ETHICS FOR A-LEVEL
Ethics for A-Level
Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher
OpenBook
Publishers WJ
https://www.openbookpublishers.com
© 2017 Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher
ouom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This
license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make
commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests
that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:
Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher, Ethics for A-Level. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2017, https://
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0125
In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit https://www.
openbookpublishers.com/product/639#copyright
Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via
the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web
Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://www.openbookpublishers.
com/product/639#resources
ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-388-9
ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-389-6
ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-390-2
ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-391-9
ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-392-6
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0125
Cover image: Malaysia from the Sky, photo by Ishan @seefromthesky. Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/
photos/N2HtDFA-AgM
All paper used by Open Book Publishers is SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative), PEFC (Programme for the
Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes) and Forest Stewardship Council(r)(FSC(r) certified.
Printed in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia
by Lightning Source for Open Book Publishers (Cambridge, UK)
Contents
PREFACE
1. Exam Specification Details
2. Book Structure
References
INTRODUCTION
1. Philosophy, Ethics and Thinking
ao F WwW N
. Respecting Ethics
. The A-Level Student
. Doing Ethics Well: Legality versus Morality
. Doing Ethics Well: Prudential Reasons versus
Moral Reasons
. Doing Ethics Well: Prescriptive versus Descriptive
Claims
. Doing Ethics Well: Thought-Experiments
8.
Summary
Doing Ethics Well: Understanding Disagreement
Questions and Tasks
References
PART I NORMATIVE ETHICS
CHAPTER1 UTILITARIANISM
COND OF FP W KN
1.
. Hedonism
Utilitarianism: An Introduction
. Nozick’s Experience Machine
. The Foundations of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
. The Structure of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
. Hedonic Calculus
. Problems with Bentham’s Utilitarianism
. Mill’s Utilitarian Proof
NF RF
fo» a» e® Ww W Ww
co CONN DS
11
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
CHAPTER 2
9. Mill’s Qualitative Utilitarianism
10. Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism versus Bentham’s Act
Utilitarianism
11. Strong versus Weak Rule Utilitarianism
12. Comparing the Classical Utilitarians
13. Non-Hedonistic Contemporary Utilitarianism:
Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
KANTIAN ETHICS
1. An Introduction to Kantian Ethics
2. Some Key Ideas
3. Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in
Accordance with Duty
4. Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
5. The First Formulation of the Categorical
Imperative
6. Perfect and Imperfect Duties
7. Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
8. The Third Formulation of the Categorical
Imperative and Summary
9. Kant on Suicide
10. Problems and Responses: Conflicting Duties
11. Problems and Responses: The Role of Intuitions
12. Problem and Responses: Categorical Imperatives
and Etiquette
13. Problems and Responses: The Domain of Morality
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
21
22
23
24
24
26
26
26
27
28
31
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
38
39
42
43
43
44
45
45
45
46
47
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUE ETHICS
. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Introduction
. The Function Argument
. Aristotelian Goodness
. Eudaimonia and Virtue
. Developing the Virtues
. Practical Wisdom (Phronesis)
ND FO FP WN
. Voluntary Actions, Involuntary Actions and Moral
Responsibility
8. Objection: Unclear Guidance
9. Objection: Clashing Virtues
10. Objection: Circularity
11. Objection: Contribution to Eudaimonia
12. Moral Good and Individual Good
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
AQUINAS’S NATURAL LAW THEORY
1. Introduction to Aquinas
2. Motivating Natural Law Theory: The Euthyphro
Dilemma and Divine Command Theory
3. Natural Law Theory
4. Summary of Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory
5. Putting this into Practice: The Doctrine of Double
Effect (DDE)
6. Some Thoughts about Natural Law Theory
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
49
49
49
50
51
54
55
56
58
59
59
59
61
62
62
62
63
63
65
65
65
66
70
70
73
75
75
75
76
77
CHAPTER5 FLETCHER’S SITUATION ETHICS
1.
5.
6.
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Situation Ethics Introduction
2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework
3.
4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a
The Four Working Principles of Situationism
Verb not a Noun
The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics
Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism
Key Terminology
References
PART I METAETHICS
CHAPTER6 METAETHICAL THEORIES
OCN aA OF FF WN
16.
Summary
. Metaethics: Introduction
. The Value of Metaethics
. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
. Realism versus Anti-Realism
. The Metaethical Map
. Cognitivist and Realist Theory One: Naturalism
. Objections to Naturalism
. Cognitivist and Realist Theory Two:
Non-Naturalism
. Objections to Intuitionism
10. Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One: Moral
Error Theory
. Objections to Moral Error Theory
. Non-Cognitivism
. Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One:
Emotivism
. Objections to Emotivism
. Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory Two:
Prescriptivism
Objections to Prescriptivism
79
79
80
81
83
83
86
88
88
88
89
89
93
93
94
95
98
99
100
102
104
105
106
110
111
112
113
115
115
116
PART UI
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 8
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
APPLIED ETHICS
EUTHANASIA
1.
. Key Terms
Oo ON BD OF FSF W KN
—_—
- ©
Euthanasia Introduction
. Case One: Persistent Vegetative State
. Case Two: Incurable and Terminal Illness
. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument One
. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Two
. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Three
. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument One
. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Two
. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Three
. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Four
12.
Allowing versus Doing
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
BUSINESS ETHICS
1,
. Employers and Employees
oa fF W NY
Introduction to Business Ethics
. Businesses and Customers
. A Business and the Environment
. Business and Globalization
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
117
117
118
119
123
123
123
125
125
126
128
130
132
132
133
135
136
138
138
139
139
140
143
143
145
147
149
151
152
153
153
154
154
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10
CHAPTER 11
CONSCIENCE
. Introduction
. The History of Conscience
. Aquinas on Conscience
. Freud and the Conscience
oF WN
. Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
SEXUAL ETHICS
1. Philosophy of Sex Introduction
. What Is It to “Have Sex”?
. Natural Law and Sex
. Kant and Sex
. Sex and Utilitarianism
HRD oO FF W KN
. Sex and the Virtue Theory
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
STEALING
1. Stealing: Introduction
. Defining Stealing
. Kantian Ethics on Stealing
. Act and Preference Utilitarianism on Stealing
. Rule Utilitarianism on Stealing
. Virtue Ethics on Stealing
ND OF ® W KN
. Metaethics and Stealing
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
157
157
158
160
161
163
165
165
166
166
167
169
169
170
171
173
175
176
178
178
179
179
180
183
183
183
184
187
190
191
193
195
195
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
CHAPTER 12 SIMULATED KILLING
oF WwW N
1.
. Utilitarianism and Simulated Killing
. The Kantian and the Virtue Ethics Approach
. Films and Plays
Introduction
. The Paradox of Tragedy (or More Correctly the
Paradox of “Negative Emotions”)
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
CHAPTER 13 TELLING LIES
oF W NY
1.
. What Is It to Lie?
. Utilitarianism
Introduction
. The Kantian and Lying
. Some Final Thoughts about the Political Context
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
CHAPTER 14 EATING ANIMALS
Rn oO FPF W NY
1.
. Justifying Meat Eating
Eating Animals Introduction
. Act Utilitarianism
. Challenges to Bentham
. Utilitarian Reasons for Eating Animals
. Kantian Ethics and Eating Animals
195
196
196
199
199
201
203
203
204
205
206
206
207
207
209
209
209
211
213
214
214
215
215
216
216
219
219
219
221
223
224
226
GLOSSARY
7. Virtue Ethics and Eating Animals
8. Cora Diamond
Summary
Common Student Mistakes
Issues to Consider
Key Terminology
References
227
229
232
232
233
233
234
235
Preface
1. Exam Specification Details
This book deals with the Ethics components of AQA Philosophy and OCR
Religious Studies. It has been written in line with these specifications, covering
the material necessary ina way that, we hope, is engaging for students, teachers
and anyone interested in understanding ethical study.
Some chapters are, therefore, directly relevant only to one of these two
courses. Students studying Ethics as part of OCR Religious Studies do not
need to read about the ethics of simulated killing, while students studying
AQA Philosophy do not need to consider Natural Law or Situation Ethics. This
is not to say that there is not, we hope, some independent value in engaging
with these chapters as part of your wider reading.
However, the split is not always so clear. Both OCR and AQA require
students to engage with the theory of Utilitarianism, for example. However,
the specifications differ slightly and so not all of the content is relevant to
all students; relevance will depend on the course being sat. We suggest two
options in dealing with this:
e Early on in your course — engage with the content in the chapter
regardless of your specification. This should give you a full and
informed context in which to evaluate the theory.
e Later in your course and nearer exams — use your specification to
focus on the exact content that may figure in your exam. Your teacher
is best placed to advise you on this.
2. Book Structure
In writing this book we followed Andrew Fisher’s approach of focusing on the
judgement of the student in evaluating when they are being taught effectively.’
We take the student as authoritative on this matter; we want to create an
“engaged” student. To this end we include ways that students can check their
judgements on whether the material has taught them anything or not. For
example, we include sections on “Common Student Mistakes”, “Issues to
Consider” and “Key Terminology” within every chapter.
1 This approach can also be found in: Fisher and Tallant, How to Get Philosophy Students Talking.
Following the specification requirements of AQA and OCR, the book deals
with Normative Ethics, then Metaethics and finally Applied Ethics. What is the
difference?
Consider an analogy put forward by Andrew Fisher (2011).” Imagine that
ethics is like football.
e The normative ethicist is like a referee interested in the rules governing
play. What interests him is the general theories that govern our moral
behaviour; how do we work out what is right and what is wrong?
° The metaethicist is like a football commentator. What interests her is
how the very practice of ethics works. For example, the metaethicist
might discuss how people use moral language; or comment on the
psychology of immoral people; or ask whether moral properties exist.
e The Applied Ethicists are like the players. They “get their hands [or
feet] dirty”. They take the general rules of normative ethics and “play”
under them. What interests them is how we should act in specific
areas. For example, how should we deal with issues like meat-eating,
euthanasia or stealing?
So guided by the AQA and OCR exam specifications, you will find various
normative theories explained. You will then find those theories applied to real
life examples. Sandwiched between these is the Metaethics chapter which asks:
“But what is ethical practice?”
With all three types of ethics covered we hope to provide a good grounding
in ethics, both in terms of content and a general philosophical approach. Where
possible we give as many examples as possible and avoid technical jargon,
although sometimes we need to use specific philosophical terms. With this in
mind we have included an extensive Glossary at the end of the volume. Our
hope is that you will feel able to pick up this book dip into it, or read it from
cover to cover. Whatever you choose we hope you'll gain confidence with the
content needed for your exams, that you practice and strengthen your ability
to think with clear reasoning and with justification about the topics covered,
and get as excited and fascinated by ethics as we are.
References
Fisher, Andrew, Metaethics: An Introduction (Oxford: Routledge, 2011), https://
doi.org/10.1017/upo9781844652594
—, and Tallant, Jonathan, How to Get Students Talking: An Instructors Toolkit
(Oxford: Routledge, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670645
2 Fisher, Metaethics, pp. 1-4.
Introduction
1. Philosophy, Ethics and Thinking
Philosophy is hard. Part of the reason it can feel so annoying is because it seems
like it should not be hard. After all, philosophy just involves thinking, and we
all think — thinking is easy! We do it without...well, thinking. Yet philosophy
involves not just thinking, but thinking well. Of course it is true that we all think.
But thinking, like football, maths, baking and singing is something we can get
better at. Unfortunately, people rarely ask how. If you do not believe us, then
just open your eyes. Society might be a whole lot better off if we thought well,
more often.
Admittedly, doing A-Level Philosophy will not give you the ability to
solve the problems of the world; we are not that naive! But if you engage with
philosophy, then you will be developing yourself as a thinker who thinks well.
This is why A-Level Philosophy is useful not merely to would-be philosophers,
but also to any would be thinkers, perhaps heading off to make decisions in
law, medicine, structural engineering — just about anything that requires you
to think effectively and clearly.
However, if Philosophy is hard, then Ethics is really hard. This might
seem unlikely at first glance. After all, Ethics deals with issues of right and
wrong, and we have been discussing “what is right” and “what is wrong”
since we were children. Philosophy of Mind, on the other hand, deals with
topics like the nature of consciousness, while Metaphysics deals with the
nature of existence itself. Indeed, compared to understanding a lecture in
the Philosophy of Physics, arguing about the ethics of killing in video games
might seem something of a walk in the park. This is misleading, not because
other areas of philosophy are easy, but because the complexity of ethics is well
camouflaged.
2. Respecting Ethics
When you study A-Level Ethics, and you evaluate what is right and wrong, it
can be tempting and comforting to spend time simply defending your initial
views; few people would come to a debate about vegetarianism, or abortion,
without some pre-existing belief. If you are open-minded in your ethical
approach then you need not reject everything you currently believe, but you
rs
)
5
12)
3
ac}
©
a]
<
—!
should see these beliefs as starting points, or base camps, from which your
enquiry commences.
For example, why do you think that eating animals is OK, or that abortion
is wrong? If you think that giving to charity is good, what does “good” mean?
For true success, ethics requires intellectual respect. If you might think that a
particular position is obviously false, perhaps take this reaction as a red flag, as
it may suggest that you have missed some important step of an argument — ask
yourself why someone, presumably just as intellectually proficient as yourself,
might have once accepted that position.
If you are thinking well as an ethicist, then you are likely to have good
reasons for your views, and be prepared to rethink those views where you
cannot find such good reasons. In virtue of this, you are providing justification
for the beliefs you have. It is the philosopher’s job, whatever beliefs you have,
to ask why you hold those beliefs. What reasons might you have for those
beliefs?
For example, imagine the reason that you believe it is OK to eat meat is that
it tastes nice. As philosophers we can say that this is not a particularly good
reason. Presumably it might taste nice to eat your pet cat, or your neighbour,
or your dead aunt; but in these cases the “taste justification” seems totally
unimportant! The details of this debate are not relevant here (for more on this
topic see Chapter 14). The point is that there are good and bad reasons for our
beliefs and it is the philosopher’s job to reveal and analyse them.
3. The A-Level Student
Philosophy is more than just fact-learning, or a “history of ideas”. It is different
from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is
important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful
A-Level student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information in order
to both maneuverer past the exam hurdles and to become a better ethicist.
One aim of this book is to aid you in engaging with a living discipline.
Philosophy, and in particular Ethics, is a live and evolving subject. When
you study philosophy you are entering a dialogue with those that have gone
before you. Learning about what various philosophers think will enable you
to become clearer about what you think and add to that evolving dialogue.
You will notice that in this book we have not included “hints and tips
boxes”, or statements of biography concerning the scholars. Although these
things have their place, we did not want the reader to think that they have
learnt philosophy if they know what is in the boxes.
1 For an excellent introduction to good and bad ways of thinking we recommend John Hospers, ‘An
Introduction to Philosophical Analysis’.
In reality, university Philosophy departments often work with first year
students to lose some of their less academically successful habits. Why? Well,
one of the authors has taught ethics at university for many years. Philosophy
students often say something like this: “I thought we’d do hard stuff at
University! I did Utilitarianism at A-Level, can I have something different to
study, please?”
This statement reveals a whole host of things. Most important is the view
that to “do” ethics is to remember information. That is why a student can
say they have “done Utilitarianism”. They have learnt some key facts and
arguments. But philosophy is not like this. In order to understand philosophy
you need to be authentic with yourself and to ask what you think, using this
as a guide to critically analyse the ideas learned and lead yourself to your
own justifiable conclusion. Philosophy is a living and dynamic subject that we
cannot reduce to a few key facts, or a simplistic noting of what other people
have said.
Some people distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”. We do not. For
us, nothing hangs on the difference between them. In this book you will see us
switching between the terms, so do not get hung up on this distinction.
4. Doing Ethics Well: Legality versus Morality
Moral questions are distinct from legal questions, although, of course, moral
issues might have some implications for the law. That child labour is morally
unacceptable might mean that we have a law against it. But it is unhelpful to
answer whether something is morally right or wrong by looking to the laws of
the land. It is quite easy to see why. Imagine a country which has a set of actions
which are legally acceptable, but morally unacceptable or vice versa — the well-
used example of Nazi Germany brings to mind this distinction. Therefore, in
discussions about ethics do be wary of talking about legal issues. Much more
often than not, such points will be irrelevant.
5. Doing Ethics Well: Prudential Reasons versus Moral
Reasons
Something to keep separate are moral reasons and prudential reasons.
Prudential reasons relate to our personal reasons for doing things.
Consider some examples. When defending slavery, people used to cite
the fact that it supported the economy as a reason to keep it. It is true, of
course, that this is a reason; it is a prudential reason, particularly for those who
benefited from slavery such as traders or plantation owners. Yet, such a reason
does not help us with the moral question of slavery. We would say “OK, but
so what if it helps the economy! Is it right or wrong?”
=
)
=)
1)
3
ac}
.)
|
=
—]
rs]
)
5
12)
3
ac}
°
5
<
—!
6. Doing Ethics Well: Prescriptive versus Descriptive Claims
Another important distinction is between descriptive and prescriptive claims.
This is sometimes referred to as the “is/ought” gap. We return to this in later
chapters, especially Chapter 6. But it is such a common mistake made in
general ethical chat that we felt the need to underline it.
Consider some examples. Imagine the headline: “Scientists discover a gene
explaining why we want to punch people wearing red trousers”. The article includes
lots of science showing the genes and the statistical proof. Yet, none of this
will tells us whether acting violently towards people wearing red trousers is
morally acceptable. The explanation of why people feel and act in certain ways
leaves it open as to how people morally ought to act.
Consider a more serious example, relating to the ethics of eating meat.
Supporters of meat-eating often point to our incisor teeth. This shows that it is
natural for us to eat meat, a fact used as a reason for thinking that it is morally
acceptable to do so. But this is a bad argument. Just because we have incisors
does not tell us how we morally ought to behave. It might explain why we
find it easy to eat meat, and it might even explain why we like eating meat.
But this is not relevant to the moral question. Don’t you believe us? Imagine
that dentists discover that our teeth are “designed” to eat other humans alive.
What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive?
Nothing.
7. Doing Ethics Well: Thought-Experiments
You will also be aware, especially in reading this book, of the philosophical
device known as a “thought experiment”. These are hypothetical, sometimes
fanciful, examples that are designed to aid our thinking about an issue.
For example, imagine that you could travel back in time. You are pointing
a gun at your grandfather when he was a child. Would it be possible for you
to pull the trigger? Or, imagine that there is a tram running down a track. You
could stop it, thereby saving five people, by throwing a fat man under the
tracks. Is this the morally right thing to do?
The details here are unimportant. What is important, is that it is inadequate
to respond: “yes, but that could never happen!” Thought experiments are
devices to help us to think about certain issues. Whether they are possible in
real life does not stop us doing that thinking. Indeed, it is not just philosophy
that uses thought experiments. When Einstein asked what would happen if he
looked at his watch near a black hole, this was a thought experiment. In fact,
most other subjects use thought experiments. It is just that philosophy uses
them more frequently, and they are often a bit more bizarre.
8. Doing Ethics Well: Understanding Disagreement
Finally, we want to draw your attention to a common bad argument as we
want you to be aware of the mistake it leads to. Imagine that a group of friends
are arguing about which country has won the most Olympic gold medals.
Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general
ignorance and disagreement; but does this mean that there is not an answer to
the question of “which country has won the most Olympic gold medals?” No!
We cannot move from the fact that people disagree to the conclusion that there
is no answer. Now consider a parallel argument that we hear far too often.
Imagine that you and your friends are discussing whether euthanasia is
morally acceptable. Some say yes, the others say no. Each of you cite how
different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact — that
there is disagreement — mean that there is no answer to the question of whether
euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, the answer is no. That answer did not
follow in the Olympic case, and it does not follow in the moral one either. So
just because different cultures have different moral views, this does not show,
by itself, that there is no moral truth and no answer to the question.
If you are interested in the idea that there is a lack of moral truth in ethics,
then Moral Error Theorists defend exactly this position in the chapter on
Metaethics.
SUMMARY
You will not be assessed, by either AQA or OCR, on the core
content of this chapter. If any of the content is specifically relevant
to assessment, it is discussed in proper detail in the following
chapters.
Still, we hope that we have signposted some errors to avoid
when it comes to thinking about ethics, and some strategies to
consider instead. It may be worth occasionally revisiting the
ideas discussed here during your studies, to test your own lines
of argument and evaluate how “thinking well” is progressing for
you. This would not be a weakness! Both the authors, and any
honest philosopher, can reassure you — philosophy is hard! We
hope you find this textbook useful and rewarding in helping you
on your own journey through Ethics.
<
)
a
1)
3
ac}
.)
as]
5
—
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
How would you explain what philosophy is to someone?
Do you think philosophy is important? If yes, why? If no, why?
=
i}
|
1)
i=}
uo}
i}
=
~_
=
—
1
2
3. List some ethical questions.
4
Can you figure out if your questions are Normative, Applied, or
Metaethical?
5. Is there a link be between Applied, Normative and Metaethics? Which
type of ethics do you think it would be best to study first, and which
last?
What is the difference between prudential and moral reasons?
What is meant by the “is/ought” gap? Why is it important to remember
when discussing ethical questions?
What role, if any, does science have in ethical arguments?
9. What are thought experiments? Why might they be useful to
philosophers?
10. “Because there are so many different views on moral issues there cannot
be any moral truth”. What do you think of this line of argument?
References
Hospers, John, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, 4th ed. (New York
and London: Routledge, 1997), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714454
PART I
NORMATIVE ETHICS
peel
animals era always Hedonic A
question Caleulus “experience | roe
4
simation
quahty fedwed g
atanism
b 1) nee according : des
= Z S
many 8, : Ge s
iio By Net 7 utilitarian
en must 2 §. SD? Fedonie mc . ]'go PSO calelcion & &
veisopreference Cxam le
Mill's -28 ‘ZOO od at amount be 5 P
poise a megs sae einen of = ry ui at 5
Bent aM orally Mill life wee
i émay ad hosed sd
"also action’ — —_
g
4 Fie
easton
utilitarian
CHAPTER 1
Utilitarianism
Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. It forces people who like something a bit mainstream,
a bit of pop like Girls Aloud or Take That! or ABBA to say “It’s my guilty pleasure!” I hate that
phrase. It is an insult to top quality pop. It is also an insult to guilt.
Dara O Briain (comedian)
1. Utilitarianism: An Introduction
Some things appear to be straightforwardly good for people. Winning the
lottery, marrying your true love or securing a desired set of qualifications all
seem to be examples of events that improve a person’s life. As a normative
ethical theory, Utilitarianism suggests that we can decide what is morally
right or morally wrong by weighing up which of our future possible actions
promotes such goodness in our lives and the lives of people more generally.
2. Hedonism
Hedonism is a theory of well-being — a theory of how well a life is going
for the person living that life. What separates Hedonism from other theories
of well-being is that the hedonist believes that what defines a successful life
is directly related to the amount of pleasure in that life; no other factors are
relevant at all. Therefore, the more pleasure that a person experiences in their
life then the better their life goes, and vice versa. Whereas other theories might
focus on fulfilling desires people have, or an objective list of things such as
friendship and health.
The roots of Hedonism can be traced back at least as far as Epicurus (341-270
BC) and Ancient Greece. Epicurus held the hedonistic view that the primary
intrinsic good for a person is pleasure; meaning that pleasure is always good
for a person in and of itself, irrespective of the cause or context of the pleasure.
According to this theory pleasure is always intrinsically good for a person and
less pleasure is always intrinsically bad.
Hedonism is a relatively simple theory of what makes your life better. If you
feel that your life would be better if you won the lottery, married your true
WN
S
x
iz
ea)
sa
2
=
=
4
O
Z
love or achieved your desired qualifications, then the hedonistic explanation of
these judgments is that these things are good for you only if they provide you
with pleasure. Many pleasures may be physical, but Fred Feldman (1941-) is a
defender of a theory known as Attitudinal Hedonism. According to this theory,
psychological pleasures can themselves count as intrinsically good for a person.
So, while reading a book would not seem to produce pleasure in a physical
way, a hedonist may value the psychological pleasure associated with that
act of reading and thus accept that it can improve a person’s well-being. This
understanding of hedonistic pleasure may help to explain why, for example,
one person can gain so much pleasure from a Lady Gaga album while another
gains nothing at all; the psychological responses to the music differ.
3. Nozick’s Experience Machine
One important problem for Hedonism is that our well-being seems to be
affected by more than just the total pleasure in our lives. It may be the case
that you enjoy gaining a new qualification, but there seems to be more to the
value of this event than merely the pleasure produced. Many people agree
that success in gaining a meaningful qualification improves your life even if
no pleasure is obtained from it. Certainly, many believe that the relationship
between what improves your life and what gives pleasure is not directly
proportional, as the hedonist would claim.
