of Kantian Ethics

• Some have argued that Kants focus on the
  categorical nature of moral obligation results in
  an overly narrow conception of morality.
• What is the role of moral emotions or sentiments
  like sympathy?
• Another common criticism is that Kants ethics
  are too rigorous.
• The example of lying.