Robert Nozick (1938-2002) attacked the hedonistic idea that pleasure is
the only good by testing our intuitions via a now famous thought-experiment.
Nozick asks:
Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Super-
duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were
writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would
be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine
for life, pre-programming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank you won't know
that you're there; you'll think that it’s all actually happening [...] would you plug in?!
Nozick’s challenge to Hedonism is based on the thought that most people who
consider this possible situation would opt not to plug in. Indeed, if you ask
yourself if you would actually choose to leave behind your real friends, family
and life in favour of a pre-programmed existence you also might conclude
that plugging into the experience machine would not be desirable. However,
if Hedonism is correct and our well-being is determined entirely by the
amount of pleasure that we experience, then Nozick wonders “what else can
matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?”* The experience
1 R. Nozick, ‘The Experience Machine’, p. 292.
2 ~~ Ibid.
machine guarantees us pleasure yet we find it unappealing compared to a real
life where pleasure is far from assured. This may suggest that our well-being
is determined by other factors in addition to how much pleasure we secure,
perhaps knowledge or friendships.
The hedonists need not give way entirely on this point, of course, as they
may feel that the experience machine is desirable just because it guarantees
experiences of pleasure. Or, you might believe that our suspicions about
the machine are misplaced. After all, once inside the machine we would not
suspect that things were not real. You may feel that the hedonist could bite-the-
bullet (accept the apparently awkward conclusion as a non-fatal implication
of the theory) and say that any reticence to enter the machine is irrational.
Perhaps the lives of those choosing to be plugged in to the machine would go
extraordinary well!
4. The Foundations of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the first of the “classical utilitarians”. Driven
by a genuine desire for social reform, Bentham wanted to be as much involved
in law, politics and economics as abstract philosophising.
Bentham developed his moral theory of Utilitarianism on the foundation
of the type of hedonistic thinking described in section two. For Bentham, the
only thing that determines the value of a life, or indeed the value of an event
or action, is the amount of pleasure contained in that life, or the amount of
pleasure produced as a result of that event or action. Bentham is a hedonistic
utilitarian. This belief in Hedonism, however, was not something that Bentham
took to be unjustified or arbitrary; for him Hedonism could be empirically
justified by evidence in the world in its favour. According to Bentham:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.*
Bentham moves from this empirical claim about the factors that guide our
behaviour to a normative claim about how we ought to live. He creates a moral
theory based on the bringing about of more pleasure and less pain.
When first understanding Utilitarianism, it is also crucial to understand
what is meant by the term “utility”. Bentham defined it as “[...] that property
in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good,
or happiness [...] or [...] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or
unhappiness” .* Utility is thus promoted when pleasure is promoted and when
3 J. Bentham, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and Other
Essays, p. 65.
4 Ibid., p. 66.
5
-
=|
ty}
=
Ll
iy
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
W
=
x
e
aa
a
2
<
=
a4
le)
Z
unhappiness is avoided. Bentham’s commitment to Hedonism means for him
that goodness is just an increase in pleasure, and evil or unhappiness is just an
increase in pain or decrease in pleasure. With this understanding of utility in
mind, Bentham commits himself to the Principle of Utility:
By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to
promote or to oppose that happiness.°
In effect, this principle simply says that promoting utility, defined in terms of
pleasure, is to be approved of and reducing utility is to be disapproved of.
The Principle of Utility, backed by a commitment to Hedonism, underpins
the central utilitarian claim made by Bentham. Based on a phrase that he
wrongly attributed to Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), Bentham suggests that
the measure of right and wrong is the extent to which an action produces the
greatest good for the greatest number of people. Of course, what counts as
good, for Bentham, is pleasure. We can then rephrase what Bentham himself
call his fundamental axiom as a requirement to promote the greatest pleasure for
the greatest number of people, in order to act morally.
5. The Structure of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
In addition to being hedonistic, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also:
1. Consequentialist/Teleological
2. Relativist
3. Maximising
4. Impartial
Bentham’s Utilitarianism is consequentialist because the moral value of an action
or event is determined entirely by the consequences of that event. The theory is
also described as teleological for the same reason, based on the Greek word telos
that means “end” or “purpose”. If more pleasure follows as a consequence of
“Action A” rather than “Action B”, then according to the fundamental axiom of
Utilitarianism “Action A” should be undertaken and is morally right; choosing
“Action B” would be morally wrong.
In addition, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is Relativistic rather than Absolutist.
Absolutist moral views hold that certain actions will always be morally wrong
irrespective of context or consequences. For example, many campaigning
groups suggest that torture is always morally unacceptable whether it is
5 Ibid., p. 65.
carried out by vindictive dictators seeking to instil fear in a population or
whether it is authorised by democratically elected governments seeking to
obtain information in order to stop a terrorist attack. For absolutists then, the
act of torture is absolutely wrong in all cases and situations.
Clearly, Bentham cannot hold this type of view because sometimes the
pain involved in torture may lead to the promotion of greater pleasure (or less
intense pain) overall, such as in the case where torture stops a terrorist atrocity.
On this basis, the Benthamite utilitarian must believe that whether a certain
action is right or wrong is always relative to the situation in which the action
takes place.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism is maximising because it does not merely require
that pleasure is promoted, but that the greatest pleasure for the greatest number
is secured. This means that some actions that lead to pleasure will still not
be morally good acts if another action that could have produced even more
pleasure in that setting was rejected. Thus, for example, if you gain some
pleasure from spending money on a new book, but that money could have
produced more pleasure had it been donated to a local charity for the homeless,
then buying a new book would be morally wrong even though it led to some
pleasure because it did not maximise the total amount of pleasure that was
possible in that circumstance.
Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also impartial in the sense that what
matters is simply securing the maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum
number of people; the theory does not give special preference regarding
which people are supposed to have access to, or share in, that total pleasure.
Bentham’s utilitarian theory is associated with the idea of equal consideration of
interests; as long as total pleasure is maximised then it does not matter if that
pleasure is experienced by royalty, presidents, siblings, children, friends or
enemies. In the total calculation of pleasure, we are all equal regardless of our
status, behaviour or any other social factor.
6. Hedonic Calculus
Hopefully it is now clear that for Bentham the consequences in terms of
pleasure production of any action are what determine the morality of that
action, and that no other factors are relevant. However, it is not clear how
exactly we should go about working out what to do in specific cases. For
example:
You are a military airman flying a fighter jet that is about to intercept a passenger airliner that
seems to have been hijacked by an as yet unknown figure. The plane appears to be on a path
that could take it either to an airport or, potentially, directly to a major and highly populated
city. You are tasked with deciding how to act and must, therefore, choose whether or not to
5
-_
=|
iy}
=
Lo!
iy
_
=
=
=
~
=)
W
=
x
ll
aa
a
2
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
fire a missile at the plane. Firing at the plane would kill the passengers but save all lives on
the ground, yet not firing may save the passengers, or it may give the passengers only a few
more minutes before the plane is flown into a city full of innocents and they are killed in any
case. Suggesting that the pilot weigh up the options and choose the action that secures the
greatest pleasure for the greatest number is not obviously helpful in making such a difficult
decision with so many variables.
Bentham recognised that such Problems of Calculation relating to the pleasure
associated with future actions needed addressing in order for Utilitarianism to
be a workable moral theory. Bentham therefore created the Hedonic Calculus
(sometimes known as the Felicific Calculus) in order to help an individual
work out how much pleasure would be created by differing possible actions.
The Hedonic Calculus, as suggested by Bentham, is based on assessing possible
pleasures according to their:
1. Intensity
Duration
Certainty
Remoteness (i.e. how far into the future the pleasure is)
7 Ff 2 N
Fecundity (i.e. how likely it is that pleasure will generate other related
pleasures)
6. Purity (i.e. if any pain will be felt alongside that pleasure)
7. Extent (i.e. how many people might be able to share in that pleasure)°
The Hedonic Calculus is therefore supposed to provide a decision-procedure
for a utilitarian who is confused as to how to act in a morally tricky situation.
Thus, our fighter-pilot might consider the intensity of the pleasure of surviving
versus the duration of the pain of death, while also needing to balance these
factors against the relative certainty of the possible pains or pleasures. No
doubt, the fighter pilot would still face an agonising moral choice but it
seems that he would at least have some methodology for working out what
Utilitarianism morally requires of him.
7. Problems with Bentham’s Utilitarianism
However, whether or not measuring possible actions in terms of “units of
pleasure” associated with them is actually plausible is very much an open
question and so the problem of calculation is not necessarily solved simply
by the existence of the Hedonic Calculus. Consider the most recent highly
pleasurable experience that you enjoyed and compare it to a highly pleasurable
experience from earlier in your life. It may be that you cannot say confidently
6 Ibid., p. 87.
that one provided more pleasure than the other, especially if the experiences
were extremely varied; perhaps winning a sporting trophy versus going on
your first holiday. Pleasures that are so fundamentally different in nature may
simply be incommensurable — they may be incapable of being measured by a
common standard such as the Hedonic Calculus.
In addition, the problem of calculation can be extended beyond the issues
raised above. Remember that Bentham’s Utilitarianism is impartial in the sense
that all individuals who gain pleasure as a result of a certain action count
towards the total amount of pleasure. However, the following case raises the
Problem of Relevant Beings:
You are considering whether or not to approve a new housing development on a piece of
unoccupied land outside the current boundary of your town. You are clear that, if approved,
the development will create a great deal of pleasure for both new residents and construction
workers without any pain being experienced by others. You are aware, however, that
the development will require the culling of several badgers and the removal of a habitat
currently supporting many birds, stray cats and rodents of various types.
On the surface, this case should be obvious for the utilitarian without any
special problem of calculation; the greatest good for the greatest number
would be secured if the development were permitted to go ahead. However,
this assumes that non-human animals are not relevant to the calculation of
pleasures and pains. Yet, if pleasure is all that matters for how well a life goes
then it is not clear why animals, that may be able to experience some form of
pleasure and can almost certainly experience pain, should be excluded from
the calculation process.
Indeed, Bentham, when referring to the moral value of animals, noted that:
“The question (for deciding moral relevance) is not ‘Can they reason?’, nor
‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?” If the suffering and pain of humans is
relevant to moral calculations then surely it is at least plausible that so should
the suffering and pain of non-human animals. (There is more on the issue of
the moral status of animals in Chapter 14 when the morality of eating animals
is investigated.)
Being a maximising ethical theory, Utilitarianism is also open to a
Demandingness Objection. If it is not the case that pleasure needs to be merely
promoted but actually maximised at all opportunities, then the standard for
acting morally appears to be set extremely high. For example, did you buy a
doughnut at some point this year or treat yourself to a magazine? Live the life
of a high-roller and treat yourself to a taxi ride rather than walking to your
destination? While your actions certainly brought about differing degrees of
pleasure to both yourself and to those who gained economic benefit from your
7 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, http://www.econlib.org/library/
Bentham/bnthPML18.html
5
-
=|
iy}
=
Lan!
iy
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
W
S
x
=
ea)
aa
>
=
=
4
O
Z
decision, it seems that you could have created much more pleasure by saving
up your money and ensuring it reached those suffering extreme financial
hardships or residing in poverty around the world. As a result of being a
maximising moral theory, Utilitarianism seems to make immorality very hard
to avoid as it is so utterly demanding on our behaviour.
A further problem for Utilitarianism relates to the Tyranny of the Majority.
Remember that as a relativistic moral theory, Utilitarianism does not allow for
any moral absolutes — such as the absolute right to democracy, or absolute
legal or basic human rights. Indeed, Bentham himself dismissed the idea of
‘natural rights” as a nonsensical concept masqueraded as a meaningful one.
However, if we accept that absolute rights are simply “nonsense upon stilts”
“
as Bentham put it, then Utilitarianism seems to be open to cases where the
majority are morally required to exploit the minority for the greater good of
maximising total pleasure. For example, imagine that total pleasure would
be maximised if the resources of a small country were forcibly taken from
them to be used freely and exploited by the people of a much larger country
(this is hardly unrealistic). However, such forceful theft — only justified by
the fact that a greater majority of people would gain pleasure — does not
seem to be morally justifiable. Yet, according to Utilitarianism’s commitment
to maximising pleasure, such an action would not only be morally acceptable
but it would be morally required.
As a consequentialist/teleological moral theory Utilitarianism is also
open to the Problem of Wrong Intentions. This problem can be highlighted by
considering the cases of Dominic and Callum.
Dominic is seating in a coffee shop when a masked intruder bursts in threatening to rob the
shop. Dominic, with the intention of saving lives, attempts to stop the intruder but sadly, in
the ensuing struggle, the intruder’s gun is accidentally fired and an innocent person is killed.
Now, consider a second case where an intruder bursts in with a gun but Callum, rather
than trying to intervene, immediately ducks for cover with the intention of saving himself
and leaving the rest of the customers to fend for themselves. Luckily for Callum, when he
ducks for cover he accidentally trips into the would-be thief, knocking him unconscious
thus allowing his peaceful detention until police arrive.
According to the utilitarian calculation, Callum acted in a way that maximised
pleasure while Dominic acted wrongly because the consequence of his act was
tragic pain. However, it seems unfair and wrong to suggest that Callum acted
rightly when he had just intended to save himself, although he had a lucky
outcome, while Dominic acted wrongly when his intention was to save others
but was unlucky in his outcome. Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist theory,
ignores intentions and focuses only on consequences.
Utilitarianism also faces the Problem of Partiality. This is clear if we consider
the familiar moral dilemma of being stuck on a life raft with three other people
but with only enough supplies for two people. On the raft with you is a doctor
who is confident that he can pass on a cure for cancer if he survives, a world
class violinist who brings pleasure to millions each year, and one of your
parents or siblings. I am afraid to report that, for the purposes of this example,
your parent or sibling is nothing special in comparison to other individuals
on the raft. In this circumstance, Utilitarianism would seem to require you
not only to give up your own space on the raft but ensure that your parent or
sibling joins you in the freezing water with no hope of survival; this is the way
of maximising total pleasure in such a scenario. Yet, even if you believe that the
morality might call for your own self-sacrifice, it seems extremely unfair not to
allow you to give extra moral weight to the life of a loved one. Unfortunately for
the utilitarian, perhaps, the status as a beloved family member should make
no special difference to your judgment regarding how to act. This seems to be
not only over-demanding but also overly cold and calculating. Utilitarianism
requires Agent-Neutrality — you must look at the situation as any neutral
observer would and not give special preference to anyone irrespective of your
emotional attachments, because each individual must count for one and no
more than one.
Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianism also comes under attack from the related
Integrity Objection, framed most prominently by Bernard Williams (1929-
2003). As an agent-neutral theory, no person can give up impartiality when it
comes to judgements about the impact of a potential action upon their family
or loved ones. In addition, no person can give up impartiality when it comes
to the impact of an action upon their own feelings, character and general sense
of integrity. In order to make clear the potential worry associated with this,
Williams describes the fictional case of Jim and the Indians.®
Jim is an explorer who stumbles upon an Indian leader who is about to execute twenty
people. Jim knows nothing of their possible crimes or any other factors involved, but he is
offered a difficult choice by the Indian chief who is eager to impress his foreign traveller.
Jim can either shoot one of the prisoners himself and then the rest will be set free as a mark
of celebration, or he can refuse the offer in which case all twenty prisoners will be executed
as was planned. It is key to note that Jim does not have control of the situation in the sense
that he is powerless to bargain or negotiate with anyone, and nor can he use a weapon to
successfully free any prisoners. He has only the two options laid out.
The point of this example is not to establish what the right action is. You may
find yourself in agreement with utilitarians who suggest Jim must shoot
one prisoner in order to save the lives of the rest. Rather, the purpose of the
example is to show that Utilitarianism forces us to reach this conclusion too
quickly. Given the commitment to Agent-Neutrality, Jim must treat himself as
a neutral observer working out which action will produce the greatest good
8B. Williams, ‘Jim and the Indians’, https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Jim_and_
Indians.pdf
5
=
a
iy}
=
Lo!
iy]
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
W
S
x
=
ea)
sa
=
=
=
4
O
Z
for the greatest number. Morally, he is not entitled to give more weight to his
own feelings than he would give to the feelings of any other and therefore
it does not matter whether Jim is a pacifist and has been a lifelong advocate
for prisoner reform and rehabilitation. If the utilitarian calculation suggests
that he must shoot one of the prisoners then he must shoot with no regard to
any compromising of his integrity and self-identity. You may accept this as an
unfortunate consequence of a terrible situation, but it may be a problem for
a moral theory if it fails to recognise or respect a person’s most sincere and
deepest convictions.
8. Mill’s Utilitarian Proof
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was concerned by many of the problems
facing the utilitarian theory put forward by Bentham, but as a hedonist he
did not wish to see the theory rejected. Mill sought to refine and improve
the Benthamite utilitarian theory in order to create a successful version of
Hedonistic Utilitarianism.
Mill was so confident about the prospects for a version of Hedonistic
Utilitarianism because he believed that there was an empirically backed proof
available to support the principle that the greatest happiness/pleasure should
always be secured for the greatest number.’ Mill’s proof, much like Bentham’s
empirical defence of Hedonism, relies on the evidence from observation that
people desire their own happiness. This observation of fact supports Mill’s
claim that since people desire their own happiness, this is evidence that such
happiness is desirable. Mill says “...each person’s happiness is a good to that
person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all
persons”.'° Since our happiness is good for us, and general happiness is just
the total of the happiness of all persons, then general happiness is also good.
To put it another way, if individual happiness is a good worth pursuing then
happiness in general must be worth pursuing.
In order to justify Hedonism, Mill sought to justify the claim that the good
of happiness is the only thing that makes our lives go better. Mill defends this
claim by suggesting that knowledge, health and freedom etc. (as other plausible
goods that might make a life go better) are only valuable in so far as they bring
about happiness. Knowledge is desired only because it provides happiness when
acquired, not because it, by itself and in isolation, makes life go better.
Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism in terms of the general desirability of
maximising total happiness is, however, open to criticism. For one thing,
9 This slippage from talk of “pleasure” to talk of “happiness” is explained in section eight of this
chapter.
10 J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, p. 308.
the fact that something is desired does not seem to justify the claim that it is
desirable. G. E. Moore (1873-1958) points out that Mill moves from the factual
sense that something is desirable if it is desired to the normative sense that it
should be desired without any justification. It is possible, for example, to desire
to kill another person. This is desirable in the sense people could and do desire
it (it is possible to do so — it is an action that is desire-able), but not in the sense
that we would want them to desire it.
In addition, the idea that other apparent goods, such as knowledge and
health, are only valuable in so far as they promote happiness/pleasure is
extremely controversial; can you imagine a situation in which you gained
value from knowledge without any associated pleasure or happiness? If so,
you may have a counter example to Mill’s claim.
9. Mill’s Qualitative Utilitarianism
In attempting to redraw Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Mill’s most substantial
thought was to move away from Bentham’s idea that all that mattered was
the quantity of total pleasure. Instead, Mill thought that quality of pleasure was
also crucial to deciding what is moral.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism is quantitative in the sense that all Bentham
focusses on is the maximisation of hedonically calculated quantities of total
pleasure. Thus, he says that “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal
value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry”."' All that matters for
Bentham is producing pleasure and the way this is achieved is unimportant.
If playing on a console affords you more pleasure than reading Shakespeare,
then Bentham would view your life as going better if you play the console.
However, Mill introduces a quality criterion for pleasure. Mill says that:
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only
know their own side of the question.’
Bentham could not admit that the unhappy Socrates would be living a life
with more value than the happier fool. Mill, on the other hand, believes that
quality, not merely quantity, of pleasure matters and can therefore defend the
claim that Socrates has the better life even by hedonistic standards.
According to Mill, higher pleasures are worth more than lower pleasures.
Higher pleasures are those pleasures of the intellect brought about via
activities like poetry, reading or attending the theatre. Lower pleasures are
animalistic and base; pleasures associated with drinking beer, having sex or
11 J. Bentham, The Rationale of Reward, p. 206, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLgg8C
12 J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, p. 281.
5
-
=|
ty}
=
an!
iy
-_—
-
=
=
~
=)
W
=
x
e
aa
a
2
<
=
a4
e)
Z
lazing on a sun-lounger. What we should seek to maximise are the higher
quality pleasures even if the total pleasure (hedonically calculated via
Bentham’s calculus) turns out to be quantitatively lower as a result. Justifying
this distinction between higher and lower quality pleasures as non-arbitrary
and not just an expression of his own tastes, Mill says that competent judges,
those people who have experienced both types of pleasure, are best placed
to select which pleasures are higher and lower. Such competent judges, says
Mill, would and do favour pleasures of the intellect over the base pleasures
of the body. On this basis, Mill is open to the criticism that many people have
both read books and drunk beer and that if given the choice would choose
the latter. Whether or not Mill’s defence of his supposedly non-prejudiced
distinction of higher and lower pleasures is successful is an open question for
your evaluation and analysis.
10. Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism versus Bentham’s Act
Utilitarianism
In addition to a difference in views regarding the importance of the quality of
a pleasure, Mill and Bentham are also separated by reference to Act and Rule
Utilitarianism and although such terms emerged only after Mill’s death, Mill
is typically considered a rule utilitarian and Bentham an act utilitarian.
An act utilitarian, such as Bentham, focuses only on the consequences of
individual actions when making moral judgments. However, this focus on
the outcome of individual acts can sometimes lead to odd and objection-
raising examples. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-) raised the problem of the
“transplant surgeon”.
Imagine a case where a doctor had five patients requiring new organs to stop their death
and one healthy patient undergoing a routine check. In this case, it would seem that total
pleasure is best promoted by killing the one healthy patient, harvesting his organs and
saving the other five lives; their pleasure outweighs the cost to the formerly healthy patient.
While Bentham does suggest that we should have “rules of thumb” against
such actions, for typically they will lead to unforeseen painful consequences,
in the case as simply described the act utilitarian appears powerless to deny
that such a killing is required in order to maximise total pleasure (just add
your own details to secure this conclusion for the act utilitarian).
Rule utilitarians, in whose camp we can place Mill, adopt a different moral
decision-procedure. Their view is that we should create a set of rules that,
if followed, would produce the greatest amount of total happiness. In the
transplant case, killing the healthy man would not seem to be part of the best set
13 J.J. Thomson, ‘The Trolley Problem’, p. 1396.
of utilitarian-justified rules since a rule allowing the killing of healthy patients
would not seem to promote total happiness; one outcome, for example, would
be that people would very likely stop coming to hospitals for fear for their life!
Therefore, if a rule permitting killing was allowed then the maximisation of
total happiness would not be promoted overall.
It is through Rule Utilitarianism that we can make sense of Mill’s “harm
principle”. According to Mill, there is:
...one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control.“
That principle is:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral,
is not a sufficient warrant.’
Even if a particular act of harming another person might bring about an
increase in total pleasure on a single occasion, that act may not be condoned
by the set of rules that best promotes total pleasure overall. As such, the action
would not be morally permitted.
11. Strong versus Weak Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarians may seem to avoid troubling cases like the transplant surgeon
and be able to support and uphold individual human and legal rights based on
rules that reflect the harm principle. This fact would also help rule utilitarians
overcome objections based on the treatment of minorities because exploitation
of minority groups would, perhaps, fail to be supported by the best utilitarian-
justified set of rules. Yet, rule utilitarians face a troubling dilemma:
1. Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Guidance from the set of rules that, if
followed, would promote the greatest amount of total happiness must
always be followed.
2. Weak Rule Utilitarianism: Guidance from the set of rules that, if followed,
would promote the greatest amount of total happiness can be ignored
in circumstances where more happiness would be produced by
breaking the rule.
The strong rule utilitarian appears to suffer from what J. J. C. Smart (1920-
2012) described as “Rule Worship”. No longer focussing on the consequences
of the action before them, the strong rule utilitarian appears to ignore the
14 J. S. Mill, On Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html
15 Ibid.
5
-
=|
ty}
-
La!
iy
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
WN
Y
x
eS
ea)
sa
2
=
=
4
O
Z
option to maximise total happiness in favour of following a general and non-
relative rule regarding how to act. The strong rule utilitarian may be able to
avoid problems based on treatment of minorities or a lack of absolute legal
and human rights, but it is not clear that they survive these problems holding
on to a teleological, relativistic utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism seems to be
saved from troubling implications only by denying core features.
On the other hand, while Weak Rule Utilitarianism retains a teleological
nature it appears to collapse into Act Utilitarianism. The rules provide
guidelines that can be broken, and given that the act utilitarian can also offer
“rules of thumb” against actions that tend not to produce maximum goodness
or utility in general, such as killing healthy patients, it is not clear where this
version of Rule Utilitarianism gains a unique identity. In what cases would
Act Utilitarianism and Weak Rule Utilitarianism actually provide different
moral guidance? This is something you should consider in the light of your
own examples or previous examples in this chapter.
12. Comparing the Classical Utilitarians
Bentham
°¢ Hedonist
e All pleasure equally valuable
¢ Act Utilitarian
¢ Teleological, impartial, relativistic, maximising
° Hedonist
° Quality of pleasure matters: intellectual versus animalistic
° Viewed as rule utilitarian
° — If strong rule utilitarian, not clear if teleological or relativistic
e Impartial, maximising theory
13. Non-Hedonistic Contemporary Utilitarianism:
Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is not a dead theory and it did not end with Mill. Henry
Sidgwick (1838-1900) is considered to have taken over the baton after Mill,
and R. M. Hare (1919-2002) was perhaps chief advocate in the mid twentieth
century. However, few contemporary philosophers can claim as much
influence in public life outside philosophy as can the preference utilitarian,
Peter Singer (1946-).
Singer advocates a non-hedonistic version of Utilitarianism. His utilitarian
theory is teleological, maximising, impartial and relativistic but he does not
claim that the greatest good for the greatest number can be reduced to pleasure
in either raw or higher forms. Instead, Singer believes that what improves
a person’s life is entirely determined by the satisfaction of their preferences.
If you satisfy your preference to achieve a good qualification your life goes
better in virtue of satisfying that preference. If someone else desires to get a job
rather than continue in education, their life goes better for them if they secure
their preference and gain employment. Individuals, according to Singer, must
be at the core of moral thinking:
There would be something incoherent about living a life where the conclusions you came to in
ethics did not make any difference to your life. It would make it an academic exercise. The whole
point about doing ethics is to think about the way to live. My life has a kind of harmony between
my ideas and the way I live. It would be highly discordant if that was not the case.'®
On this basis, when making moral decisions we should consider how best to
ensure the maximisation of total preference satisfaction — it does not matter
if our preference satisfaction fails to provide pleasure for us. Continuing to
follow Bentham’s commitment to impartiality, Singer also supports equal
weighing of preferences when deciding which action better promotes greater
preference satisfaction; all preferences are to weigh equally. This potentially
leaves Singer open to the same issues that plagued Bentham. Namely,
regarding circumstances where partiality seems desirable, or when the
preferences of the majority seem to threaten a minority group, or require us
to sacrifice our integrity. Further, the problem of calculation also seems to be
relevant, because it is not obvious how you could work out the preferences
of others in at least some difficult moral cases (let alone the preferences of
animals, if they are also relevant).
In response to a concern regarding the moral relevance of satisfying
bloodthirsty or apparently immoral preferences, and counting such satisfaction
as a moral achievement (consider the preferences of a nation of paedophiles,
for example), we might look to the ideas of Richard Brandt (1910-1997).
Brandt, writing about the rationality of certain preferences, suggested that
rational preferences were those that might survive cognitive psychotherapy.”
However, there is a question as to how arbitrary this requirement is and
whether or not some unnerving preferences might form the core of certain
individual characters therefore being sustained even after such therapy.
16 K. Toolis, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/
nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis
17 R. Brandt, Ethical Theory.
5
-
=|
ty}
=
Ln!
iy}
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
WN
Y
x
7
id
sa
=
5
=
a4
O
Z
SUMMARY
Utilitarianism remains a living theory and retains hedonistic and
non-hedonistic advocates, as well as supporters of both act and
rule formulations. The core insight that consequences matter
gives the theory some intuitive support even in the light of
hypothetical cases that pose serious problems for utilitarians. The
extent to which the different versions of Utilitarianism survive
their objections is very much up to you as a critically-minded
philosopher to decide.
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Not reflecting the attitudinal aspect of pleasure that Bentham’s theory
may account for.
Minimising the long-term impact of actions when it comes to pleasure/
pain production.
Imprecise understanding of the hedonic/non-hedonic split in
Utilitarianism.
Imprecision in use of examples to defend/challenge Utilitarianism.
Suggesting that “Jim and the Indians” is not a counterexample to
Utilitarianism simply because you judge killing the fewer number of
people is ultimately the morally right thing to do.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1.
Is there anything that would improve your life that cannot be reduced
to either pleasure or preference satisfaction?
Would you enter Nozick’s experience machine if you knew you
would not come out? Would you put someone you care about into the
machine while they were asleep, so that they never had to make the
decision?
Can pleasure be measured? Does Bentham go about this task correctly?
4. Which is the most serious problem facing Bentham’s Act
Utilitarianism? Can it be overcome?
5. Does Mill successfully improve Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism in any
way?
5
-
=|
ty}
=
La!
iy
-_
=
=
=
~
=)
6. Are you ever told to stop watching television and do something else? Is
this good for you? Why?
7. Look at the quote at the start of the chapter by Dara O Briain — is it
possible that some pleasures are inferior in value to others?
8. Do you have convictions or beliefs you would not want to sacrifice for
the greater good, should you ever be forced to?
9. Why do utilitarians not give up on the idea of maximising pleasure and
just talk in terms of promoting sufficient pleasure? Would this solve or
raise problems?
10. Is Weak Rule Utilitarianism merely Act Utilitarianism by another
name?
11. Does Strong Rule Utilitarianism deserve to be labelled as a utilitarian
theory?
12. If your preferences change after psychotherapy, did the original
preferences ever matter?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Normative Agent-Neutrality
Relativistic Hedonic Calculus
Teleological Utility
Consequentialist Intrinsic
Principle of Utility
WN
Y
x
ee
i
=
iS
<
=
4
O
Zz
References
Bentham, Jeremy, The Rationale of Reward (London: Robert Heward, 1830),
freely available at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLge8C
—, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in
Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. by Alan Ryan (London: Penguin Books,
2004).
—, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, freely available at
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html
Brandt, Richard, Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1959).
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (London: Longman, Roberts, Green & Co., 1869),
freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html
—, ‘Utilitarianism’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. by Alan Ryan
(London: Penguin Books, 2004).
—, Utilitarianism, freely available at https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm
Nozick, Robert, ‘The Experience Machine’, in Ethical Theory, ed. by Russ
Shafer-Landau (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, ‘The Trolley Problem’, The Yale Law Journal, 94.6
(1985): 1395-415, https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
Toolis, Kevin, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, the Guardian (6
November 1999), freely available at https://www.theguardian.com/
lifeandstyle/1999/nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis
Williams, Bernard, ‘Jim and the Indians’, in his A Critique of Utilitarianism,
freely available at https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/
Jim_and_Indians.pdf
treating
ey) whether consequences
3 an 3 people= following everyone 8
z ... a sy i circumstances fecognee -
= | ccc ake | ast - f. desires person
=o 10) ag
2€ might acting wrong “ — y tt irrespective 2
. h inks” imperative = mus ctions So way ~ 2Il ht re =m asks
‘ching s 1 treat i 7) ri fally-© we $44 0 rather
poontradiction. though { e) oc he. a Sp “gs someone
— end ration na a 2S oo ithink ¢ " Be ut sing
bs friend 5 (<0) tules , whenever E | 4 Y
@MmMaxim 53 mM 8 rs] cares ED § lie , 4
| S| aD) worth promise @) gd Wik? au, =
© ;
oD
2
ec thinking ‘ Categorical Imagine formulation
‘eason always
like
waking
CHAPTER 2
Kantian Ethics
In spite of its horrifying title Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals is one of
the small books which are truly great; it has exercised on human thought an influence almost
ludicrously disproportionate to its size.'
1. An Introduction to Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg in East Prussia, where he
died in 1804. Kant is famous for revolutionising how we think about just about
every aspect of the world — including science, art, ethics, religion, the self
and reality. He is one of the most important thinkers of all time, which is even
more remarkable by the fact that Kant is a truly awful writer. His sentences are
full of technical language, are very long, and are incredibly dense. You have
been warned!
Kant is a rationalist writing during the Enlightenment (1685-1815). He
thinks that we can gain knowledge from our senses and through our rational
capacities. This means his general philosophical approach starts by asking
what we can know a priori.
This is key to understanding his work but also makes his writing on ethics
seem a bit odd. We think the study of ethics — unlike say maths — ought to
direct our eye to what is going on around us in the world. Yet Kant starts by
turning his eyes “inward” to thinking about ethical ideas.
Kant believes that in doing this people will come to recognise that certain
actions are right and wrong irrespective of how we might feel and irrespective
of any consequences. For Kant, actions are right if they respect what he
calls the Categorical Imperative. For example, because lying fails to respect
the Categorical Imperative it is wrong and is wrong irrespective of how we
might feel about lying or what might happen if we did lie; it is actions that are
right and wrong rather than consequences. This means that Kant’s theory is
deontological rather than teleological. It focuses on our duties rather than our
ends/goals/consequences.
1 HJ. Paton, ‘Preface’ in I. Kant, Moral Law, p. 7.
WD
=
x
sl
a
a
z
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
There is, however, something intuitive about the idea that morality is based
on reason rather than feelings or consequences. Consider my pet cat Spartan.
He performs certain actions like scrabbling under bed covers, meowing at
birds and chasing his tail. Now consider my daughter Beth, she performs
certain actions like caring for her sister and helping the homeless.
Spartan’s actions are not moral whereas Beth’s actions are. Spartan’s
thinking and actions are driven by his desires and inclination. He eats and
plays and sleeps when he desires to do so, there is no reasoning on his part.
Beth, in contrast, can reflect on the various reasons she has, reasons to care for
her sister and the homeless.
We might think then that humans are moral beings not because we have
certain desires but precisely because we are rational. We have an ability to
“stand back” and consider what we are doing and why. Kant certainly thought
so and he takes this insight as his starting point.
2. Some Key Ideas
Duty
Kant’s main works in ethics are his Metaphysics of Morals (1797) and the
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). Neither give practical advice
about particular situations but rather through rational reflection, Kant seeks
to establish the supreme principle of morality.
He starts from the notion of “duty” and although this is a rather old-
fashioned term, the idea behind it should sound familiar. Imagine, your friend
has told you that she is pregnant but asks you to promise to keep her secret.
Through the coming weeks this juicy bit of gossip is on the tip of your tongue
but you do not tell anyone because of your promise. There are things we
recognise as being required of us irrespective of what we (really) desire to do.
This is what Kant means by duty.
But this raises the question. If it is not desires that move us to do what is
right (even really strong desires), what does? In our example, why is it that we
keep our promise despite the strong desire to gossip? Kant’s answer is “the
good will”.
Good Will
Kant gives the following characterization of the good will. It is something that
is good irrespective of effects:
A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes — because of its fitness for
attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone — that is, good in itself.*
2 I. Kant, Moral Law, p. 40.
It is also good without qualification.
It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as
good without qualification, except a good will.°
What does Kant mean? Well, pick anything you like which you think might
make an action good — for example, happiness, pleasure, courage, and then
ask yourself if there are any situations you can think of where an action having
those features makes those actions worse?
It seems there are. Imagine someone who is happy when kicking a cat; or
someone taking pleasure in torture; or a serial killer whose courage allows her
to abduct children in broad daylight. In such cases the happiness, pleasure
and courage make the actions worse. Kant thinks we can repeat this line of
thinking for anything and everything, except one thing — the good will.
The good will unlike anything else is good unconditionally and what makes
a good will good is willing alone; not other attitudes, or consequences, or
characteristics of the agent. Even Kant thinks this sounds like a rather strange
idea. So how can he (and we) be confident that the good will even exists?
Consider Mahatma Gandhi’s (1869-1948) non-violent protest for Indian
independence. He stood peacefully whilst the British police beat him. Here
is a case where there must have been an overwhelming desire to fight back.
But he did not. In this type of action Kant would claim that we “see” the good
will — as he says — “shining like a jewel”.* Seeing such resilience in the face
of such awful violence we are humbled and can recognize, what Kant calls, its
moral worth. Obviously not all actions are as significant as Gandhi’s! However,
Kant thinks that any acts like this, which are performed despite conflicting desires,
are due to the good will. Considering such actions (can you think of any?)
means we can recognize that the good will exists.
3. Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in Accordance
with Duty
From what we have said above about the nature of duty and good will we can
see why Kant says that to act from good will is acting for the sake of duty. We
act despite our desires to do otherwise. For Kant this means that acting for the
sake of duty is the only way that an action can have moral worth. We will see
below what we have to do for our actions to be carried out for the sake of duty.
However, before we do this, we need to be really clear on this point about
moral worth.
3 Ibid., p.39.
4 Ibid., p. 40.
n
1)
=
c
_
hl
=
oO
es)
=
Lan}
NA
WD
iS
x
nl
a
a
2
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
Imagine that you are walking with a friend. You pass someone begging
on the street. Your friend starts to weep, fumbles in his wallet and gives the
beggar some money and tells you that he feels such an empathy with the poor
man that he just has to help him.
For Kant, your friend’s action has no moral worth because what is moving
him to give money is empathy rather than duty! He is acting in accordance with
duty. However, Kant does think your friend should be applauded as such an
action is something that is of value although it wouldn’t be correct to call it a
moral action.
To make this point clearer, Kant asks us to consider someone who has no
sympathy for the suffering of others and no inclination to help them. But
despite this:
.. .he nevertheless tears himself from his deadly insensibility and performs the action without any
inclination at all, but solely from duty then for the first time his action has genuine moral worth.°
In contrast to our friend, this person is acting for the sake of duty and hence
their action is moral. We must be careful though. Kant is not telling us to become
emotionally barren robots! He is not saying that before we can act morally we
need to get rid of sympathy, empathy, desires, love, and inclinations. This
would make Kant’s moral philosophy an absurd non-starter.
Let us see why Kant is not saying this. Consider an action such as giving to
others. We should ask whether an action of giving to others would have been
performed even if the agent lacked the desire to do so. If the answer is “yes’
then the act has moral worth. This though is consistent with the agent actually
having those desires. The question for Kant is not whether an agent has desires but
what moved the agent to act. If they acted because of those desires they acted in
accordance with duty and their action had no moral worth. If they acted for
the sake of duty, and just happened to have those desires, then their action has
moral worth.
z
4, Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
If we agree with Kant and want to act for the sake of duty what should we
do? His answer is that we have to act out of respect for the moral law. He has
two examples of how this works in practice: lying and suicide. We look at the
former in Chapter 13, we will consider Kant’s example of suicide at the end of
this chapter. However, before doing this we need to get a sense of what Kant
has in mind when he talks about acting out of respect for the moral law.
The moral law is what he calls the “Categorical Imperative”. He thinks
there are three formulations of this.
5 Ibid., p. 43.
CI-1: ...act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
become a universal law.°
CI-2: So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other,
always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
CIL-3: ...every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking
member in the universal kingdom of ends.*
We will consider these in turn, showing how they are linked. Consider then,
CI-1.
Kant’s idea is that we use this “test” to see what maxims are morally
permissible. If we act in accordance with those then we are acting from duty
and our actions have moral worth. Let us look at what this means.
Initially it is worth considering what “categorical” and “imperative” mean.
An imperative is just a command. “Clean your room!” is an imperative I
give my daughter every Saturday. “Do not park in front of these gates!” is a
command on my neighbour’s gate. “Love your God with all your heart, mind
and soul” is a command from the Bible.
What about the “categorical” part? If a command is categorical then people
ought to follow it irrespective of how they feel about following it, irrespective
of what consequences might follow, or who may or may not have told them
to follow it. For example, the command “do not peel the skin of babies” is
categorical. You ought not to do this and the fact that this might be your life’s
ambition, or that you really want to do it, or that your teacher has told you to
do it, is completely irrelevant.
Contrast this with Hypothetical Imperatives. If I tell my daughter to clean
her room, this is hypothetical. This is because whether she ought to clean her
room is dependent on conditions about her and me. If she does not care about
a clean room and about what her dad thinks, then it is not true that she ought
to clean her room. Most commands are hypothetical. For example, “study!”
You ought to study only if certain things are true about you; for example, that
you care about doing well, that you want to succeed in the test etc.
Kant thinks that moral “oughts” — for example, “you ought not lie” — are
categorical. They apply to people irrespective of how they feel about them.
The next thing we need is the idea of a “maxim”. This is relatively simple
and is best seen through the following examples. Imagine I’m considering
whether to make a false promise. Perhaps I think that by falsely promising
you that | will pay you back I will be more likely to get a loan from you. In
6 Ibid. p. 15.
7 — Ibid., p. 66.
8 Ibid. p. 21.
n
3S
ca
-_
sa]
i=
a
5
i=
a
NA
WD
iS
x
sl
a
a
2
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
that case my maxim is something like “whenever I can benefit from making a false
promise I should do so”.
Imagine I decide to exercise because I feel depressed, then I may be said
to be acting on the maxim “Whenever I feel depressed I will exercise”. A maxim
is a general principle or rule upon which we act. We do not decide on a set of
maxims, perhaps writing them down, and then try to live by them but rather a
maxim is the principle or rule that can make sense of an action whether or not we have
thought about it in these terms.
5. The First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Let’s put these bits together in relation to CI-1
...act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a
universal law.?
The “test” that CI-1 prescribes is the following. Consider the maxim on which
you are thinking about acting, and ask whether you can either (i) conceive
that it become a universal law, or (ii) will that it become a universal law. If a
maxim fails on either (i) or (ii) then there is no good reason for you to act on
that maxim and it is morally impermissible to do so. If it passes the CI test,
then it is morally permissible.
Kant is not saying that the CI-1 test is a way of working out what is and
what is not moral. Presumably we can think of lots of maxims, which are
non-moral, which pass the test, for example, “whenever I am bored I will
watch TV”.
Equally he is not saying that if a maxim cannot be universalized then it
is morally impermissible. Some maxims are just mathematically impossible.
For example, “whenever I am going to exercise I will do it for an above the
average amount of time”. This maxim cannot be universalized because we
cannot conceive that everyone does something above “average”.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the maxim must be able to be willed as
a universal law. This is important because maxims such as “if your name is Jill
and you are 5ft 11, you can lie” will fail to be universalized because you cannot
will that your name is Jill or that your height is 5ft11. It has to be possible to
will as a universal law and for this to be true it must be at least possible for
it actually to come about. This shows that the common concern that we can
get any maxim to pass the CI-1 test by simply adding more and more specific
details, such as names, heights or locations, fails. This is very abstract (what
did we tell you about Kant’s work!). Let us consider an example.
9 Ibid.
6. Perfect and Imperfect Duties
Recall the example of making a false promise to secure a loan. The maxim is
“whenever I can benefit from doing so, I should make a false promise”. The question
is whether I could conceive or will that this become a universal law.
I could not. If everyone followed this maxim then we would all believe
everyone else could make a false promise if it would benefit them to do
so. Kant thinks such a situation is not conceivable because the very idea of
making a promise relies on trust. But if “whenever it is of benefit to you, you
can make false promises” was to become a universal law then there would
be no trust and hence no promising. So by simply thinking about the idea
of promising and lying we see the maxim will fail the test and, because we
cannot universalize the maxim, then making a false promise becomes morally
impermissible. This is true universally for all people in all circumstances for
anyone can, in principle, go through the same line of reasoning.
A maxim failing at (i) is what Kant calls a contradiction in conception, and
failing at (i) means we are dealing with what Kant calls a perfect duty. In our
example we have shown we have a perfect duty not to make false promises.
Consider another example. Imagine that someone in need asks us for
money but we decide not to help them. In this case our maxim is “whenever
someone is in need and asks for money do not give them money”. Does this
pass the CI-1 test?
No it fails the CI-1 test. Although it is true that the maxim passes (i) not
giving to the needy does not threaten the very idea of giving money away. Kant
thinks that anyone thinking about this will see that that maxim will fail at (ii)
and hence it is morally impermissible. Here is why.
You cannot know if you will be in need in the future and presumably you
would want to be helped if you were in need. In which case you are being
inconsistent if you willed that “people should not help those in need” should
become a universal law. For you might want people to help those in need in
the future, namely, you.
So we cannot will the maxim “whenever someone is in need do not help
them” to become a universal moral law. Again this is a thought process that
anyone can go through and it means that this moral claim is true universally for
all people in all circumstances. Failing at (ii) is what Kant calls a contradiction in
will, and failing at (ii) means we are dealing with what Kant calls an imperfect
duty.
It is absolutely key to recognize that CI-1 is not simply asking “what if
everyone did that?” CI-1 is not a form of Utilitarianism (see Chapter 1). Kant is
not saying that it is wrong to make false promises because if people did then
the world would be a horrible place. Rather Kant is asking about whether we
can conceive or will the maxim to become a universal law.
n
=
&
-_
sa]
i=
a
5
i=
a
M
WD
iS
x
&
aa
ea
z
<
=
a4
le)
Z
7. Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
The second formulation (CI-2) is the following:
So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at
the same time as an end, never merely as a means."
Kant thinks that CI-1 and CI-2 are two sides of the same coin, though precisely
how they are related is a matter of scholarly debate. Put very simply CI-2 says
you should not use people, because if you do, you are failing to treat them as
a rational agent and this is morally wrong.
For example, if I use your essay without your knowledge then I have not
treated you as a rational agent. I would have done had I asked you for your
essay and you had freely chosen to let me have it. But given that I did not ask
you, I was in a sense making choices on your behalf and thus did not treat you as
a rational agent. So according to Kant I should always treat you as an end not
a means. I should always treat you as a free rational agent.
Kant’s theory then has a way of respecting the dignity of people. We should
treat people with respect and with dignity purely on the basis that they are
rational agents, and not because of their race, gender, education, upbringing
etc. From this you can also see that Kant’s theory allows us to speak about
“rights”. If someone has a right then they have this right irrespective of gender,
education, upbringing etc. For example, Jill has a right to free speech because
she is a person, consequently that right will not disappear if she changes her
location, personal circumstances, relationship status, political viewpoint etc.
After all she does not stop being a person.
Importantly, CI-2 does not say that you either treat someone as a means or
an end. I could treat someone as an end by treating them as a means. Suppose
that you have freely decided to become a taxi driver. If I use you as a means
by asking you to take me to the airport I am also treating you as an end. But
Kant does not believe this to be morally wrong because I am respecting you as
a rational agent; after all, you chose to be a taxi driver. Of course, if I get into
your car and point a gun at your head and ask to be taken to the airport then
I am not treating you as an end but rather solely as a means, which is wrong.
8. The Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
and Summary
The final formulation of the Categorical Imperative is a combination of Cl-1
and CI-2. It asks us to imagine a kingdom which consists of only those people
who act on CI-1. They never act on a maxim which cannot become a universal
10 Ibid., p. 66.
law. Insucha kingdom people would treat people as ends, because CI-2 passes
CI-1. This is why CI-3 is often called the “Kingdom of Ends” formulation:
...every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking member
in the universal kingdom of ends."
In summary, we have seen that Kant thinks that acts have moral worth only
if they are carried out for the sake of duty. Agents act for the sake of duty
if they act out of respect for the moral law, which they do by following the
Categorical Imperative in one of its formulations.
Consequently, Kant thinks that acts are wrong and right universally,
irrespective of consequences and desires. If lying is wrong then it is wrong in
all instances. From all this, it follows that we cannot be taught a set of moral
rules for each and every situation and Kant believes that it is up to us to work
it out for ourselves by thinking rationally.
There have been, and continue to be, many books and journal articles
written about Kant’s ethics. He has a profound and deep insight into the
nature of morality and he raises some fundamental questions about what it is
to be human. Kant’s moral theory is radically Egalitarian as his theory is blind
to individual personal circumstances, race, gender and ethnicity. Everyone is
equal before the moral law!
Related to this, his theory respects the rights of individuals and, relatedly,
their dignity. Any theory that is to have a hope of capturing our notion of
rights needs to be able to respect the thought that a right is not something that
disappears if circumstances change. Jill has a right to life, period; we do not say
Jill has a right to life “if...” and then have to fill in the blanks. This is precisely
something that Kant’s theory can give us. CI-1 generates maxims which do not
have exceptions and CI-2 tells us that we should always treat everyone as an
end in themselves and never solely as a means to an end. It tells us, for example,
that we ought not to kill Jill, and this holds true in all circumstances.
There are, though, a number of tough questions that Kant’s work raises.
We consider some of these below. However, as with all the philosophical
ideas we discuss in this book, Kant’s work is still very much alive and has
defenders across the world. Before we turn to these worries, we work through
an example that Kant gives regarding suicide.
9. Kant on Suicide
Kant is notoriously stingy with examples. One he does mention is suicide
(another is lying see Chapter 13). This is an emotive topic and linked to
questions about mental health and religion. An attraction of Kant’s view is
11 Ibid., p.21.
Dn
3s
fa
-_
=a
i=
a
5
i=
a
M
WD
iS
x
ia
a
a
z
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
the ability to apply his Categorical Imperatives in a dispassionate way. His
framework should allow us to “plug in” the issue and “get out” an answer.
Let’s see how this might work.
Kant thinks that suicide is always wrong and has very harsh words for
someone who attempts suicide
He who so behaves, who has no respect for human nature and makes a thing of himself, becomes
for everyone an Object of freewill. We are free to treat him as a beast, as a thing, and to use him
for our sport as we do a horse or a dog, for he is no longer a human being; he has made a thing of
himself, and, having himself discarded his humanity, he cannot expect that others should respect
humanity in him.”
But why does he think this? How does this fit with Kant’s Categorical
Imperatives? We will look at the first two formulations.
Fundamental to remember is that for Kant the motive that drives all suicide
is “avoid evil”. By which he means avoiding suffering, pain, and other negative
outcomes in one’s life. All suicide attempts are due to the fact that we love
ourselves and thus want to “avoid evils” that may befall us.
Imagine then that I decide to commit suicide. Given what we have just said
about my motives this means I will be acting on this maxim: “From self-love I
make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens
more evil than it promises satisfaction”.
Following CI-1 the question then is whether it is possible to universalise
this maxim? Kant thinks not. For him it is unclear how we could will it that
all rational agents as the result of self-love can destroy themselves when their
continued existence threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. For
Kant self-love leading to the destruction of the self is a contradiction. Thus he
thinks that we have a perfect (rather than an imperfect) duty to ourselves not to
commit suicide. To do so is morally wrong. This is how Kant puts it:
One sees at once a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life [suicide] by
means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life [self-love], and
hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly
hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle
of all duty.
Notice a few odd things here in relation to CI-1. The point about universalisation
seems irrelevant. Kant could have just said it is a contradiction to will from
self-love the destruction of oneself. It seems that there is nothing added by
asking us to consider this point universalised. It does not add weight to the
claim that it is a contradiction.
12 I. Kant, Lectures on Ethics, 27; 373.
13 I. Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Ak IV, 422
Second, it is not really a “contradiction” at all! It is different to the lying
promise example. In this it seems that the very concept of a promise relies
on trust, which lying would destroy. In contrast in the suicide case the
“contradiction” seems more like a by-product of Kant’s assumption regarding
the motivation of suicidal people. So we can avoid the “contradiction” if we
allow for the possibility that suicide need not be driven by self-love. If this
were true then there would be no “contradiction”. Hence, it seems wrong to
call the duty not to kill oneself — if such a duty exists — a “perfect” duty. So
the first formulation does not give Kant the conclusion that suicide is morally
wrong.
Moving to the second formulation. This helps us understand Kant’s harsh
assessment of people attempting suicide. Remember he calls such people
“objects” or “beasts” or “things”. So, what is the difference between beasts or
objects or things, and humans? The answer is that we are rational. Recall, that
for Kant our rationality is of fundamental value. If anyone’s actions do not
recognize someone else’s rationality then they have done something morally
wrong. This amounts to treating them as merely means to our own end. Given
all this you can see what Kant is getting at. For him committing suicide is
treating yourself as a mere means to some end — namely the end of avoiding
pain and suffering etc. — and not an end in itself. You are treating yourself as
a “beast” a “thing” an “object”, not as a human being with the gift of reason.
This is morally wrong.
Moreover, if you do this, then others treating you with respect as a rational
person can conclude that you also want others to treat you in this way. Because
if you are rational then you must think that it is OK to universalise the maxim
that we can treat others as objects, beast and thing. They can thus treat you as
a beast, object, and thing and still be treating you with respect as a rationale
agent. With regard to attempting suicide your action is wrong because you
have ignored your own rationality. You have treated yourself as a mere means
to an end.
But, like the first formulation this is very weak. Itis unclear why in attempting
suicide you are treating yourself as a mere means to an end. You might think
you are respecting your rationality by considering suicide. Recall, Kant says
that it is sometimes fine to treat people as a means to an end, e.g. a taxi driver.
It is fine where people have given consent for you to treat them that way. In
that case, suicide might be like the taxi driver case. We have freely decided
to treat ourselves as a means to an end. We are, then, treating ourselves as a
rational agent and not doing something morally wrong by committing suicide.
There are some other things that Kant says about the wrongness of suicide
that do not link to the Categorical Imperatives. For example, he talks about
n
ne
ca
-_
sa]
i=
a
5
i=
a
M
WD
iS
x
ia
a
a
2
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
humans being the property of God and hence our lives not being something
we can choose to extinguish. However, we need not discuss this here.
There is a consensus between Kant scholars that, as it stands, Kant’s
argument against suicide fails. There are some though who use Kant’s ideas as
a starting point for a more convincing argument against suicide. For example,
see J. David Velleman (1999) and Michael Cholbi (2000).
10. Problems and Responses: Conflicting Duties
If moral duties apply in all circumstances, then what happens when we have
duties which conflict? Imagine that you have hidden some Jewish people in
your basement in Nazi Germany. Imagine then that an SS officer knocks at
your door and asks if you are hiding Jews? What might Kant’s theory tell
us to do? Our duty is to refrain from lying so does this mean we are morally
required to tell the SS officer our secret? If this is the conclusion then it makes
Kant’s theory morally repugnant.
However, there is no requirement in Kant’s theory to tell the truth, there is just
a requirement not to lie. Lying is about intentional deceit, so maybe in this
example there is a way not to lie. For example, if we simply stayed silent (see
Chapter 13).
Even if we respond in this sort of way in this example, presumably we
can engineer an example that would not allow for this. For example, perhaps
we are in a law court and the SS officer asks us under oath. In that example,
silence would not be an option. This certainly would seem to count against
Kant’s theory for it does seem morally wrong to reveal the location of the
Jewish people.
The main point though is that Kant thinks we need to take the features of
each individual situation into account. He does not just want us to mindlessly
apply generic rules whilst paying no attention to what is before us. So Peter
Rickman writes regarding these types of cases:
...dt should be plain that more than one imperative/moral principle is relevant to the situation.
Certainly we should tell the truth; but do we not also have a duty to protect an innocent man
from harm? Further, do we not have an obligation to fight evil? We are confronted with a conflict
of values here. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no explicit discussion of this issue in
Kant. One could assume, however, that his general approach of distinguishing the lesser from the
greater evil should be applied. I think Kant might say that although lying is never right, it might
be the lesser evil in some cases.“
So the point is not that these sorts of examples are “knock down” criticisms of
Kant’s theory but rather that Kant’s theory is underspecified and fails to give
14 P. Rickman, ‘Having Trouble with Kant?’, https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Having_Trouble_
With_Kant
guidance with these specific sorts of cases. In fact, we might think that this is
an advantage of his theory that has given us the supreme principle of morality
and the general way of proceeding but has left it up to us to work out what to
do in each situation. We will leave the reader to see if this can be done and in
particular, whether it can be done in a way consistent with the other aspects
of his moral theory.
11. Problems and Responses: The Role of Intuitions
One of the most common criticisms levelled at Kant’s theory is that it is simply
counter intuitive. For example, lying, for him, is morally impermissible in all
instances irrespective of the consequences. Yet we seem to be able to generate
thought experiments that show that this is a morally repugnant position.
However, in Kant’s defence we might ask why we should use our intuitions
as any form of test for a moral theory. Intuitions are notoriously fickle and
unreliable. Even if you pick the oddest view you can think of, you would
probably find some people at some point in time that would find this view
“intuitive”. So how worried should we be if Kant’s theory leads to counter
intuitive consequences? This then raises a more general methodological
question to keep at the forefront of your mind when reading this book. What
role, if any, should intuitions have in the formation and the testing of moral
theory?
12. Problem and Responses: Categorical Imperatives and
Etiquette
Kant argues that what we are morally required to do is a matter of reason. If
people reason in the right way then they will recognise, for example, that lying
is wrong. However, some philosophers, for example Philippa Foot (1920-2010),
have worried about this link to reason. The strength of Foot’s challenge is that
she agrees that morality is a system of Categorical Imperatives but says that
this need not be due to reason.
Foot uses the example of etiquette to motivate her argument.” Rules of
etiquette seem to be Categorical Imperatives but are not grounded in reason.
Consider an example. I had a friend at university who was a sportsman. He
was in many teams, his degree was in sports and exercise and if there were ever
a spare minute he would be running, on his bike or in the pool. Unsurprisingly
he wore a tracksuit and trainers all the time!
15 P. Foot, ‘Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives’.
n
3s
ca
—_
sa]
i=
a
5
<
a
NA
WD
iS
x
nl
a
a
2
<
=
a4
fe)
Z
During our second year at university a mutual friend died. There was a
big formal funeral arranged. My friend decided to go to this funeral in his
tracksuit and trainers. I asked him about this and his response was that it was
what he liked wearing. However, to my mind at least, this reason, which was
based on his desire, did not change the fact that he really ought not have worn
a tracksuit. Foot would agree and thinks that rules of etiquette are categorical
because they are not dependent on any particular desires someone would
have.
However, even if they are categorical, Foot thinks that rules of etiquette are
not rules of reason. We do not think that if we reasoned correctly we would
recognise that we ought not to wear tracksuits to funerals, or (to think of some
other rules of etiquette) we ought not to reply to a letter written in the third
person in the first person, or we ought not to put our feet on the dinner table
during a meal etc. It is not simply a matter of thinking in the right way but
rather to recognise these “oughts” as part of a shared cultural practice.
So although this does not show that Kant is wrong, it does throw down
a challenge to him. That is, we need independent reasons to think that the
categorical nature of moral “oughts” are based on reason and not just part of a
shared cultural practice. To respond to this challenge, the Kantian would have
to put forward the argument that in the particular case of moral “oughts”, we
have a good argument to ground the categorical nature in reason rather than
institutional practices.
13. Problems and Responses: The Domain of Morality
Kant thinks that the domain of morality is merely the domain of reasons and
as far as we are agents who can reason then we have duties and rights and
people ought to treat us with dignity. The flip side of this is that non-rational
agents, such as non-human animals, do not have rights and we can, according
to Kant, treat them as we like!
The challenge to Kant’s theory is that the scope of morality seems bigger
than the scope of reasons. People do think that we have moral obligations
toward non-rational agents. Consider someone kicking a cat. We might think
that morally they ought not to do this. However, Kant’s theory does not back
this up because, as far as we know, cats are not rational agents. Despite it not
being wrong to treat animals in this way, Kant still thinks that we should not,
because if we did, then we would be more likely to treat humans in this way.
SUMMARY
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Confusing acting in accordance with duty and acting for the sake of duty.
Thinking that Kant’s theory has no room for emotions.
Thinking that Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be summed up in the
question: “how would you like it if everyone did that’?
Thinking that the Categorical Imperative is a form of Utilitarianism.
Thinking Kant believes you can never treat someone as a means to an
end.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Think about your life. Do you think there are things you “ought to do”?
2. Do you think that there are things you ought to do irrespective of your
desires and inclinations?
n
=
s
heard
jaa)
=|
@
a
|
@
M
3. What are Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives? Do you think that
rules of etiquette are categorical or hypothetical?
4. How might Kant respond to the SS officer example?
Can you think of some examples where you might be treating someone
solely as means-to-an-end?
Would capital punishment pass the CI-2 test?
How might CI-2 relate to prostitution? Do you think that Kant would
say that it is morally permissible? (See also Chapter 10).
op)
=
“0
lal
a
ea
2
<
=
=
e)
Z
8. Why might Kant’s theory be well placed to respect people’s rights?
Do you think we have any moral obligations towards animals? What
would Kant say?
10. What role do you think intuitions should have in assessing moral
theories?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
References
Cholbi, Michael J., ‘Kant and the Irrationality of Suicide’, History of Philosophy
Quarterly, 17.2 (2000): 159-76.
Foot, Philippa, ‘Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives’, The
Philosophical Review, 81.3 (1972): 305-16, https://doi.org/10.2307/2184328
Kant, Immanuel, Moral Law: The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,
Translated and analysed by H. J. Paton (Oxford: Routledge, 2013).
—, Lectures on Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Rickman, Peter, ‘Having Trouble with Kant?’, Philosophy Now, freely available
at https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Having_Trouble_With_Kant
Velleman, J. David, ‘A Right of Self-termination?’, Ethics, 109.3 (1999): 606-28,
https://doi.org/10.1086/233924
—, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers,
2015), https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0061; freely available at https://www.
openbookpublishers.com/reader/349
Nn
i)
=
sg
_
a)
=|
9)
as
I
Las]
4
8 g f = F sime§ 2
iweend: 7 § 2 example cord d § Sioa cig
BY @ Ss chair need oO = i] _
a < ——
eudaimonia$ | A DAristotelia NOS geste Bat guidance, SO
Stee -* examples inow « telos ET & Sate nmin Gaptrue © bee objection
— situations -3 3 3 eens VIE
$ ale tions y a7 accordance
a rather 5 ACT. situation | cal (Vu rtue Hamels ;
eee cvirtuous = ore Has |
© acting follow therefore
ht Sud Ctidn character, ing
=P i ~ ee JUST understood skill ed y without
ean act ignorance ™ —
involunt
es
CHAPTER 3
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
To seek virtue for the sake of reward is to dig for iron with a spade of gold.’
1. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Introduction
Aristotle (884-322 BC) was a scholar in disciplines such as ethics, metaphysics,
biology and botany, amongst others. It is fitting, therefore, that his moral
philosophy is based around assessing the broad characters of human beings
rather than assessing singular acts in isolation. Indeed, this is what separates
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics from both Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics.
2. The Function Argument
Aristotle was a feleologist, a term related to, but not to be confused with,
the label “teleological” as applied to normative ethical theories such as
Utilitarianism. Aristotle was a teleologist because he believed that every
object has what he referred to as a final cause. The Greek term telos refers to
what we might call a purpose, goal, end or true final function of an object.
Indeed, those of you studying Aristotle in units related to the Philosophy
of Religion may recognise the link between Aristotle’s general teleological
worldview and his study of ethics.
Aristotle claims that “...for all things that have a function or activity, the
good and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function”.’ Aristotle’s claim is
essentially that in achieving its function, goal or end, an object achieves its own
good. Every object has this type of a true function and so every object has a
way of achieving goodness. The telos of a chair, for example, may be to provide
a seat and a chair is a good chair when it supports the curvature of the human
bottom without collapsing under the strain. Equally, says Aristotle, what
makes good sculptors, artists and flautists is the successful and appropriate
performance of their functions as sculptors, artists and flautists.
1 I. Panin, Thoughts, p. 92, https://ia601405.us.archive.org/8/items/thoughtsO0panigoog/thoughts00
panigoog.pdf
2 Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, http://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/index.htm
W
2
ae
&
bu
ea
>
a
=
ce
S
Z
This teleological (function and purpose) based worldview is the necessary
backdrop to understanding Aristotle’s ethical reasoning. For, just as a chair has
a true function or end, so Aristotle believes human beings have a telos. Aristotle
identifies what the good for a human being is in virtue of working out what
the function of a human being is, as per his Function Argument.
Function Argument
1. All objects have a telos.
2. An object is good when it properly secures its telos.
Given the above, hopefully these steps of the argument are clear so far. At this
point, Aristotle directs his thinking towards human beings specifically.
3. The telos of a human being is to reason.
4. The good for a human being is, therefore, acting in accordance with
reason.
In working out our true function, Aristotle looks to that feature that separates
man from other living animals. According to Aristotle, what separates mankind
from the rest of the world is our ability not only to reason but to act on
reasons. Thus, just as the function of a chair can be derived from its uniquely
differentiating characteristic, so the function of a human being is related to our
uniquely differentiating characteristic and we achieve the good when we act
in accordance with this true function or telos.
The notion that man has a true function may sound odd, particularly if you
do not have a religious worldview of your own. However, to you especially
Aristotle wrote that “...as eye, hand, foot and in general each of the parts
evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function
apart from all these?”*
On the basis that we would ascribe a function to our constituent parts — we
know what makes a good kidney for example — so too Aristotle thinks it
far from unreasonable that we have a function as a whole. Indeed, this may
be plausible if we consider other objects. The component parts of a car, for
example, have individual functions but a car itself, as a whole, has its own
function that determines whether or not it is a good car.
3. Aristotelian Goodness
On the basis of the previous argument, the good life for a human being is
achieved when we act in accordance with our telos. However, rather than
3 Ibid.
leaving the concept of goodness as general and abstract we can say more
specifically what the good for a human involves. Aristotle uses the Greek
term eudaimonia to capture the state that we experience if we fully achieve a
good life. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the state that all humans should
aim for as it is the aim and end of human existence. To reach this state, we
must ourselves act in accordance with reason. Properly understanding what
Aristotle means by eudaimonia is crucial to understanding his Virtue Ethical
moral position.
Eudaimonia has been variously translated and no perfect translation has
yet been identified. While all translations have their own issues, eudaimonia
understood as flourishing is perhaps the most helpful translation and improves
upon a simple translation of happiness. The following example may make this
clearer.
Naomi is an extremely talented pianist. Some days, she plays music that simply makes
her happy, perhaps the tune from the television soap opera “Neighbours” or a rendition
of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star’. On other days, she plays complex music such as the
supremely difficult Chopin-Godowsky Etudes. These performances may also make Naomi
happy, but she seems to be flourishing as a pianist only with the latter performances rather
than the former. If we use the language of function, both performances make Naomi happy
but she fulfils her function as a pianist (and is a good pianist) only when she flourishes with
the works of greater complexity.
Flourishing in life may make us happy but happiness itself is not necessarily
well aligned with acting in accordance with our telos. Perhaps, if we prefer the
term happiness as a translation for eudaimonia we mean really or truly happy,
but it may be easier to stay with the understanding of eudaimonia as flourishing
when describing the state of acting in accordance with our true function.
Aristotle concludes that a life is eudaimon (adjective of eudaimonia) when it
involves “...the active exercise of the mind in conformity with perfect goodness
or virtue”.* Eudaimonia is secured not as the result exercising of our physical
or animalistic qualities but as the result of the exercise of our distinctly human
rational and cognitive aspects.
4. Eudaimonia and Virtue
The quotation provided at the end of section three was the first direct reference
to virtue in the explanatory sections of this chapter. With Aristotle’s theoretical
presuppositions now laid out, we can begin to properly explain and evaluate
his conception of the virtues and their link to moral thinking.
4 Ibid.
n
1)
om
aS;
~
ea)
i)
=)
~
as
>
=
oC
ce
i)
~
le)
~
mn
om
Ll
<
W
2
a
&
a
ea
>
a
=
S
Z
According to Aristotle, virtues are character dispositions or personality traits.
This focus on our dispositions and our character, rather than our actions in
isolation, is what earns Aristotelian Virtue Ethics the label of being an agent-
centred moral theory rather than an act-centred moral theory.
Act-Centred Moral Theories
Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics are two different examples of act-centred
moral theories due to their focus on actions when it comes to making moral
assessments and judgments. Act-centred moral theories may be teleological
or deontological, absolutist or relativist, but they share a common worldview
in that particular actions are bearers of moral value — either being right or
wrong.
Agent-Centred Moral Theories
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is an agent-centred theory in virtue of a primary
focus on people and their characters rather than singular actions. For Aristotle,
morality has more to do with the question “how should I be?” rather than
“what should I do?” If we answer the first question then, as we see later in this
chapter, the second question may begin to take care of itself. When explaining
and evaluating Aristotelian Virtue Ethics you must keep in mind this focus on
character rather than specific comments on the morality of actions.
Aristotle refers to virtues as character traits or psychological dispositions.
Virtues are those particular dispositions that are appropriately related to
the situation and, to link back to our function, encourage actions that are in
accordance with reason. Again, a more concrete example will make clear how
Aristotle identifies virtues in practice.
All of us, at one time or another, experience feelings of anger. For example,
I may become angry when my step-son thoughtlessly eats through the
remaining crisps without saving any for others, or he may feel anger when he
has to wait an extra minute or two to be picked up at work because his step-
father is juggling twenty-six different tasks and momentarily loses track of
time (how totally unfair of him...). Anyway, as I was saying, back to Aristotle,
“Anyone can become angry — that is easy. But to be angry with the right
person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the
right way — that is not easy”.°
For Aristotle, virtue is not a feeling itself but an appropriate psychological
disposition in response to that feeling; the proper response. The correct
5 Ibid.
response to a feeling is described as acting on the basis of the Golden Mean, a
response that is neither excessive nor deficient. The table below makes this
more apparent.
: : Vice of Virtuous Disposition :
Feeling/Emotion Delicioney (Golden Ns Vice of Excess
Anger Lack of spirit Patience Irascibility
Shame Shyness Modesty Shamefulness
Fear Cowardice Courage Rashness
Indignation Spitefulness Righteousness Envy
Anger is a feeling and therefore is neither a virtue nor a vice. However, the
correct response to anger — the Golden Mean between two extremes — is
patience, rather than a lack of spirit or irascibility. Virtues are not feelings, but
characteristic dispositional responses that, when viewed holistically, define
our characters and who we are.
The Golden Mean ought not to be viewed as suggesting that a virtuous
disposition is always one that gives rise to a “middling” action. If someone
puts their life on the line, when unarmed, in an attempt to stop a would-be
terrorist attack, then their action may be rash rather than courageous.
However, if armed with a heavy, blunt instrument their life-risking action
may be courageously virtuous rather than rash. The Golden Mean is not to be
understood as suggesting that we always act somewhere between complete
inaction and breathless exuberance, but as suggesting that we act between the
vices of excess and deficiency; such action may well involve extreme courage
or exceptional patience.
In addition to feelings, Aristotle also suggests that we may virtuously
respond to situations. He suggests the following examples.
Situation Vice of Deficiency by oo Vice of Excess
Social conduct |Cantankerousness | Friendliness Self-serving flattery
Conversation __| Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery
Giving money __| Stinginess Generosity Profligacy
We must keep in mind the agent-centred nature of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
when considering these examples. A person does not cease to have a witty
disposition in virtue of a single joke that might err on the side of buffoonery,
or cease to be generous because they fail to donate to charity on one occasion.
Our psychological dispositions, virtuous or not, are only to be assessed by
n
1o)
=
a =
_—
ea)
Vv
=)
—
as
>
Ss
oO
pas
vu
-_
le)
—
n
=
Ll
<
W
S
a
&
a
ea
>
a
=
S
Z
judgment of a person’s general character and observation over more than
single-act situations. If we act in accordance with reason and fulfil our function
as human beings, our behaviour will generally reflect our virtuous personality
traits and dispositions.
5. Developing the Virtues
In a quote widely attributed to Aristotle, Will Durrant (1885-1981) sums
up the Aristotelian view by saying that ”...we are what we repeatedly do.
Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit”.° It is fairly obvious that we cannot
become excellent at something overnight. Making progress in any endeavour
is always a journey that requires both effort and practice over time. Aristotle
holds that the same is true for human beings attempting to develop their
virtuous character traits in attempt to live the good life. You may feel yourself
coming to an Aristotelian Virtue Ethical view after reading this chapter and
therefore be moved to become wittier, more courageous and more generous
but you cannot simply acquire these traits by decision; rather, you must live
these traits in order to develop them.
Cultivating a virtuous character is something that happens by practice.
Aristotle compares the development of the skill of virtue to the development
of other skills. He says that “...men become builders by building” and ”...
we become just by doing just acts’.? We might know that a brick must go
into a particular place but we are good builders only when we know how
to place that brick properly. Building requires practical skill and not merely
intellectual knowledge and the same applies to developing virtuous character
traits. Ethical characters are developed by practical learning and habitual
action and not merely by intellectual teaching.
In the end, the virtuous individual will become comfortable in responding
to feelings/situations virtuously just as the good builder becomes comfortable
responding to the sight of various tools and a set of plans. A skilled builder
will not need abstract reflection when it comes to knowing how to build a
wall properly, and nor will a skilled cyclist need abstract reflection on how to
balance his speed correctly as he goes around a corner.
Analogously, a person skilled in the virtues will not need abstract reflection
when faced with a situation in which friendliness and generosity are
possibilities; they will simply know ona more intuitive level how to act. This is
not to say that builders, cyclists and virtuous people will not sometimes need
6 W. Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p. 76.
7 Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, http://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/index.htm
to reflect specifically on what to do in abnormal or difficult situations (e.g.
moral dilemmas, in the case of ethics) but in normal situations appropriate
responses will be natural for those who are properly skilled.
It is the need to become skilled when developing virtuous character traits
that leads Aristotle to suggest that becoming virtuous will require a lifetime of
work. Putting up a single bookshelf does not make you a skilled builder any
more than a single act of courage makes you a courageous and virtuous person.
It is the repetition of skill that determines your status and the development of
virtuous characters requires a lifetime of work rather than a single week at a
Virtue Ethics Bootcamp.
6. Practical Wisdom (Phronesis)
Aristotle does offer some specifics regarding how exactly we might, to use
a depressingly modern phrase, “upskill” in order to become more virtuous.
Aristotle suggests that the aim of an action will be made clear by the relevant
virtuous characteristic as revealed by the Golden Mean; for example, our aim in
a situation may be to respond courageously or generously. It is by developing
our skill of practical wisdom (translation of “phronesis”) that we become better
at ascertaining what exactly courage or generosity amounts to in a specific
situation and how exactly we might achieve it.
By developing the skill of practical wisdom, we can properly put our
virtuous character traits into practice. For the Aristotelian, practical wisdom
may actually be the most important virtuous disposition or character trait to
develop as without the skill of practical wisdom it may be difficult to actually
practice actions that are witty rather than boorish, or courageous rather than
cowardly. Imagine trying to be a philosopher without an acute sense of logical
reasoning; you would struggle because this seems to be a foundational good
on which other philosophical skills rely. So too it may be with the virtues,
practical wisdom supports our instinctive knowledge of how to respond
virtuously to various feelings, emotions and situations.
If this still seems to be somewhat opaque, then we may develop our sense
of practical wisdom by looking at the actions of others who we do take to be
virtuous. A child, for example, will most certainly need to learn how to be
virtuous by following examples of others. If we are unsure in our own ability
to discern what a courageous response in a given situation is, then we may
be guided by the behaviour of Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela or King, as
examples. If we learn from the wisdom and virtue of others, then just as a
building apprentice learns from a master so too virtue apprentices can learn
from those more skilled than they in practising virtue. Hopefully, such virtue
n
1<)
om
aS
~
a)
i.)
=)
~~
as
>
i=
oC
ce
i.)
~
le)
~
n
om
Ll
<
W
S
a
Sal
a
ea
>
a
=
S
Z
apprentices will eventually reach a point where they can stand on their own
two feet, with their personally developed sense of practical wisdom.
7. Voluntary Actions, Involuntary Actions and Moral
Responsibility
Despite the focus on agents and not actions, Aristotle does have something
to contribute when it comes to discussions of potential moral responsibility as
associated with particular actions. We can separate actions into two obvious
categories:
1. Voluntary actions
2. Involuntary actions
Very broadly, an action is voluntary when it is freely chosen and involuntary
when it is not — these terms are more precisely defined next, in line with
Aristotle’s ideas. These distinctions matter in ethics because a person might
be held to be morally responsible for their voluntary actions but not for their
involuntary actions. According to Aristotle, an action is voluntary unless it is
affected by force or ignorance, as understood in the following ways.
Physical Force
Imagine that Reuben is driving his car on his way home from work. Out of the
blue, his passenger grabs his hand and forces him to turn the steering wheel,
sending the car into oncoming traffic. Without this physical force, Reuben
would not have turned the wheel and he very much regrets the damage that is
caused. According to Aristotle, Reuben’s action is involuntary because of this
external physical force and so he is not morally responsible for the crash.
Psychological Force
Think of David, working at a bank when a group of thieves break in armed
with guns. David is told that if he does not open the safe then he will be
killed. Under this extreme psychological pressure, Aristotle would accept that
David’s opening of the safe is involuntary, because David would not have
opened the safe otherwise and he very much regrets doing so. On this basis,
David is not morally responsible in any way for the theft.
In addition to force, ignorance of a certain type can also support an action
being labelled as involuntary.
Action from Ignorance
Rhys, a talented musician, wishes to perform a surprise concert for a friend and
has been practicing songs from the Barry Manilow back catalogue for weeks.
However, in the days before the surprise concert his friend, unbeknown to Rhys,
develops an intense and very personal dislike for Manilow. Thus, when Rhys
takes to the stage and blasts out his rendition of the classic tune “Copacabana”
his friend storms off in much distress. In this situation, Aristotle would accept
that Rhys acted involuntarily when causing offence because he was unaware
of the changed circumstances; he acted from ignorance when performing the
song rather than from malice. Without this epistemic (or knowledge-related)
barrier, Rhys would not have acted as he did and he very much regrets the
distress caused. For these reasons, Rhys bears no moral responsibility for the
upset resulting from his song choice.
Crucially, Aristotle does not allow that all action that involves ignorance
can be classed as involuntary, thereby blocking associated claims of moral
responsibility.
Action in Ignorance
Laurence has had too much to drink and chooses to climb a traffic light with
a traffic cone on his head. Laurence’s alcohol consumption has made him
ignorant, at least temporarily, of the consequences of this action in terms of
social relationships, employment and police action. However, for Aristotle
this would not mean that his action was involuntary because Laurence
acts in ignorance rather than from ignorance due to an external epistemic
(or knowledge-based) barrier. Laurence does not, therefore, escape moral
responsibility as a result of his self-created ignorance.
Finally, Aristotle also identifies a third form of action — non-voluntary
action — that is also related to ignorant action.
Action from Ignorance with No Regret
Return to the case of Rhys and his Manilow performance but remove any
sense of regret on Rhys’ part for the distress caused. If, at the moment that
the epistemic gap is bridged and Rhys learns of his friend’s newly acquired
musical views, he feels no regret for his action, then Aristotle would class it as
anon-voluntary rather than involuntary action. The action cannot be voluntary
as Rhys acted from ignorance, but it is not obviously involuntary as, without a
sense of regret, it may have been that Rhys would have performed the action
even if he knew what was going to happen.
n
1)
om
aS;
~
ea)
i.)
=)
~~
as
>
i=
oC
|
i.)
~
le)
~
n
om
Ll
<
W
S
a
&
a
ea)
>
>)
=
O
Z
The detail above is important and your own examples will help your
understanding and explanations. The summary, however, is refreshingly
simple. If an action is voluntary, then it is completed free from force and ignorance
and we can hold the actor morally responsible. However, if the action is involuntary
then the actor is not morally responsible as they act on the basis of force or from
ignorance.
8. Objection: Unclear Guidance
Consider yourself caught in the middle of a moral dilemma. Wanting to know
what to do you may consult the guidance offered by Utilitarianism or Kantian
Ethics and discover that various specific actions you could undertake are
morally right or morally wrong. Moving to seek the advice of Aristotelian
Virtue Ethics, you may find cold comfort from suggestions that you act
generously, patiently and modestly whilst avoiding self-serving flattery and
envy. Rather than knowing how to live in general, you may seek knowledge
of what to actually do in this case. Virtue Ethics may therefore be accused
of being a theory, not of helpful moral guidance, but of unhelpful and non-
specific moral platitudes.
In response, the virtue ethicist may remind us that we can learn how to act
from considering how truly virtuous people might respond in this situation,
but this response raises its own worry — how can we identify who is virtuous,
or apply their actions to a potentially novel situation? Although a defender
of Virtue Ethics, Rosalind Hursthouse (1943-) gives a voice to this common
objection, putting forward the worry directly by saying that “Virtue Ethics
does not, because it cannot, tell us what we should do... It gives us no
guidance whatsoever. Who are the virtuous agents [that we should look to for
guidance]?”® If all the virtue ethicist can offer to a person wondering how to
act — perhaps wondering whether or not to report a friend to the police, or
whether or not to change careers to work in the charity sector — is “look to
the moral exemplars of Socrates and Gandhi and how they would act in this
situation”, then we might well sympathise with the objector since very often
our moral dilemmas are new situations, not merely old ones repeated. Asking
“what would Jesus do”, if we deem Jesus to be a morally virtuous role model,
might not seem very helpful for an MP trying to determine whether or not to
vote for an increase in subsidies for renewable energy technologies at huge
8 R. Hursthouse, ‘Normative Virtue Ethics’, pp. 701-03.
expense, and potential financial risk, to the tax-payer (to take a deliberately
specific example).
Despite her statement of the objection, Hursthouse thinks that this is an
unfair characterisation of Virtue Ethics. Hursthouse suggests that Virtue
Ethics provides guidance in the form of “v-rules”. These are guiding rules of
the form “do what is honest” or “avoid what is envious”.’ These rules may
not be specific, but they do stand as guidance across lots of different moral
situations. Whether or not you believe that this level of guidance is suitable
for anormative moral theory is a judgment that you should make yourself and
then defend.
9. Objection: Clashing Virtues
Related to the general objection from lack of guidance, a developed objection
may question how we are supposed to cope with situations in which virtues
seem to clash. Courageous behaviour may, in certain cases, mean a lack
of friendliness; generosity may threaten modesty. In these situations, the
suggestion to “be virtuous” may again seem to be unhelpfully vague.
To this particular objection, the Aristotelian virtue ethicist can invoke the
concept of practical wisdom and suggest that the skilled and virtuous person
will appropriately respond to complex moral situations. A Formula One car,
for example, will be good when it has both raw speed and delicate handling
and it is up to the skilled engineer to steer a path between these two virtues.
So too a person with practical wisdom can steer a path between apparently
clashing virtues in any given situation. Virtue ethicists have no interest in the
creation of a codified moral rule book covering all situations and instead put
the onus on the skill of the virtuous person when deciding how to act. Again,
whether this is a strength or weakness is for you to decide and defend.
10. Objection: Circularity
An entirely different objection to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is based on a
concern regarding logical circularity. According to Aristotle, the following
statements seem to be correct:
1. An act is virtuous if it is an act that a virtuous person would commit in
that circumstance.
2. A person is virtuous when they act in virtuous ways.
9 Ibid.
n
1)
om
aS;
~
ea)
i.)
=)
~
as
>
i=
oC
ce
i)
~
le)
~
n
m=
Ll
<
WN
S
a
&
a
ea
>
>)
=
re
S
Z
This, however, looks to be circular reasoning. If virtuous actions are understood
in terms of virtuous people, but virtuous people are understood in terms of
virtuous actions, then we have unhelpfully circular reasoning.
Julia Annas (1946-) responds to this apparent problem by arguing that
there is nothing dangerously circular in this reasoning because it is simply
a reflection of how we learn to develop our virtuous dispositions.'° Annas
suggests the analogy of piano-playing:
1. Great piano playing is what great pianists do.
2. A pianist is great when he “does” great piano playing.
In this case, there does not seem to be any troubling circularity in reasoning.
It is not the case that whatever a great pianist plays will be great, but rather
that great pianists have the skills to make great music. So too it is with virtues,
for virtuous people are not virtuous just because of their actual actions but
because of who they are and how their actions are motivated. It is their
skills and character traits that mean that, in practice, they provide a clear
guide as to which actions are properly aligned with virtues. Thus, if we wish
to decide whether or not an act is virtuous we can assess what a virtuous
person would do in that circumstance, but this does not mean that what is
virtuous is determined by the actions of a specifically virtuous individual. The
issue is whether or not a person, with virtuous characteristics in the abstract,
would actually carry that action out. Virtuous people are living and breathing
concrete guides, helping us to understand the actions associated with abstract
virtuous character dispositions.
11. Objection: Contribution to Eudaimonia
The final distinct objection to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics considered in this
chapter stems from the Aristotelian claim that living virtuously will contribute
to our ability to secure a eudaimon life. A challenge to this view may be based
on the fact that certain dispositions may seem to be virtuous but may not
actually seem to contribute to our flourishing or securing the good life.
As an example of this possible objection in practice, consider the following.
Shelley is often described as generous to a fault and regularly dedicates large
amounts of her time to helping others to solve problems at considerable cost,
in terms of both time and effort, to herself. Working beyond the limits that can
reasonably be expected of her, we may wish to describe Shelley as virtuous
given her generous personality. However, by working herself so hard for
others, we may wonder if Shelley is unduly limiting her own ability to flourish.
10 J. Annas, Intelligent Virtue.
Responses to this initial statement of the objection are not hard to imagine.
We may say that Shelley has either succumbed to a vice of excess and is
profligate with her time rather than generous, or we may accept that she is
generous rather than profligate and accept the uncomfortable conclusion and
say that this virtuous character trait is helping her to flourish. This second
claim may seem more plausible if we ruled out a description of Shelley wasting
her time.
Still, this objection may stand up if you can envisage a situation in which
someone could be properly described as rash rather than courageous
or wasteful rather than generous and, because of these traits, actually be
contributing to their own flourishing. You should consider your own possible
cases if you seek to support this general objection.
12. Moral Good and Individual Good
For Aristotle, moral goodness and individual goodness may seem to be
intimately linked. After all, a virtuous person will be charitable and friendly etc.
and as a result of these characteristics and dispositions will both advance their
own journey towards eudaimonia and make life better for others. Hedonism
(which claims that pleasure is the only source of well-being — see Chapter 1),
as a rival theory attempting to outline what is required for well-being, might
be thought to fail because it downplays the importance of acting in accordance
with reason, so hedonists do not therefore live according to their telos or true
function.
Aristotle says of his ideally virtuous person that they will have a unified
psychology — that their rational and non-rational psychologies will speak with
one voice. On the contrary, the non-virtuous person will have a psychology
in conflict between their rational and non-rational elements. In considering
who has the better life from their own individual perspectives — the happy
Hedonist or the Aristotelian virtuous person — you should again form your
own reasoned judgment.
It is important to note, as we conclude this chapter, that Aristotle does not
suggest that living a virtuous life is sufficient to guarantee a state of eudaimonia
for a person. External factors such as poverty, disease or untimely death
may scupper a person’s advance towards eudaimonia. However, for Aristotle,
being virtuous is necessary for the achievement of eudaimonia; without the
development of virtues it is impossible for a person to flourish even if they
avoid poverty, disease, loneliness etc.
n
1<)
=
a =
~
ea)
Vv
=)
—
as
>
Ss
Ls)
_
vu
-_—
le)
~
n
=
Ll
<
W
S
Ee
ll
ee
eal
>
>)
=
‘e)
Z
SUMMARY
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is very different in nature to the other
act-centred normative moral theories considered in this book.
Whether this, in itself, is a virtue or a vice is an issue for your
own judgment. The lack of a codified and fixed moral rule book is
something many view as a flaw, while others perceive it as the key
strength of the theory. Some, meanwhile, will feel uncomfortable
with Aristotle’s teleological claims, differing from those who
are happy to accept that there is an objectively good life that is
possible for human beings. Regardless, there is little doubt that
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics offers a distinct normative moral picture
and that it is a theory worthy of your reflections.
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Understanding virtues as feelings.
Misunderstanding the function of a human being (eudaimonia).
Thinking that the Golden Mean always suggests “neutral” or
“middling” actions.
Incorrect differentiation between voluntary, involuntary and non-
voluntary actions.
Claiming that Virtue Ethics offers no guidance whatsoever in moral
situations.
Claiming that Virtue Ethics is uninterested in actions.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1.
4.
Who has the better life — the happy hedonist or the virtuous
individual?
Are the virtues fixed and absolute? Or can virtues be relative to culture
and time?
Is becoming moral a skill? Is morality based on “knowing that” or
“knowing how”?
Can Virtue Ethics offer useful guidance?
5. Is the Golden Mean a useful way of working out virtuous
characteristics?
Are some virtues more important than others? Why?
Can you think of a virtue that does not contribute to eudaimonia?
8. Can you think of something that contributes to eudaimonia that is not a
virtue?
9. If there is no purpose to life, is there any point in subscribing to
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?
n
io)
=
=
~
ea)
Vv
=)
—
ae
>
=
oO
pas
vu
-_
le)
~
n
=
=
<
10. What should you do if virtues seem to clash when faced with different
possible actions?
11. Who might count as virtuous role models and why?
12. Do human beings have a felos or proper function?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Act-centred Phronesis
Agent-centred Virtue
Dispositions Telos
Eudaimonia Golden mean
References
Annas, Julia, Intelligent Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by William David Ross (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1908), freely available at http://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/
nico/index.htm
Hursthouse, Rosalind, ‘Normative Virtue Ethics’, in Ethical Theory, ed. by
Russ Shafer-Landau (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 701-09.
Panin, Ivan, Thoughts (Grafton: Ivan Panin, 1887), freely available at https://ia6
01405.us.archive.org/8/items/thoughtsO0panigoog/thoughts00panigoog.pdf
oné_! aay precepts... eo
Weed = i precept DI DDE F commands" “ne a Se aad
anane 2 emorallyis
5 3 B de cuathe Father see act am
‘Srati people =
thittk em mt = ratiotiall act
d
consider SECONG. ary OD 3 a is 3"OR a is action... 15;
LAS Aquinas
lone
natural
pi ps oo Re" Divine: die though 2 A ayee
sos p= thinking SQ an 7 = rte & moral: Be first ” Venza 2 GO" sO
deiah &
G father mae} = — ere fr ()
rules sivekes ‘a lexighe internal co
intentions een Theo ry
Laws ever
CHAPTER 4
Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory
Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also
bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending
them.?
1. Introduction to Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an intellectual and religious revolutionary,
living at a time of great philosophical, theological and scientific development.
He was a member of the Dominican Friars, which at that time was considered
to be a cult, and was taught by one of the greatest intellects of the age, Albert
the Great (1208-1280). In a nutshell Aquinas wanted to move away from Plato’s
thinking, which was hugely influential at the time, and instead introduce
Aristotelian ideas to science, nature and theology.
Aquinas wrote an incredible amount — in fact one of the miracles accredited
to him was the amount he wrote! His most famous work is Summa Theologica
and this runs to some three and half thousand pages and contains many
fascinating and profound insights, such as proofs for God’s existence. The
book remained a fundamental basis for Catholic thinking right up to the 1960s!
But do not worry we will only be focusing on a few key ideas! Specifically
books I-II, questions 93-95.
2. Motivating Natural Law Theory: The Euthyphro
Dilemma and Divine Command Theory
The likely answer from a religious person as to why we should not steal, or
commit adultery is: “because God forbids us”; or if we ask why we should love
our neighbour or give money to charity then the answer is likely to be “because
God commands it”. Drawing this link between what is right and wrong and
1 T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1:8, http://www.summatheologica.info/summa/parts/?p=1
2 T. Aquinas, Romans, 2:15.
WD
=
x
nl
a
a
a
<
=
es
fe)
Z
what God commands and forbids is what is called the Divine Command Theory
(DCT).
There is a powerful and influential challenge to such an account called
the Euthyphro dilemma after the challenge was first raised in Plato’s Euthyphro.
The dilemma runs as follows:
Either God commands something is right because it is, or it is right because
God commands it. If God commands something because it is right, then
God’s commands do not make it right, His commands only tell us what is
right. This means God simply drops out of the picture in terms of explaining
why something is right.
If on the other hand something is right because God commands it then
anything at all could be right; killing children or setting fire to churches could
be morally acceptable. But if a moral theory says this then that looks as if the
theory is wrong.
Most theists reject the first option and opt for this second option — that
God’s commands make something right. But they then have to face the
problem that it make morality haphazard. This “arbitrariness problem” as it is
sometimes called, is the reason that many, including Aquinas, give up on the
Divine Command Theory.
So for Aquinas what role, if any at all, does God have when it comes to
morality? For him, God’s commands are there to help us to come to see what,
as a matter of fact, is right and wrong rather than determine what is right and
wrong. That is, Aquinas opts for the first option in the Euthyphro dilemma
as stated above. But then this raises the obvious question: if it is not God’s
commands that make something right and wrong, then what does? Does not
God just fall out of the picture? This is where his Natural Law Theory comes in.
3. Natural Law Theory
Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory contains four different types of law: Eternal
Law, Natural Law, Human Law and Divine Law. The way to understand these
four laws and how they relate to one another is via the Eternal Law, so we’d
better start there...
By “Eternal Law” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all
things. And because the Eternal Law is part of God’s mind then it has always,
and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply something that God
decided at some point to write.
Aquinas thinks that everything has a purpose and follows a plan. He, like
Aristotle, is a teleologist (the Greek term “telos” refers to what we might call
a purpose, goal, end/or the true final function of an object) (see Chapter 3;
wm
not to be confused with a telelogical ethical theory such as Utilitarianism) and
believes that every object has a telos; the acorn has the telos of growing into an
oak; the eye a telos of seeing; a rat of eating and reproducing etc. (notice this
links to his view on sex, see Chapter 10). If something fulfils its purpose/plan
then it is following the Eternal Law.
Aquinas thinks that something is good in as far as it fulfils its purpose/plan.
This fits with common sense. A “good” eye is one which sees well, an acorn is
a good if it grows into a strong oak tree.
But what about humans? Just as a good eye is to see, and a good acorn is to
grow then a good human is to...? Is to what? How are we going to finish this
sentence? What do you think?
Aquinas thinks that the answer is reason and that it is this that makes us
distinct from rats and rocks. What is right for me and you as humans is to act
according to reason. If we act according to reason then we are partaking in the
Natural Law.
If we all act according to reason, then we will all agree to some overarching
general rules (what Aquinas calls primary precepts). These are absolute and
binding on all rational agents and because of this Aquinas rejects relativism.
The first primary precept is that good is to be pursued and done and evil avoided.
He thinks that this is the guiding principle for all our decision making.
Before unpacking this, it is worth clarifying something about what “law”
means. Imagine that we are playing Cluedo and we are trying to work out the
identity of the murderer. There are certain rules about how to move around
the board, how to deal out cards, how to reveal the murderer etc. These rules
are all written down and can be consulted.
However, in playing the game there are other rules that operate which are
so obvious that they are neither written down nor spoken. One such rule is
that a claim made in the game cannot both be true and false; if it is Professor
Plum who is the murderer then it cannot be true that it is not Professor Plum
who is the murderer. These are internal rules which any rational person can
come to recognize by simply thinking and are not external like the other
rules — such as you can only have one guess as to the identity of the murderer.
When Aquinas talks of Natural Laws, he means internal rules and not external
ones.
Natural Law does not generate an external set of rules that are written
down for us to consult but rather it generates general rules that any rational
agent can come to recognize simply in virtue of being rational. For example,
for Aquinas it is not as if we need to check whether we should pursue good
and avoid evil, as it is just part of how we already think about things. Aquinas
gives some more examples of primary precepts:
>
a
(o)
o
&
=
=
Lon}
|
—
Lon}
x
5
-_
oC
Zz
ry
w
oC
c
om
i=]
ion
<
W
=
x
ll
aa
a
a
<
=
e4
)
Z
1. Protect and preserve human life.
2. Reproduce and educate one’s offspring.
3. Know and worship God.
4. Live ina society.
These precepts are primary because they are true for all people in all instances
and are consistent with Natural Law.
Aquinas also introduces what he calls the Human Law which gives rise
to what he calls “Secondary Precepts”. These might include such things as
do not drive above 70mph on a motorway, do not kidnap people, always
wear a helmet when riding a bike, do not hack into someone’s bank account.
Secondary precepts are not generated by our reason but rather they are imposed
by governments, groups, clubs, societies etc.
It is not always morally acceptable to follow secondary precepts. It is only
morally acceptable if they are consistent with the Natural Law. If they are,
then we ought to follow them, if they are not, then we ought not. To see why
think through an example.
Consider the secondary precept that “if you are a woman and you live in
Saudi Arabia then you are not allowed to drive”. Aquinas would argue that this
secondary precept is practically irrational because it treats people differently
based on an arbitrary difference (gender). He would reason that if the men in
power in Saudi actually really thought hard then they too would recognize
that this law is morally wrong. This in turn means that Aquinas would think
that this human law does not fit with the Natural Law. Hence, it is morally
wrong to follow a law that says that men can, and women cannot, drive. So
although it is presented as a secondary precept, because it is not in accordance
with Natural Law, it is what Aquinas calls an apparent good. This is in contrast
with those secondary precepts which are in accordance with the Natural Law
and which he calls the real goods.
Unlike primary precepts, Aquinas is not committed to there being only one
set of secondary precepts for all people in all situations. It is consistent with
Aquinas’s thinking to have a law to drive on the right in the US and on the left
in the UK as there is no practical reason to think that there is one correct side
of the road on which to drive.
It is clear that on our own we are not very good at discovering primary
precepts and consequently Aquinas thinks that what we ought to do is
talk and interact with people. To discover our real goods — our secondary
precepts which accord with Natural Law — we need to be part of a society.
For example, we might think that “treat Christians as secondary citizens” is a
good secondary precept until we talk and live with Christians. The more we
can think and talk with others in society the better and it is for this reason that
“live in society” is itself a primary precept.
But looking at what we have said already about Natural Laws and primary
and secondary precepts, we might think that there is no need for God. If we
can learn these primary precepts by rational reflection then God simply drops
out of the story (recall the Euthyphro dilemma above).
Just to recap as there a lots of moving parts to the story. We now have
Eternal Law (God’s plans/purpose for all things), Natural Laws (our partaking
in the Eternal Law which leads to primary precepts), Human Laws (humans
making specific laws to capture the truths of the Natural Laws which lead to
secondary precepts) and now finally Aquinas introduces the Divine Law.
The Divine Law, which is discovered through revelation, should be thought
of as the Divine equivalent of the Human Law (those discovered through
rational reflection and created by people). Divine laws are those that God has,
in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those “mysteries”, those rules given by
God which we find in scripture; for example, the ten commandments. But why
introduce the Divine Law at all? It certainly feels we have enough Laws. Here
is a story to illustrate Aquinas’s answer.
A number of years ago I was talking to a minister of a church. He told me
about an instance where a married man came to ask his advice about whether
to finish an affair he was having. The man’s reasoning went as follows — “I
am having an affair which just feels so right, we are both very much in love
and surely God would want what is best for me! How could it be wrong if we
are so happy?”
In response, the minister opened the Bible to the Ten Commandments and
pointed out the commandment that it says that it is wrong to commit adultery.
Case closed. The point of this story is simple. We can be confused and mistaken
about what we think we have most reason to do and because of this we need
someone who actually knows the mind of God to guide us, and who better
to know this than God Himself. This then is precisely what is revealed in the
Divine Law.
Or consider another example. We recognize that we find it hard to forgive
our friends and nearly always impossible to forgive our enemies. We tell
ourselves we have the right to be angry, to bear grudges, etc. Isn’t this just
human? However, these human reasons are distortions of the Eternal Law. We
need some guidance when it comes to forgiveness and it is where the Divine
Law which tells us that we should forgive others — including our enemies.
Following the Human Laws and the Divine Laws will help us to fulfil our
purposes and plans and be truly happy.
~
a
(o)
o
&
i
=
Lon}
|
—
fon}
x
5
-_—
o
Zz
wn
w
oC
c
=
5
ion
<
WD
=
x
ic
a
a
a
<
=
es
fe)
Z
4, Summary of Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory
For Aquinas everything has a function (a telos) and the good thing(s) to do are
those acts that fulfil that function. Some things such as acorns, and eyes, just
do that naturally. However, humans are free and hence need guidance to find
the right path. That right path is found through reasoning and generates the
“internal” Natural Law. By following the Natural Law we participate in God’s
purpose for us in the Eternal Law.
However, the primary precepts that derive from the Natural Law are quite
general, such as, pursue good and shun evil. So we need to create secondary
precepts which can actually guide our day-to-day behaviour. But we are
fallible so sometimes we get these secondary precepts wrong, sometimes we
get them right. When they are wrong they only reflect our apparent goods.
When they are right they reflect our real goods.
Finally, however good we are because we are finite and sinful, we can only
get so far with rational reflection. We need some revealed guidance and this
comes in the form of Divine Law. So to return to the Euthyphro dilemma.
God’s commands through the Divine Law are ways of illuminating what is
in fact morally acceptable and not what determines what is morally acceptable.
Aquinas rejects the Divine Command Theory.
5. Putting this into Practice: The Doctrine of Double Effect
(DDE)
Let’s consider some examples to show that what we have said so far might
actually work. Imagine someone considering suicide. Is this morally acceptable
or not? Recall, it is part of the Natural Law to preserve and protect human
life. Clearly suicide is not preserving and protecting human life. It is therefore
irrational to kill oneself and cannot be part of God’s plan for our life; hence it
is morally unacceptable.
Imagine that someone is considering having an abortion after becoming
pregnant due to rape. The same reasoning is going to apply. We ought to
preserve and protect human life and hence an abortion in this case is morally
wrong.
However, as we will see, Aquinas thinks that there are some instances where
it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent person and therefore there may be
occasions when it is morally acceptable to kill a foetus. But how can this be
correct? Will this not violate the primary precept about preserving life? The
answer is to understand that for Aquinas, an action is not just about what we do
externally but is also about what we do internally (i.e. our motivations). With this
distinction he can show that, for example, killing an innocent can be morally
acceptable.
To make this clear, Aquinas introduces one of his most famous ideas: the
“Doctrine of Double Effect”. Let’s see how this works.
Imagine a child brought up in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive family. He is
frequently scared for his life and is locked in the house for days at a time. One day when his
father is drunk and ready to abuse him again he quickly grabs a kitchen knife and slashes
his father’s artery. His father bleeds out and dies in a matter of minutes. Do you think the
son did anything wrong?
Many people would say that he did nothing morally wrong and in fact, some
might even go as far as to say that he should get a pat on the back for his
actions. What about Aquinas? What would he say?
We might think that given the Natural Law to “preserve and protect life’
he would say that this action is morally wrong. But, in fact, he would say the
iJ
son’s action was not morally wrong (Aquinas discusses self-defence in the
Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64)).
So why is the son killing the father not in direct contradiction with the
primary precept? Aquinas asks us to consider the difference between the
external act — the fact that the father was killed, and the internal act — the
motive.
In our example, the action is one of self-defence because of the son’s internal
action and because of this, Aquinas would think the killing is morally
acceptable. This distinction and conclusion is possible because of Aquinas’s
Doctrine of Double Effect which states that if an act fulfils four conditions then
it is morally acceptable. If not, then it is not.
1. The first principle is that the act must be a good one.
2. The second principle is that the act must come about before the
consequences.
3. The third is that the intention must be good.
4. The fourth, it must be for serious reasons.
This is abstract so let’s go back to our example. The act of the son was performed
to save his own life so that is good — we can tick (1). Moreover, the act to save
his life came about first — we can tick (2). The son did not first act to kill his
father in order to save his own life. That would be doing evil to bring about
good and that is never morally acceptable. The intention of the son was to
preserve and protect his life, so the intention was good — tick (3). Finally, the
reasons were serious as it was his life or his father’s life — tick (4).
a
ie
°
oO
&
=
=
o
|
—
{oj
x
5
—s
o
Zz
ry
w
5)
c
CF |
5
ion
<
W
=
x
ic
a
a
z
<
=
es
fe)
Z
So given that the act meets all four principles, it is in line with the DDE and
hence the action is morally acceptable, even though it caused someone to die and
hence seems contrary to the primary precept of preserving life.
We can draw a contrasting case. Imagine that instead of slashing his father
in self-defence, the son plans the killing. He works out the best time, the best
day and then sets up a trip wire causing his father to fall from his flat window
to his death. Does this action meet the four criteria of the DDE? Well, no,
because the son’s intention is to kill the father rather than save his own life — we
must put a cross at (3).
We have already seen that suicide is morally impermissible for Aquinas,
so does that mean that any action you take that leads knowingly to your own
death is morally wrong? No. Because even though the external act of your
own death is the same, the internal act — the intention — might be different.
An action is judged via the Natural Law both externally and internally.
Imagine a case where a soldier sees a grenade thrown into her barracks.
Knowing that she does not have time to defuse it or throw it away, she throws
herself on the grenade. It blows up, killing her but saving other soldiers in her
barracks. Is this wrong or right? Aquinas says this is morally acceptable given
DDE. If we judge this act both internally and externally we'll see why.
The intention — the internal act — was not to kill herself even though she
could foresee that this was certainly what was going to happen. The act itself is
good, to save her fellow soldiers (1). The order is right, she is not doing evil so
good will happen (2). The intention is good, it is to save her fellow soldiers (3).
The reason is serious, it concerns people’s lives (4).
Contrast this with a soldier who decides to kill herself by blowing herself
up. The intention is not good and hence the DDE does not permit this suicidal
action.
Finally, imagine that a woman is pregnant and also has inoperable uterine
cancer. The doctors have two choices; to take out the uterus and save the mother,
but the foetus will die; or leave the foetus to develop and be born healthy, but
the woman will die. What would Aquinas say in this instance? Well using the
DDE he would say that it is morally acceptable to remove the cancer.
The action is to remove the cancer; it has the foreseeable consequences of
the foetus dying but that is not what is intended. The action — to remove the
cancer — is good (1). The act of removing the cancer comes before the death of
the foetus (2). The intention to save the woman’s life is also good (3). Finally,
the reasons are serious as they are about the life and death of the woman and
the foetus (4).
So even though this is a case where the doctor’s actions bring about the
death of the foetus it would be acceptable for Aquinas through his Natural
Law Theory, as is shown via the DDE.
6. Some Thoughts about Natural Law Theory
There are many things we might consider when thinking through Aquinas’s
Natural Law Theory. There are some obvious problems we could raise, such
as the problem about whether or not God exists. If God does not exist then the
Eternal Law does not exist and therefore the whole theory comes tumbling
down. However, as good philosophers we ought always to operate with a
principle of charity and grant our opponent is rational and give the strongest
possible interpretation of their argument. So, let’s assume for the sake of argument
that God exists. How plausible is Aquinas’s theory? There are a number of
things that we can pick up on.
Aquinas’s theory works on the idea that if something is “natural”, that is,
if it fulfils its function, then it is morally acceptable, but there are a number of
unanswered questions relating to natural.
We might ask, why does “natural” matter? We can think of things that are
not “natural” but which are perfectly acceptable, and things which are natural
which are not. For example, wearing clothes, taking medication and body
piercing certainly are not natural, but we would not want to say such things
are morally wrong.
On the other hand we might consider that violence is a natural response to
an unfaithful partner, but also think that such violence is morally unacceptable.
So it is not true that we can discover what is morally acceptable or not simply
by discovering what is natural and what is not.
Put this worry aside. Recall, Aquinas thinks that reproduction is natural
and hence reproduction is morally acceptable. This means that sex that does
not lead to reproduction is morally unacceptable. Notice that Aquinas is not
saying that if sex does not lead to pregnancy it is wrong. After all, sometimes
the timing is not right. His claim is rather that if there is no potential for sex to
lead to pregnancy then it is wrong. However, even with this qualification this
would mean a whole host of things such as homosexuality and contraception
are morally wrong. We might take this as a reason to rethink Aquinas’s moral
framework (we discuss these apparent problems in more detail in Chapter 10).
There is, though, a more fundamental worry at the heart of this approach
(and Aristotle’s) to ethics. Namely, they think that everything has a goal (telos).
Now, with some things this might be plausible. Things such as the eye or an
acorn have a clear function — to grow, to see — but what about humans? This
seems a bit less obvious! Do humans (rather than our individual parts) really
have a telos? There are certainly some philosophers — such as the existentialists,
for example Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) — who think that there is no
such thing as human nature and no such thing as a human function or goal.
But if we are unconvinced that humans have a goal, then this whole approach
to ethics seems flawed.
~
ie
(e)
o
&
=
=
Lon}
|
—
fon}
x
5
-_
o
Zz
wn
w
oC
c
=
5
ion
<
W
=
x
ic
a
a
z
<
=
es
fe)
Z
Next we might raise questions about DDE. Go back to our example about
abortion. For Aquinas it is morally acceptable to remove the uterus even if we
know that in doing so the foetus will die. What is not morally acceptable is to
intend to kill the foetus by removing the uterus. On first reading this seems
to makes sense; we have an intuitive feel for what DDE is getting at. However,
when we consider it in more detail it is far from clear.
Imagine two doctors who (apparently) do exactly the same thing, they
both remove the uterus and the foetus dies. The one intends to take out the
uterus — in full knowledge that the foetus will die — the other intends to kill
the foetus. For the DDE to work in the way that Aquinas understands it, this
difference in intention makes the moral difference between the two doctors.
However, is there really a moral difference? To put pressure on the answer
that there is, ask yourself what you think it means to intend to do something.
If the first doctor says “I did not intend to kill the foetus” can we make sense
of this? After all, if you asked her “did you know that in taking out the uterus
the foetus would die?” she would say “yes, of course”. But if she did this and
the foetus died, did not she intend (in some sense) to kill the foetus? So this
issue raises some complex question about the nature of the mind, and how we
might understand intentions.
Finally, we might wonder how easy it is to work out what actually to do
using the Natural Law. We would hope our moral theory gives us direction in
living our lives. That, we might think, is precisely the role of a moral theory.
But how might it work in this case?
For Aquinas, if we rationally reflect then we arrive at the right way of
proceeding. If this is in line with the Natural Law and the Divine Law then
it is morally acceptable. If it is out of line, then it is not. The assumption is
that the more we think, the more rational we become, the more convergence
there will be. We'll all start to have similar views on what is right and wrong.
But is this too optimistic? Very often, even after extensive reflection and cool
deliberation with friends and colleagues, it is not obvious to us what we as
rational agents should do. We all know people we take to be rational, but we
disagree with them on moral issues. And even in obviously rational areas such
as mathematics, the best mathematicians are not able to agree. We might then
be sceptical that as rational agents we will come to be in line with the Natural
and Divine Laws.
SUMMARY
Aquinas is an intellectual giant. He wrote an incredible amount
covering a vast array of topics. His influence has been immense.
His central idea is that humans are created by God to reason — that
is our function. Humans do the morally right thing if we act in
accordance with reason, and the morally wrong thing if we don’t.
Aquinas is an incredibly subtle and complex thinker. For
example, his Doctrine of Double Effect makes us to reflect on what
we actually mean by “actions”, “intentions” and “consequences” .
His work remains much discussed and researched and typically
still plays a central role in a Christian Ethics that rejects Divine
Command Theory.
~
a
(o)
oO
&
=
=
Lo)
|
—
{o>}
x
5
-_
(o>)
Zz
ey
w
o
c
Oo |
5
ion
<
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
¢ Thinking that Aquinas is a Divine Command Theorist.
° Thinking that Eternal Law is something that God decided to write.
° Thinking that Natural Laws are laws of science — e.g. law of
thermodynamics.
° Thinking that all the “laws” are absolute.
e Thinking that it is always morally required of us to follow secondary
precepts.
° Thinking that Aquinas is committed to there being only one set of
secondary precepts for all people in all situations.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. If God exists then what — if anything — do you think that has to do
with what is right and wrong?
2. We might answer the “arbitrariness” dilemma by citing God’s nature.
Why might this answer be problematic?
What is the Eternal Law?
What are Natural Laws and primary precepts?
What are Human Laws and secondary precepts?
What are Divine Laws?
WS: or oe ©
Just as a good eye is to see, and a good acorn is to grow then a good
human is to...? Is to what? How are we going to finish this sentence?
W
Y
an)
=
ea
ea)
2
e
=
4
O
Z
8. People often talk about what is “natural”? What do you think they
mean by this? How useful is the notion of “natural” in a moral theory?
9. Think of a descriptive claim. Think of a prescriptive claim. Why might
it be problematic moving from one to the other?
10. If people thought long enough, do you think there would be
convergence on what is morally right and wrong?
11. What is the Doctrine of Double Effect?
12. What is the difference — if anything — between intending to bring
about some end and acting where you know your action will bring
about that end?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Apparent goods Primary precepts
A priori Real goods
A posteriori Secondary precepts
Eternal Law Internal acts
External acts Doctrine of Double Effect
Natural Law
References
Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, freely available at http://www.
summatheologica.info/summa/parts/?p=1
—, Romans (Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans)
Plato, Euthyphro, translated by Benjamin Jowett, freely available at http://
classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
a
ia
o
Vv
és}
=
z
fa]
=
=
fa]
Lan!
=]
~-_
ts}
Z
Rs)
mn
]
i=
-
=)
low
<
oD
-_ lo V Civrinc§i=
3 oe tilitarianism 7 bring’ religious
meamng
devil BE pote tem 88
> Ty Si era! comsidert
: working ose situations 003
good. WIONG view Chapter theory 3 act ga ® 1 MO:
Bi vi views 8 justice 2 =F zone Silslaw rants aa! = peop e
famous
thin, book *" Bument a gPrinciple OH)
ein mean Like » a ; 3° tinomianism me Fe decide CXAMple Y
“ : eo? a just rather Situationism think < However Murder chow Cf
£ & need type 3 simple principles J) rejects $ calculus versal strangers @
action =
attitu
or
point + sien contr § 9
= q
°
.o)
op)
CHAPTER 5
Fletcher’s Situation Ethics
Every man must decide for himself according to his own estimate of conditions and consequences..."
People like to wallow or cower in the security of the law.
1. Situation Ethics Introduction
In the introduction to The Situation Ethics: The New Morality Joseph Fletcher
(1905-1991) develops what he calls an ethical non-system. His book caused
a “fire storm” amongst the public because it legitimised the general post-war
dissatisfaction with authority. At the time it was written it seemed to make
some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to
be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not
widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. It is badly argued,
idiosyncratic and rehashes old ideas.
Although there is the clothing of religion in the book — Fletcher uses
religious terms such as “agape” and cites famous theologians such as Rudolf
Bultmann (1884-1976) — the central ideas do not rely on the truth of any
particular religion. As he says his argument has “...nothing special to do with
theological...faith’?
Fletcher calls this ethical “non-system” Situationism and a Bible story will
illustrate the general point of the book. In Mark 3:1-6 we are told that Jesus
healed a man with a withered hand in the Jewish Temple; an act which we
would consider to demonstrate Jesus’s love for all. However, the Pharisees tell
him off because he has performed this healing on the Sabbath day and the
Jewish law says that no one can work on the Sabbath.
Fletcher's work is an attempt to show how acts can be morally acceptable
even if they go against so-called moral laws (if you’ve read Chapter 3 on
Aristotle you might already have an answer to this). Fletcher says that Jesus’
act is morally acceptable — despite going against the Jewish law — because he
acted to bring about the most love.
1 K.E. Kirk, Conscience and its Problems, p. 331.
2 ‘J. F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics.
3 Ibid., p. 15.
a)
—
x
ic
aa
ea
2
<
=
ia
eo)
Z
2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework
Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “Legalism” and
“Antinomianism”, and one attractive view which sits in between them:
“Situationism’”’.
Legalism
Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly”
observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. Fletcher has in
mind a simple minded deontologist who holds that actions are right and wrong
irrespective of the consequences. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all
situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die.
Various Christian sects are legalistic; for instance, some might refuse medical
help — such as blood transfusions — when someone in their community is ill
because they think it is against God’s commands. Or consider an example of
Islamic Legalism (obviously, just as in the Christian sect, these are not wholly
representative of either religion). In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia
refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they
were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of Allah.
One witness said he saw three policemen “beating young girls to prevent them
from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya” .* Fifteen
girls died.
Antinomianism
¥.
The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism’
meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or
she wants in a situation. Fletcher calls this an “existential” view because it is one
that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed
laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to
comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom. If Antinomianism is
right and if an agent believes that something is right, then it is. Antinomianism
means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any
decisions taken are ad hoc. There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents
and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.
A Middle Ethics: Situationism
We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities.
If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy?
Fletcher thinks not.
4 ‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/
1874471.stm
Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism.
But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. Fletcher’s one moral law
is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most
people (“Agapé Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory.
It is directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right
or wrong.
Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of
the situation; consider Chapter 1 where we talk about Bentham and Mill’s
Utilitarianism. So, Fletcher’s view is not unique. What makes his view different
is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agape.
Fletcher thinks that there can be moral principles but that these differ from
laws. Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which
derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might
have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because
we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring
about the most love. However, it is not a Jaw because for Fletcher, murder
is not wrong in all situations. This then is similar to the discussion of Rule-
Utilitarianism in Chapter 1.
For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would
have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack.
Fletcher would say that here is a situation where we ought not to follow the
principle do not murder but rather do the most loving thing, which in this case
turns out to be murder. From the universal law we can only derive principles,
not other universal laws. As Fletcher puts it: “we cannot milk a universal from
a universal”.°
This mean that for Fletcher it might, on occasions, be morally acceptable
to break the Ten Commandments. In fact, he says something stronger, that in
some situations it is our duty to break these commandments. He thinks that
there are four working principles of Situationism.
3. The Four Working Principles of Situationism
Principle 1. Pragmatism
The situationalist follows a strategy which is pragmatic. What does that mean?
Well it does not mean that Fletcher is a pragmatist. “Pragmatism” is a very
specific and well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of
John Dewey (1859-1952), Charles Peirce (1839-1914) and William James
(1842-1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views
and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.
5 J. F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 27.
Dy
=)
=
te
-_
LL)
|
°
s
o
=]
=
=
op)
Dy
=
)
25)
=)
_
()
—
fy
a)
—
x
ia
za
ea
e
<
=
ia
eo)
Zz
What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to
moral views which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract (e.g.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative (see Chapter 2)), but rather explores how moral
views might play out in each real life situations.
Principle 2: Relativism
Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme
principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist.
This does not mean he is a relativist in the sense that we can simply choose
what is right and wrong rather it is just an appeal for people to stop trying
to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then
consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This
is a very simple, unsophisticated idea, like his ideas on pragmatism, and
Fletcher just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we
are in.
Principle 3: Positivism
His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but
rather is where:
Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not
a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic...°
So when challenged as to how he can justify that the only law is to maximize
love, Fletcher will say that he cannot. It is not a result of logic or reasoning,
rather it is a decision we take, it is like the “theologian’s faith”.
Principle 4: Personalism
Love is something that is experienced by people. So Personalism is the view that
if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the
“who” of a situation. Summing up this Fletcher says:
Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved... Loving
actions are the only conduct permissible.’
These then are his “four working principles”: pragmatism, relativism,
positivism and personalism.
6 Ibid., p. 47.
7 Ibid., p.51.
4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a Verb not
a Noun
For Fletcher “conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. He says
“conscience” is a verb and not a noun. This sounds complicated but it really is
not (for complex and sophisticated discussions of conscience see Chapter 9).
First consider what he means when he says conscience “is not a noun”.
Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal
“moral compass”. This is how people typically think of conscience and it
is often portrayed in cartoons with a devil and angel sitting on someone’s
shoulder whispering into her ears.
Rather for Fletcher conscience is a verb. Imagine we have heard some
bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and
we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts
before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about
this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it, or ask for guidance from the Holy
Spirit, a guardian angel etc.
According to Fletcher this is wrong. Instead, we need to be in the situation,
and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the
experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s
phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have
been known beforehand. What our conscience would have us do is revealed
when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.
5. The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics
Fletcher gives six propositions (features) of his theory.
1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all
There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of
context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in
as far as it brings about the most amount of love. Echoing Bentham’s Hedonic
Calculus (see Chapter 1) Fletcher defends what he calls the:
agapeic calculus, the greatest amount of neighbor welfare for the largest number of neighbors
possible.®
Notice that here he talks about “welfare” rather than “love”. Fletcher does this
because of how he understands love which, importantly, is not about having
feelings and desires. We discuss this below.
8 Ibid., p. 95.
Dn
=)
=
ote
~~
=
|
°
=
o
=]
_
om
op)
Dy
2
)
a}
1)
_
)
—
fy
Sa)
3
x
&
za
ea
e
<
=
ia
eo)
Z
2: The ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else
As we have seen in the first proposition, the only way to decide what we ought
to do (the ruling norm) is to bring about love. We need to be careful though
because for Fletcher “love” has a technical meaning.
By love Fletcher means “agape” — from ancient Greek. Agapé has a very
particular meaning. Initially it is easier to see what it is not. It is not the feeling
we might have towards friends or family member which is better described as
brotherly love (philéo). Nor is it the erotic desire we might feel towards others
(érds).
Rather agapé is an attitude and not a feeling at all, one which does not expect
anything in return and does not give any special considerations to anyone.
Agape regards the enemy in the same way as the friend, brother, spouse,
lover. Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is
probably unhelpful to even call it “love”.
Typically people write and think about love as experiencing an intense
feeling. In cartoons when a character is in love their hearts jump out of their
chest, or people “in love” are portrayed as not being able to concentrate on
things because they “cannot stop thinking” about someone.
This is not what love means for Fletcher. In the Christian context agape is the
type of love which is manifest in how God relates to us. Consider Christ’s love
in saying that he forgave those carrying out his execution or consider a more
modern example. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20,
was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer
and after he had served a 17 year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in
next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget
the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agape.
3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else
For Fletcher, practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down
to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the
other. Consider a recent story:
Trevell Coleman, better known as the rapper G Dep, was a rising star on the New York
hip-hop scene and had been signed to P Diddy’s Bad Boy record label. He also had a wife,
Crystal, and twin boys.
Yet Trevell, who was brought up a Catholic and always retained his faith, had a terrible
secret, as an 18-year-old, he had mugged and shot a man. He never knew what happened
to his victim, yet 17 years later, in 2010, he could no longer bear the guilt and went to the
police — a step almost unimaginable for someone from the Hip Hop world.
A police search of their cold case files revealed the case of John Henkel — shot and killed
in 1993 at exactly the same street corner in Harlem where Trevell says he committed his
crime. He is now serving a jail sentence of 15 years to life for Henkel’s murder. Yet he has no
regrets; “I wanted to get right with God”, he says.
Trevell’s choice was perhaps hardest to bear for his wife Crystal, who now has to bring up
their teenage boys on her own.
This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family
and doing the right thing — “justice”. Fletcher thinks that most other moral
problems can be thought of in this way. Imagine we are trying to decide what
is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse
might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this.
We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this?
Fletcher says the answer is simple. To act justly or fairly is precisely to act
in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”.’
4: Love wills the neighbor's good when we like him or not
This is self-explanatory. As we noted above, agapé is in the business of loving
the unlovable. So related to our enemies:
Christian love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior
and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they
are our neighbors and are to be loved.’
5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else
In direct rejection of the deontological approaches Fletcher says that any action
we take, as considered as an action independent of its consequences is literally,
“meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires
its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.
6: Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively
Ethical decisions are not cut and dried most of the time and they exist in a
grey area. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Fletcher
gives the example of a women in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a
defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The
loving decision was not one given by the law which stated that all abortions
are wrong. However, she travelled to Sweden where she had an abortion.
Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions
were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the
particulars of the situation so as to bring about the most love.
9 Ibid., p. 89.
10 Ibid., p. 107.
Dn
=)
=
tes
_
LL)
<j
°
=
3
=]
_
om
WY)
Dy
2
)
a5)
=)
_—
)
—
(oy
wn
iS
x
ic
za
a
2
<
=
ia
eo)
Z
6. Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism
Fletcher’s Situationism is a hopelessly confused and confusing moral theory.
Fletcher’s work has the annoying tendency to present trivially true claims as if
they are profound philosophical insights.
At the most general level, Fletcher commits the fallacy of appealing to authority.
This is simply the mistake of thinking that an argument is strengthened by
saying that someone else — normally someone in “authority”, holds it.
Fletcher uses many quotations from famous theologians and mentions
famous philosophers, such as Aristotle, as a substitute for argument.
Unfortunately simply appealing to others is not an argument. To see how
useless this approach is consider the following: “Walker’s crisps are healthy
because Gary Lineker says so”.
The other concern throughout Fletcher’s work is that he is simply unclear
and inaccurate, especially when dealing with the two central ideas: “love” and
“situation”.
In some places he talks about love being an “attitude”. In other places he
says it is what we ought to bring about as an end point. Which is it? Is it a loving
“attitude” in virtue of which we act? Or is it about bringing about certain
consequences?
To see why this might be problematic, consider a case where we act out of
the attitude of agape but the consequence is one of great death and destruction.
Suppose we act in good “conscience” as Fletcher calls it but our act brings
about horrendously dire consequences. According to Fletcher have we done
right or wrong? It is not clear.
If he does say that what we did is “wrong” then fine, agapé should not be
thought of as an attitude, but rather some feature of consequences. This reading
is of course in line with his agapé calculus. Ok, so then imagine the devil acting
out of hatred and malice but — due to his lack of knowledge — happens to
bring about a vast amount of love in the world. Has the devil acted in the
morally right way? If the “agape calculus” is used then “yes”. So, according to
Fletcher has the devil done the right thing? It is not clear.
Notice it is no good saying “well we cannot decide because it depends on
the situation!” Because we have just given you the details of the situation. If
you need more information, just make some up and then reframe the question.
So what Fletcher means by “love” is not clear. Nor is what he means by
“situation”.
If you were writing a book on Situationism you would expect a clear and
extended discussion of these concepts. However, there is no discussion of it
in his key text and this is an important omission. To see how thorny the issue
actually is consider the following. A politician stands up and says “given the
current situation we need to raise taxes”. Our first response is probably going
to be “what situation?” The point, simply put, is that there is no obvious way
of knowing what is meant by “situation”. What we will choose to consider in
any situation will depend on what is motivating us, what our dispositions are,
what agendas we have.
Consider a moral example. A terminally ill patient wants to die; given the
situation what ought we to do? The point is what does, and does not, get
considered in “the situation”, will be dependent on what we already think is
important. Do we consider his religious views, the fact that he has three cats
which depend on him? What about the type of illness, the type of death, who
he leaves behind, the effect it might have on the judicial system, the effect on
the medical profession etc.
So then, as a way of actually working out what we ought to do, Fletcher's
prescription that we should “ask what will bring about the most love in the
situation” is singularly unhelpful. It seems perfectly plausible that one person
might see the situation in one way and someone else see it in another, and
hence we get two different claims about what we ought to do. You might
think this is OK, on Fletcher’s account. But recall he rejects Antinomianism
(Relativism).
It is in fact quite easy to generate lots and lots of worries about Fletcher’s
account. This is because his theory is based on a very crude form of
Utilitarianism. Have a look at Chapter 1 where we suggest some problems
and simply replace “happiness” with agape. Here is one example.
Utilitarianism is accused of being counter intuitive. If we could only save
our dad or five strangers from drowning, the utilitarian would argue we
should save the strangers because five lots of happiness is better than one. But
is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?
The situationalist will have exactly the same problem. We might imagine
that saving five strangers would bring about more “love” than saving your
dad. In which case we ought to save the strangers over your dad. But is not it
admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?
You can simply repeat this substitution for most of the problems we cited
regarding Utilitarianism, e.g. it being “too demanding” and hence generate a
whole host of problems for Fletcher.
We leave you with the following quotation from Graham Dunstan writing
in the Guardian, regarding Fletcher’s book:
It is possible, though not easy, to forgive Professor Fletcher for writing his book, for he is a
generous and lovable man. It is harder to forgive the SCM Press for publishing it.
Dn
=)
=
hes
—
h)
c
°
=
3
5
=
=
op)
iv)
=
)
25
=)
—
)
—
oy
Fletcher’s Situational Ethics gained a popular following as it
allowed the religious believer to fit their views into the rapidly
changing and nuanced moral and political landscape of the
1960s. Fletcher's position has a central commitment to God’s
love — agape. It is this central focus on agapé as the moral guide
for behaviour that allows Fletcher to claim that an action might be
right in one context, but wrong ina different context — depending
on the level of agapé brought about. In fact, Fletcher thinks that
sometimes what might be morally required of us is to break the
Ten Commandments.
Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically
sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to
understand it. His position is worth studying though (not
just because it is on the curriculum!) because it opens up the
conceptual possibility that a committed Christian/Jew/Muslim
etc. may consider the answers to moral questions to depend on
the diverse situations we find ourselves in.
Mixing up Fletcher's use of “Positivism” with Ayer’s use of
“positivism”.
Thinking that Fletcher’s is a “pragmatist”.
Think that situation ethics allows you do to anything you want.
Think that love is about feelings.
Think that by “conscience” Fletcher means a “moral compass”.
Why do you think Fletcher’s book was so popular at the time of
publication?
If an alien visited earth and asked “What is love?” how would you
answer them?
How does Situationism differ from “Utilitarianism” if at all?
4. If we act from love, does that mean we can do anything?
What does it mean to say that conscience is a verb rather than a noun?
Do you think we have a conscience? If you do, should we think of it as
a verb or a noun?
6. Why does Fletcher say that his theory is: “fact-based, empirical-based,
data-conscious and inquiring”?
What do you think a Christian would make of Fletcher’s theory?
n
3)
oral
oc
ra
jaa
|
°
ea
a
5S
=
Dd cal
op)
)
2
o)
oc
3)
a
)
mi
fy
What do you think “situation” means?
What does Fletcher mean by “positivism”?
10. What is the “fallacy of appealing to authority”? Can you give your own
example?
11. Pick one challenge to Utilitarianism, and reform the challenge as one
towards Situationism.
KEY TERMINOLOGY
References
Fletcher, Joseph F., Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Louisville and London:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1966).
Kirk, Kenneth E., Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).
‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely
available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm
PART II
METAETHICS
wrong Naturaliem
re)
G
EY
exper § SEM based E = Y LU 3 san action
- as § exist one 3 on » 5 4 expressions @Chic <a
form truths g ge Saeed th 2 oe: @ knowledge dieu le aie
regarding Simply 4 85 OG realist different © O ae Sy 2 scarement S!PIC cognitivist
oe! sense normative «gi 8 something evlmain — FS oS e Non-Cognitivism arciula e
i ies Snimnely Ba E 2 Emotivism
8 Ls whether > 5 38 oC’
& © truth However -— 3 8 & © mi ht:
a= Case yp fact = § = terms "yp = facts ag M al i z co
3 = true = cq S metaethical F E % cl aim or non-cognitivier 5
oO $4 Anti-Realism $3 >> 29 2 truthapt BS Bega hind ood 3 believe as
M whe oe 3 3 22 & ethical & wor
oore onale y existence g 4 suggests Fe li f; C3) § i \ Pa)
Hesse fst 2 Mackie Bg ge © beliefs specific natura BR Meracthics
as " theories US a * é ; a _belief
absolutely
: § murder
hural ae Row even
oving
obpective
property
CHAPTER 6
Metaethical Theories
But in every case in which one would commonly be said to be making an ethical judgment, the
function of the relevant ethical word is purely ‘emotive’. It is used to express feeling about certain
objects, but not to make any assertion about them."
*WARNING*
In purely length terms, this is a longer chapter than any other in this textbook.
In addition, it contains lots of key terminology that will be unique to this
chapter. Thus, we don’t advise that this chapter should be read/considered/
crammed in merely one sitting.
Rather, we suggest that you choose specific sections of the chapter, perhaps
informed by your course specifications or our suggested tasks at the end of
the chapter, and engage with those sections in any one sitting. In addition, the
first “Issue to Consider” at the conclusion of this chapter should be especially
useful in guiding your journey through Metaethics. The ideas herein are no
more complex, fundamentally, than elsewhere in the book; the breadth should
not be daunting if properly managed.
1. Metaethics: Introduction
The prefix “meta” is derived from the Greek for “beyond”. Metaethics is
therefore a form of study that is beyond the topics considered in normative or
applied ethics. Recall as we stated in the introduction, the differences between
these forms of ethical study are helpfully captured in an analogy put forward
by Fisher (2011) involving different participants in a game of football.
° Applied Ethics is the study of how we should act in specific areas of our
lives; how we should deal with issues like meat-eating, euthanasia or
stealing (to use examples familiar to this textbook). To use the football
analogy, the applied ethicist kicks the philosophical football around
just as a footballer kicks the ball on the field. A good applied ethicist
1 A.J. Ayer, ‘A Critique of Ethics’, p. 21.
w
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
might score goals and be successful by offering specific arguments that
convince us to change our moral views in a particular corner of our
lives.
° Normative Ethics is focussed on the creation of theories that provide
general moral rules governing our behaviour, such as Utilitarianism
or Kantian Ethics. The normative ethicist, rather than being a football
player, is more like a referee who sets up the rules governing how
the game is played. Peter Singer, for example, focuses on advancing
applied ethical arguments within the normative framework of his
Preference Utilitarianism (discussed in Chapter 1).
e Metaethics is the study of how we engage in ethics. Thus, the
metaethicist has a role more similar to a football commentator rather
than to a referee or player. The metaethicist judges and comments on
how the ethical game is being played rather than advancing practical
arguments, or kicking the football, themselves. For example, the
metaethicist might comment on the meaning and appropriateness of
ethical language, just as the football commentator might remark on the
appropriateness of particular tactics or set-piece routines.
Nobody is perfect, and it is therefore possible that some of you are not
avid football fans. To respect this possibility, here is a non-football based
explanation of what Metaethics amounts to. Metaethical conclusions do not tell
us how we should morally act or which type of decision is morally correct in
any one particular circumstance. Instead, Metaethics is focussed on questions
regarding how ethical study — at both normative and applied levels — works.
Some typical metaethical questions are:
e | When we say something is “morally good”, what do we mean?
° — Ifthe claim that “euthanasia is morally wrong” is true, what makes it
true?
° If moral claims are sometimes true, what methods do we use to access
these moral truths?
You should not expect a metaethical argument to provide specific guidance
regarding how to act, but you should expect a metaethical argument to critique
the foundations of normative or applied action-guiding moral theories.
2. The Value of Metaethics
A former colleague once suggested that Metaethics was entirely and
frustratingly pointless — academia for academia’s sake, she thought. There
are, however, good reasons for thinking that metaethical arguments can be
just as worthy and valuable as their normative and applied counterparts.
One such factor in favour of Metaethicsis as follows. Ifethics is fundamentally
concerned with good behaviour or, as per Aristotle (his theory is detailed in
Chapter 3), good characters, then it would seem to be desirable to properly
understand what exactly “good” amounts to.
Analogously, we would not consider attempting applied mathematics
without first understanding what was meant by fundamental concepts like
addition or subtraction. Nor would we consider attempting surgery on a
person without being sure of the meanings of terms like blood, heart or liver.
Understanding goodness — what it is and how we might access it — seems
like a fundamental presupposition of successful ethical study, rather than a
merely abstract topic of philosophical debate.
3. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
Key to the successful study of Metaethics is understanding the various key
terminological distinctions that make up the “metaethical map”. Metaethical
theories can be categorised, at least for our purposes, in respect of where they
fall in the debates between Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism, and Realism
and Anti-Realism. Thus, it is a prerequisite for understanding and evaluating
metaethical theories that you understand these two debates. In this section, we
deal with the debate between cognitivists and non-cognitivists.
If you are a Moral Cognitivist (the “moral” prefix is assumed from hereon)
then you have a particular view about the meaning of moral terms and a
particular view about the psychology behind moral utterances. The former
version of Cognitivism, concerned with meaning, is captured in the discussion
of Semantic Cognitivism while the latter version of Cognitivism, concerned
with psychology, is captured in the discussion of Psychological Cognitivism.
Cognitivism, as discussed in the remainder of this chapter, is a combination of
these two positions.
Semantic Cognitivism
Semantic Cognitivism (not to be confused with Realism) suggests that when we
make moral claims of the form “murder is wrong” or “helping others is right”
our claims can be true or false (what philosophers call truth-apt). According
to the semantic cognitivist, what makes our moral statements true or false is
whether or not they accurately pick out, or refer to, specifically moral aspects of
the world. Thus, the semantic cognitivist views our moral language as essentially
descriptive in nature; we try to describe genuinely moral features of the world
n
5)
‘c
io}
7)
a
&
—
o
12)
=
ca
_
Vv
is)
—
=
ip)
iS
x
=
<
=
ho]
=
and our moral claims are true when our descriptions are accurate and false
when they are inaccurate.
This position really is as simple as it sounds, even though it is by no
means uncontroversial. Consider a semantic cognitivist about the meaning
of statements in a news report. When the reporter says that “the defendant
stepped into the courthouse and gave his name and his date of birth”, then
this statement will be truth-apt — it will be the kind of statement that can be
described as true or false. Whether it is true or false will be determined by
the accuracy of this statement as a description of features of the world; if the
statement correctly refers to the features of the world identified then it will
be true, if it does not then it will be false. The situation is the same for the
semantic moral cognitivist, if the utterance “murder is wrong” really does pick
out a moral property of wrongness associated with murder then it will be true,
and false otherwise.
Crucially, keep in mind that Semantic Cognitivism only goes as far as
suggesting that moral claims are truth-apt — capable of being true or false.
Semantic Cognitivism, by itself, does not suggest anything about moral claims
ever actually being true. To put it in another way Cognitivism has nothing to do
with what actually exists in the world (that is Realism versus Anti-Realism — see
below). Instead, it is purely a theory explaining the meaning of moral
statements.
Psychological Cognitivism
Psychological Cognitivism (not to be confused with Realism) is the view that
when we utter a moral statement we give voice to a belief, rather than any
other type of non-belief attitude. So, when I utter the statement “Leicester City
won the Premier League in 2015-2016”, I express my belief that this happened.
According to the psychological cognitivist, I also express a belief when I make
claims such as “murder is wrong” or “helping others is right”.
From here, Semantic and Psychological Cognitivism will be assumed to go
together to form the cognitivist position. This is reasonable because it is most
natural to think of a truth-apt utterance as being the expression of a belief, for
we assume that a belief is the kind of thing that can be true or false and refers
to the world. In ethics then, cognitivists claim that moral statements express
truth-apt beliefs that are made true or false according to how accurately they
describe the world. Moral language and moral psychology, according to
the cognitivist, are not especially different to the language and psychology
common to many other disciplines such as science, news journalism or non-
fiction history books.
You might be wondering what all the fuss is about so far; it is probably fair
to say that Cognitivism is the common sense position when it comes to moral
language and our associated psychology. Of course, you might think, ethical
claims are truth-apt and that we express ethical beliefs, for what else could
we be doing when we engage in normative or applied ethics? Richard Joyce
(1966-) is of this view when it comes to Cognitivism and our moral utterances,
suggesting that “...if something walks and talks like a bunch of [truth-apt,
belief-state] assertions it’s highly likely that it is a bunch of [truth-apt, belief-
state] assertions” .”
Semantic Non-Cognitivism
Semantic Non-Cognitivism might, given the plausibility of its cognitivist rival,
seem to be an undesirable position. According to the semantic non-cognitivist
when we utter sentences such as “murder is wrong” we are not attempting
to describe any moral features of the world but we are simply expressing an
attitude or feeling — perhaps disgust, or anger, in this case. Attitudes are not
the types of things that can be true or false because they are not truth-apt; they
do not aim at truth and do not attempt to describe or refer to any feature of the
world. Consider what happens when you get frustrated with your work, for
example, and exclaim “Ahhhhh!” This is an expression of an attitude, it is not
something which describes the world and it is not truth apt. The semantic non-
cognitivist thus argues that our moral utterances are more like “Ahhhhh!” than
they are like “the defendant entered the courthouse”; they are non-descriptive,
non-truth-apt expressions.
Psychological Non-Cognitivism
Psychological Non-Cognitivism is a view that is described by (though
not defended by) Ralph Wedgwood (1964—-). According to Wedgwood,
psychological non-cognitivists hold that the psychology behind our non-truth-
apt moral expressions is not to be understood as based on “belief”, but rather
based on “...desires, preferences, emotions, intentions or the like”.®
Your cry of “Ahhhhh!” in frustration does not express a belief that your
work is annoying — even though people might take you to be annoyed — but,
most likely, a desire or preference for your work to be over. Such mental states
are fairly common and unremarkable; it is just that they are different to belief
states.
2 R.Joyce, The Myth of Morality, p. 14.
3. R. Wedgwood, The Nature of Normativity, p. 37.
n
7)
‘c
io}
Vv
fa
&
—
oO
1)
=
&
—
Vv
is]
—
=
Ww
iS
x
=
<
=
ho]
=
When discussing Non-Cognitivism from this point, it should be understood
as a position combining both the semantic and psychological elements.
According to the non-cognitivist our moral utterances are not capable of being
true or false and are expressions of attitudes/preferences/desires/emotions
etc. rather than expressions of belief. Responding to a moral utterance by
saying “true” or “false” would be to fail to properly comprehend the meaning
of that moral statement just as it would be a mistake to respond to a cry of
“Ahhhhh!” by saying “false”. The non-cognitivist thus suggests a fairly radical
understanding of our common views regarding what moral utterances mean
and how moral discourse works. Later, specific non-cognitivist views will be
explained and evaluated and you can judge the desirability of this revision of
our normal understanding for yourself.
4. Realism versus Anti-Realism
The second key fork in the road that separates metaethical theories is the choice
between Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism (as with Cognitivism, the
“Moral” prefix is assumed from hereon). As before, understanding these broad
positions is crucial to understanding and critiquing the specific metaethical
theories outlined later in this chapter.
Realism
Realism is a view about what exists. It is the view that moral properties exists
independently of human beings and can be located in the world. Just as
an action can possess properties such as being “Salika’s action”, “a violent
action”, or a “depressing action” so too it might possess the property of being
a “morally wrong action”. Peter Railton (1950-) describes himself as in favour
of a position that might be called “stark, raving Moral Realism” in virtue of
believing that mind-independent moral truth exists in the world.*
Realism in ethics is somewhat controversial, but Realism in geography is
far less controversial and might be a helpful guide to the realist view in ethics.
When a geographer speaks of the water in Lake Ontario, the “Geography
realist” believes that such water exists and has various properties and qualities
(temperature, depth etc.) that exist independently and objectively; the water
would have a particular temperature irrespective of any human belief about
that temperature. Analogously, in ethics, realists hold that certain moral properties
or facts exist and that they exist objectively and independently of the minds or beliefs
of individual people (or at least, realists relevant for our discussion, such as
Railton, believe this). Importantly, realists thus believe in the possibility of
4 P. Railton, ‘Moral Realism’, p. 165.
error — believing that “murder is wrong” does not make murder wrong. What
would make murder wrong would be the presence of an actual moral property
of wrongness (objective and mind-independent) associated with the act of
murder.
Anti-Realism
Anti-Realism is simply the denial of Realism. Anti-realists deny the existence
of any mind-independent, objective, moral properties. The moral anti-realist is
thus akin to the anti-realist about dragons or leprechauns in that they simply
deny their existence.
Anti-realists tend to be (though need not be) non-cognitivists, a fact that
should not be surprising given that non-cognitivists do not believe that our
moral utterances aim of truth. However, the next section paints the metaethical
map more specifically in respect of how Cognitivism, Non-Cognitivism,
Realism and Anti-Realism might be combined to form specific metaethical
theories.
5. The Metaethical Map
The broad explanations of Cognitivism, Non-Cognitivism, Realism and Anti-
Realism have been crucial because they allow the following categorisation of
specific metaethical views to make sense. You really need to learn what these
terms mean if any of the following is going to make sense. Drawing out the
metaethical map might be very helpful, to this end.
Example theories which are both cognitivist and realist
Moral Naturalism
Moral Non-Naturalism (e.g. intuitionist realist accounts)
Theories both cognitivist and anti-realist
Moral Error Theory
Theories both non-cognitivist and realist
We only know of one person holding this view: Kahane.°
Theories both non-cognitivist and anti-realist
Emotivism
Prescriptivism
The natural bedfellows between the broad positions outlined are thus
Cognitivism and Realism, and Non-Cognitivism and Anti-Realism. If we
5 G. Kahane, ‘Must Metaethical Realism Make a Semantic Claim?’
n
Vv
=
=
°
Vv
a
&
—
oO
1)
=
fa
—
Vv
is
—
=
Ww
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
aim for truth in our moral utterances, it makes sense to think that there are
properties existing that we are trying to refer to and accurately describe.
However, if our moral utterances do not aim for truth then this may neatly
sit with the view that no such moral properties exist (otherwise, why would
we not try to describe them?).
The outlying theory is Moral Error Theory, which combines the cognitivist
view that our moral utterances are expressions of truth-apt beliefs with the
view that there are no realist objective moral properties in the world. Thus,
moral error theorists believe that our moral utterances are always, in every
circumstance, false. This is a controversial view and is explored in more depth
in sections ten and eleven.
6. Cognitivist and Realist Theory One: Naturalism
Naturalists hold that there are moral properties in the world that make true
at least some of our ordinary moral beliefs. Unsurprisingly, naturalists also
hold that these moral properties are perfectly natural properties rather than
being non-natural. To understand this claim, we need a better grip of what the
philosophical and ethical naturalist actually means by the term “natural”.
Naturalists in ethics hold that moral properties are as natural as those
properties discussed and examined in the sciences, for example. So, the property
of being “wet” is a perfectly natural property as is the more complex property
of “being magnetic”. These properties can be investigated by scientists and are
not supernatural or beyond the study of natural sciences.
Gilbert Harman (1938-) suggests that “...we must concentrate on finding
the place of value and obligation [morality] in the world of facts as revealed
by science”.° If murder has the property of being morally wrong, then this
property is natural if it fits into the world of facts as revealed by science.
Simon Blackburn (1944-) (though not a realist himself) outlines the
desirability and purpose of this commitment to Naturalism when he says that:
“The problem is one of finding room for ethics, or placing ethics within the
disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part”.”
Moral Naturalism thus speaks to those who wish to defend Realism and
truth in ethics, without resorting to non-natural justifications based on Gods,
Platonic Forms and the like. The naturalist seeks to fit moral properties into
the non-mystical world of ordinary science.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that is underpinned by a
metaethical Naturalism. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, if you recall
6 G. Harman, Explaining Value and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, p. 79.
7 §. Blackburn, Ruling Passions, p. 49.
from Chapter 1, defined moral goodness in terms of the act (or set of rules) that
promoted the greatest amount of pleasure/happiness for the greatest number
of people. Utilitarians thus view good as an entirely natural properties for there
is nothing mystical, enchanted or supernatural about pleasure; scientists can
perfectly well understand pleasure in terms of neural firings or psychological
explanations.
In addition, both Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse have sought to
place Virtue Ethics (as discussed in its Aristotelian form in Chapter 3) within a
naturalist metaethical framework.
According to Hursthouse, human beings function well if they meet four
particular ends — survival, reproduction, enjoyment/freedom from pain, and
possession of an appropriate functional role within a group. As rational beings,
we can determine the character traits and dispositions that can help us to meet
these aims and such character traits and dispositions will then be virtuous.
Virtue Ethics, thus defined, would therefore be a normative theory based
on Naturalism because what makes something good or virtuous is entirely
determined by natural factors to do with our psychology, behaviour, biology
and social dynamics. As with Utilitarianism, no mystical or supernatural stuff
is required to explain the virtues and associated moral goodness.
Does Naturalism lead to Relativism? Harman claimed that, if correct,
Naturalism would naturally lead us to Moral Relativism and away from
Moral Absolutism (these theories are more specifically discussed in Chapter
1). Harman suggests that if ethical guidelines and rules were absolute in
nature then they would need to apply irrespective of contingent situations or
contingent lifestyles; murder, for example, would be wrong irrespective of any
specific situational factors if the claim that “murder is wrong” were absolutely
true. However, if moral properties are natural properties, then Relativism
may make more sense in virtue of the fact that natural properties can vary in
presence from case to case.
For example, it is not absolutely true that “London is north of Paris” because
at some point continental plates will shift and these cities could move in
relative location to each other. Nor is it absolutely true that “sections of the
Australian coast have coral reefs”, since human activity and climate change
might change this natural fact. Equally then, if a natural property is what
makes true the claim that “murder is wrong” then this natural property might
seem to depend upon the amount of pleasure produced, or else on some
other changeable natural factor. If moral properties are natural properties, then
actions might not be absolutely wrong but might instead be wrong relative to
the changeable presence of those natural properties.
Michael Smith (1954—) rejects Harman’s claim and suggests that Naturalism
is, in and of itself, irrelevant to the debate between moral relativists and
n
7)
‘a
io}
v
a
&
—
o
1)
=
fo
—
7)
is)
—
S
w
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
moral absolutists. Smith argues that absolutists and relativists will differ on
questions regarding the rationality or reasonableness of human behaviour and
that these questions cannot be settled by taking a stance on Naturalism or
Non-Naturalism in ethics.
For Smith, important questions relevant to the absolutist and relativist
debate are a priori rather than a posteriori — meaning that these debates must
be analysed and investigated by methods that do not involve testing the world.
Thus, testing the world in order to determine the natural or non-natural status
of moral properties cannot settle the a priori differences between relativists and
absolutists.
7. Objections to Naturalism
G. E. Moore was a supporter of Cognitivism and Realism. However, Moore
was not a naturalist — he was a non-naturalist — and objected to the idea
that moral properties were natural properties. Moore’s objection to identifying
moral properties as natural properties was two-fold. Firstly, he thought that
moral properties were fundamentally simple and secondly he thought the
identification of the moral with the natural failed what he termed the Open
Question Argument.
Moore’s first objection to Naturalism, from simplicity, is based on an analogy
between moral properties and colour properties. According to Moore, the
concept of the colour yellow is a fundamentally simple concept in so far as it
cannot be explained in terms of any other concept or property. Consider, as an
example of a complex property, the idea of a horse. A horse can be explained
to someone who has never come into contact with the animal because the
concept of a horse can be reduced to simpler part. As a mammal of a typically
brown colour, with certain organs and certain dimensions. In an obvious way,
the concept of a horse can be broken down to simpler components.
Moore denies that the same is true for the concept of yellow. Yellow cannot
be explained to someone who has not come into visual contact with it, because
yellow is a simple concept that cannot be broken down into simpler component
parts. Yellow is just yellow, and we can say nothing else about it that will
explain it in simpler terms. The same, says Moore, is true for moral properties.
According to Moore:
If I am asked, ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the
matter. Or if lam asked ‘How is good to be defined?’ my answer is that it cannot be defined, and
that is all I have to say about it.§
8 G.E. Moore, ‘The Open-Question Argument: The Subject Matter of Ethics’, p. 35.
On this basis, Moore cannot accept that moral properties can be reduced
to natural properties as this would imply that moral properties are not
fundamentally simple. The utilitarian, for example, defines goodness in terms
of pleasure and so reduces goodness to pleasure. Moore suggests that moral
naturalists make a mistake in trying to ground simple moral properties in
terms of other natural properties.
As it stands, Moore’s analogy between goodness and yellow has some
argumentative pull but lacks sufficient robustness. However, Moore’s Open
Question Argument more formally drives home his point.
Moore suggests that we take some putative moral claim such as “giving to
charity is good”. For goodness, Moore suggests we follow the naturalist’s lead
and insert some natural property such as “pleasure”. Now, we have the claim
that “giving to charity is pleasurable”. This identification between goodness
and pleasure is the type of identification a naturalist about goodness might
have in mind.
However, according to Moore it remains an open question as to whether
or not something creating pleasure is actually good. The question remains
meaningful in a way that it should not remain meaningful if goodness is
actually reducible to pleasure. After all, it is not possible to meaningfully ask
whether or not a bachelor is an unmarried man as the concept of a bachelor
can be reduced to the concept of an unmarried man. Thus, if this utilitarian-
style naturalist is correct about the identification of goodness and pleasure, it
should not be a meaningful question — an open question — to ask whether
a pleasurable act is a morally good act. Yet, it seems to remain open as to
whether Action A is good, even if Iam told that Action A is pleasurable.
Moore suggests that any attempted reduction of a moral property to a
natural property will leave a meaningful open question of the form “this act
possesses the natural property suggested” but “is it a good act”? Julia Tanner
provides a modern example of the Open Question Argument in action:
Some people talk as if they think that that which has evolved is the same thing as being good. Thus,
for instance, capitalism may be justified on the basis that it is merely an expression of ‘the survival
of the fittest’ and ‘the survival of the [fittest]’ is good. To make such an argument is, according to
Moore, to commit the naturalistic fallacy because good has been defined as something other than
itself, as ‘the survival of the fittest’.
Tanner refers to the Naturalistic Fallacy, which is Moore’s own terminology for
the mistake of attempting to reduce the moral property to the natural property.
All such attempted reductions will fail because it will always be possible to
meaningful ask whether the suggested natural property is actually good; if
this question is open then goodness does not equal the suggested natural
9 J. Tanner, ‘The Naturalistic Fallacy’, http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/rjp13_tanner.php
n
5)
‘c
io}
v
a
&
—
o
1)
-
fo
—
7)
is)
—
S$
W
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
property. Think of the Open Question Argument as the searchlight seeking
out those who commit the naturalistic fallacy.
It is worth noting that Moore’s arguments, although directed against
naturalistic reductions of goodness, are just as powerful against non-natural
reductions of goodness. Any attempt to reduce the concept of goodness to,
for example, “what God wills” will also fail because the question of “this is
what God wills, but is it good?” appears to remain open. Self-evidently, this
non-natural reduction is not an example of a naturalistic fallacy, but it can be
no more acceptable if, like Moore, you believe that good is a fundamentally
simple concept.
8. Cognitivist and Realist Theory Two: Non-Naturalism
Moore’s critique of Naturalism sets the scene for his own metaethical view.
According to Moore, moral properties do exist but they are fundamentally
simple non-natural properties. The best way to understand what non-natural
means is as follows. If Goodness is non-natural then it is not the kind of
property that is discoverable through the kind of empirical means that help
us to identify natural properties, such as in the sciences. How we might
come to know non-natural properties depend on the particular theory under
consideration. However, typically non-naturalists think that we intuit the
presence of these simple non-natural properties via a moral sense. So although
intuitions are about how we discover moral properties rather than what moral
properties are like, typically non-naturalists are also intuitionists.
Richard Price (1723-1791) suggested that truths are intuited when they
are acquired “without making any use of any process of reasoning”.'° More
contemporarily, W. D. Ross (1877-1971) suggested that we intuit self-evident
moral truths “without any need of proof, or of evidence beyond itself”.!! An
example should make this method of intuiting non-natural moral properties
much clearer.
Becky is watching a BBC news report on a woman who has been helped
to hear for the first time in her life via the use of new medical technology.
Having been so helped, the news report points out that this person has made a
documentary which involves her passing on this technology to poor children
who are living with deafness in Bangladesh. While watching the report and
the associated interview, Becky intuits the fact that the doctors have acted in a
morally good way in researching and implementing the cure for this woman’s
deafness and that she too is acting morally well in helping others to hear. The
10_ R. Price, ‘A Review of the Principle Questions in Morals’, p. 159.
11 W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good, p. 29.
moral goodness is self-evident in the situation and does not require Becky to
use her faculties of reason to identify it; the property of goodness is picked up
via her moral sense.
W. D. Ross specifically suggests that there are various self-evident prima
facie duties that we can intuit (prima facie meaning, in this sense, apparent on
first glance); duties that should guide our behaviour but that sometimes can
be overridden by other competing duties. Ross outlines duties such as not
harming others, not lying, and keeping promises. Ross suggests that no formal
empirical or logical defence of these duties is appropriate because they are
self-evident. We cannot argue to the claim we should not lie, only from it in
terms of how to act in specific situations.
If you are an intuitionist and a realist this might offer a route to surviving
both the Open Question Argument and the Naturalistic Fallacy. Intuitionists
claim that moral properties are fundamentally simple and non-natural, open
to apprehension via our moral sense. When we utter moral sentences we
seek to describe the presence of such properties accurately and, sometimes,
we will correctly and appropriately refer to the presence of these non-natural
properties in the world. When we so appropriately refer, we make true moral
statements.
9. Objections to Intuitionism
Intuitionism offers a way around the Open Question Argument and the
Naturalistic Fallacy, consequently it has a number of modern proponents
(e.g. Ralph Wedgewood). However, objections to a basic Intuitionism are not
particularly difficult to conceive of.
Firstly, Intuitionism might be thought to struggle when explaining moral
disagreement. If moral truths are self-evident and can be intuited, then why
do even self-professed intuitionists such as Moore and Ross have radically
different ethical views (Moore is a teleologist, whereas Ross intuits proto-
Kantian moral truths).
In response, Ross has suggested that we need a certain moral maturity to
our intuitive sense, just as our other faculties require maturity and tuning to
properly pick up on features of the world. Indeed, Samuel Clarke (1675-1729)
suggested that, amongst other things, stupidity may lead to our intuitions
going astray and this may explain continuing moral disagreement. If only we
were less daft, our intuitive moral sense might be more reliable!
In addition, on a related note, we may wonder how such intuitive
moral judgments might be properly verified. If you support the Verification
Principle — which you may be lucky enough to come across in a unit on
Religious Language — then you believe that statements that cannot be
n
5)
‘a
io}
7)
ca
&
—
oO
1o)
=
&
—
7)
is)
-_
S
ep)
iS
x
=
<
=
ho
=
empirically verified (tested against the world to determine their truth or
falsity) or are true by definition are meaningless.
If moral judgments are intuitively supported judgments about non-natural
properties, then it is not clear how we could verify whether it is Moore or Ross,
to use two examples, who intuits goodness correctly. Certainly, we could
not use empirical means to test for the presence of non-natural properties
in the world. Thus, verificationists may suggest that moral statements — if
Intuitionism is correct — would be meaningless in virtue of our inability to
verify such statements.
Finally, returning to the theme of disagreement, we might posit evidence
that our intuitions are so unreliable that they are better understood as irrational
moral judgments expressing our own feelings or personal beliefs, rather than
judgments giving voice to the existence of mind-independent, objective, non-
natural moral properties.
Consider responses to the standard ethical dilemma of a trolley case. In
one version, you can redirect a train to save five people tied to the track, but
doing so will kill one person tied in the path of the redirected train. In a second
case, you can save five people tied to the track by pushing one rather portly
gentleman to his death in front of the train to stop its progress. Most responders
favour saving five over one in the first case, but favour saving one over five
in the second case. If our intuitions point so divergently when we make moral
judgments, might we be better to assume our pre-rational intuitive responses
are expressions of feelings or initial beliefs, rather than a reflection of objective
truths?
Perhaps responses based on moral maturity or stupidity will apply here also,
but this may be harder to hold when explaining one person’s own personal
divergent intuitions about such cases rather than disagreement across a group
of different people.
J. L. Mackie (1917-1981) also offers criticisms of Intuitionism, but these are
explored in the next section as they feed into explanation of Mackie’s own
Moral Error Theory. It is, as ever, for you to judge whether the intuitionist has
any plausible defence of their theory against the criticisms suggested thus far.
10. Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One: Moral Error
Theory
Thus far, we have seen that Cognitivism tends to be associated with Realism.
Mackie breaks with this trend with his Moral Error Theory. Mackie accepts that
our moral utterances are expressions of truth-apt beliefs, but denies Realism.
In so doing, Mackie denies that possibility that our truth-apt beliefs are ever
true, because a moral description of the world can never accurately describe a
world without any moral properties in it.
In Mackie’s own words, “Although most people in making moral judgments
implicitly claim, among other things, to be pointing to something objectively
prescriptive, these claims are all false”. By prescriptive, Mackie means
action-guiding and Mackie denies that any objective guides to action (moral
properties, in our terms) actually exist.
Mackie’s view is startling and raises loads of questions about how we should
live if morality is entirely false. Although interesting, these discussions are not
for this chapter. Instead, we must explain and evaluate Mackie’s theory as it
stands rather than consider its implications if true. A theory having depressing
or liberating implications does not make that theory any more or less likely to
be accurate (though it is surprising how often even the best philosophers are
prone to such mistaken thinking).
Mackie’s Anti-Realism is supported by the following two arguments. It
should be made clear that Mackie’s arguments are directed against both
Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Realism.
Argument from Relativity
Mackie’s first objection to Realism is built out of his appreciation of the depth
of moral disagreement, and so shares something with one of the objections
to Intuitionism offered in the previous section. Mackie suggests that in other
plausible realist disciplines, such as the sciences or history views begin
to coalesce around the truth over time and disagreement is, at least in part,
conquered.
Disagreement occurs in these disciplines because there is a barrier to true
knowledge and scientists and historians will sometimes, through no fault of
their own, be blind to the facts. However, sometimes the facts become clear
and disagreement thereby reduces.
Yet, in ethics, philosophers still disagree over the same issues that they were
arguing over 2000+ years ago, questions such as “when is war acceptable” and
“when can promises be broken”. If moral truths really did exist and Realism
was correct, should we not have expected to find some of these truths by now?
Thus, Mackie views disagreement in ethics — deep disagreement that seems
impervious to solution through rational means — as evidence that Realism
is incorrect; there are no moral facts to settle the debates or at least some of
those debates would have been settled by now! Of course, if you think that
some moral debates have been settled, then you could use this to criticise this
Mackian argument.
12 J. L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, p. 35.
n
co
‘c
=)
o
&
&
—
©
12)
om
&
—
7)
«
—
=
Argument Queerness
Mackie’s second anti-realist argumentis his most famous. Moral properties — be
they natural or non-natural — are supposed to be action-guiding. If it is true that
murder is wrong, then we should not murder, even if we might want to. Equally,
if it is true that giving to charity is right, then we should give to charity, even if
we might not want to At its core, morality is supposed to offer reasons for action
that we cannot simply ignore even if we like murdering or hate charitable
giving. This aspect of morality, however, raises issues at the metaethical level.
David Hume (1711-1776) recognised the potential problem with the action-
guiding quality of morality when he spoke of the “is-ought” gap. According
to Hume:
ip)
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met, I have always [remarked], that the author
proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or
makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am [surprised] to find, that
instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is
not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible, but is however, of
the last consequence.’
Hume wonders why and how we move from statements about what is the case,
to statements about how we ought to act. We do not make such a link between
‘is” and “ought” in areas other than morality — the fact that a horse is running
at Goodwood does not, of itself, give you an “ought” regarding how to act in
response. The fact that a moral property is, on the other hand, does seem to
give rise to such an “ought” regarding behaviour. How can this be explained?
Hume has his own suggestion for explanation, and this is outlined in section
twelve. Mackie, however, takes this Humean worry in his own direction.
Mackie suggests that properties themselves that carry such an action-guiding
quality, that offer an “ought” just because they are, would be extremely queer
properties. He says that “[if] there were objective values [moral properties],
then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort,
utterly different from anything else in the universe” .'*
Mackie suggests that if we can explain moral thinking without resorting
to positing the existence of such queer and utterly unique entities then we
‘“
would be better off. The simpler explanation is not to grant existence to weird
properties, but just to suggest that there are no properties and that our moral
beliefs reflect cultural and personal beliefs. Just as we do not tend to suggest
that aliens or ghosts exist on the basis of first-hand testimony (competing
explanations based on drunkenness or tiredness, for example, seem more
13. D. Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature, http://www.davidhume.org/texts/thn.html
14 ‘J. L. Mackie, Ethics, p. 38.
plausible) so we perhaps ought not to grant that moral properties exist just
because we happen to talk about them.
Indeed, support for Anti-Realism through a complaint about the queerness
of moral properties is further supported via consideration of Hume’s fork.
Hume divided knowledge into two camps — knowledge gained from
relations of ideas and knowledge gained from matters of fact. Knowledge claims
like “2+2=4”, or various geometric claims like “triangles have three sides”,
are established in the former way whereas knowledge claims like “Alastair is
wearing a blue shirt today” are established in the latter way.
This split of types of knowledge is referred to as Hume’s fork, yet claims to
moral knowledge do not seem to fit either side of the fork. Moral knowledge
is not derivable simply from relations of ideas (it is not supposed to be like
geometric or mathematical truth and cannot be deduced a priori without any
testing the world through our senses).
Nor, however, is it derivable simply from matters of fact, given the “is-ought
gap referred to above (a posteriori, sense-based, worldly and scientific empirical
observations reveal what is, not what ought to be). If moral knowledge does
not fit into either side of Hume’s fork, then it will be the case that either moral
knowledge is a completely unique type of knowledge accessed in a completely
unique way or, more plausibly perhaps, moral knowledge does not actually
WW
exist. But if we cannot know that moral properties exist then we should not be
realists.
Hume, certainly, would have rejected the idea that moral properties
existed based on the application of his famous fork. Remember, however, that
Hume favoured Non-Cognitivism and Anti-Realism rather than (like Mackie)
Cognitivism and Anti-Realism.
On a similar theme, Mackie strengthens the argument from queerness by
referring to the queer method of understanding that we would need in order
to come into contact with queer moral properties. Mackie suggests that we
would need a special moral faculty in order to access queer moral properties.
Although Mackie admires the honesty of the intuitionist in admitting the
existence of such a queer moral sense, he does not think that it is credible to
believe in the existence of such a radically different faculty for accessing realist
moral properties in the world.
As before, if we can explain our moral beliefs without needing to admit
the existence of queer properties, then why admit to the existence of a
queer method for grasping queer properties? Moral Realism, according to
Mackie, thus requires an unnecessarily queer metaphysics (what exists) and
an unnecessarily queer epistemology (how we know what exists). For these
reasons, Mackie is an anti-realist.
n
7)
‘Sc
io}
v
A=
=
—
o
12)
=
fo
—
9)
i]
—
S
Ww
S
x
=
<
=
ea
=
11. Objections to Moral Error Theory
Realists have various responses to Mackie. Firstly, realists might just agree
and accept the conclusion that moral properties would be queer in virtue of
bridging the “is-ought” gap; they may simply deny that such queerness is a
problem. Indeed, intuitionists may be very happy to accept the uniqueness
of moral properties in virtue of their fundamental simplicity and their
irreducibility to other properties. Naturalists, meanwhile, may simply wonder
why something being different to other things should be seen as a problem; is
it not the case that everything is different to everything else, in at least some
sense? In addition, Mackie’s views regarding the importance and depth of
moral disagreement can be criticised.
A. J. Ayer (1910-1989), for example, felt that moral disagreements existed
only where there were disagreements over the non-moral facts. On this view,
Max and Ethan disagree over the morality of meat-eating only because they
disagree over the non-moral fact of how much pain is endured by animals sent
for slaughter. If all the non-moral facts were clear, then their disagreement
would no longer persist. Thus, Ayer would have felt that moral disagreement
is not as deep and pervasive as Mackie suggests.
A different response to moral disagreement is to defend the idea of moral
progress. It may be tempting to argue that moral disagreement has actually
reduced over time because we have come into contact with truths regarding
the badness of slavery, sexism and racism etc. Moral Error Theory denies the
possibility of moral progress in virtue of denying any moral truth; progress
requires correct answers. If you believe that progress has been made in ethics,
perhaps in the form of human rights being identified, then you have a reason
to disagree with Moral Error Theory.
Moral Error Theory is also highly counterintuitive. It says that all of your
moral beliefs are false and that they could never be true because no moral truth
making properties exist in the world. It suggests that murder is not morally
wrong (but it is not morally right either!) and that giving to charity is not
morally right (but it is not morally wrong either!). Given there is no truth to be
found in ethics, it might be thought that we should abandon our faulty moral
language entirely — a rather extreme metaethical conclusion!
However, if you do accept Cognitivism as an accurate explanation of moral
language and psychology, but find it hard to grant that objective, mind-
independent moral facts or properties actually exist in the world, then Moral
may be worth these seeming costs.
12. Non-Cognitivism
Prior to an explanation and evaluation of the specific theoretical options for
the non-cognitivist, it is worthwhile just providing a few words in favour of
Non-Cognitivism more generally.
If you are impressed by anti-realist arguments but do not wish to end
up an error theorist, then it may be worth denying Cognitivism rather than
following Mackie. Indeed, this is what the majority of anti-realists tend to do.
Thus, non-cognitivists will be unconcerned by the lack of moral properties in
the world because they deny that our moral utterances are attempts to pick
such properties out.
As well as supporting Anti-Realism, Hume’s identification of the “is-ought”
gap might be taken as helpful evidence for Non-Cognitivism. If moral
utterances carry with them an action-guiding force, this may be because moral
utterances are not descriptive beliefs but are instead expressions of attitudes,
feelings or emotions. This picture is certainly what Hume had in mind given
his Humean Theory of Motivation. Hume claimed that beliefs alone cannot
motivate behaviour because beliefs are motivationally inert. The function of a
belief as a psychological state is to offer a motivationally neutral description
of the world; beliefs say what we believe “is” and do not by themselves lead to
us to action. To be motivated to actually act, according to Hume, a belief must
be coupled with a desire in our heads. The following case should make Hume’s
claim clearer.
Liz believes that her friends will soon be arriving for a barbecue. However,
Liz lacks any desire to cater for her friends and so does not act. Liz’s belief,
by itself, does not and cannot motivate action on her part. Now, if we change
the situation and add to Liz’s psychology a desire to feed and cater for her
friends, then Liz would come to be motivated to act and prepare a delightfully
sumptuous feast. Thus, Hume argues, desires are required in the explanation
of our actions.
So why is this relevant to a defence of Non-Cognitivism? Well, when a
person utters a moral phrase, if the phrase is sincerely uttered, then they'll be
motivated. For example, if I utter the words “giving to charity, for those who
can afford to do so, is morally required”, then you would expect me to be
motivated to give charity if I were able to do so; if I chose not to give to charity
in that circumstance you might question the sincerity of my moral utterance.
Moral utterances, and relevant moral motivations, seem to be remarkably
well tied to each other. Now, if moral utterances were expressions of moral
beliefs we would need to, in addition to the moral belief, grant the existence
n
7)
‘c
io}
v
=
&
—
o
1)
=
i
—
9)
i]
-_
S
w
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
of a continuous desire to do what we believe is moral. However, if moral
utterances were themselves moral desires then we need not add the extra belief
into our psychology. If the phrase “giving to charity is morally right” is simply
an expression of my desire that everyone should give to charity, then it is
exceedingly simple to explain why our moral utterances and our motivations
tend to track each other so well — our moral utterances are just expressions
of our moral desires! But the claim that our moral judgements are simply an
expression of our desires just is Non-Cognitivism.
13. Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One: Emotivism
A. J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson (1908-1979) were defenders of Emotivism, a
metaethical view that held considerable sway for a time in the early parts of the
twentieth century. According to Emotivism, the moral statement that murder
is wrong is simply an expression of emotion against the act of murdering. It
gives formal linguistic voice to what is essentially a negative “boo” to murder.
Indeed, Emotivism is referred to as the “boo/hurrah” metaethical theory;
when we claim that something is morally wrong we boo that action and when
we claim that something is morally right we hurrah that action. This explains
the connection between morality and motivation; we express motivationally-
relevant emotional distaste or emotional approval when we use moral words
rather than expressing motivationally inert moral beliefs.
Although a verificationist about language himself, Ayer did not wish to deny
that moral utterances had a meaning even though, as a non-cognitivist and
anti-realist, he plainly could not suggest that moral utterances were empirically
verifiable or open to real-world testing in order to determine their truth value
(moral utterances, on this view, are not truth-apt beliefs attempting to describe
the world). Thus, Ayer suggested that moral utterances had an emotive meaning.
Ayer, speaking of the claim that “stealing money is wrong” says this is simply
an act of “...evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, “You
stole that money’ in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition
of some special exclamation marks”.'° Thus, the moral judgment meaningfully
reveals an emotion, even if not a description of the world. Emotivism does not,
therefore, straightforwardly lead to nihilism as some meaning for moral values
and moral judgments is preserved. On this basis, there is no pull to the idea
that we should stop using moral language.
Stevenson, in addition, suggested of moral terms like “right”, “wrong”,
“good” and “bad” that they have only emotive meanings in the sense of
approval and disapproval. Therefore, just as we cannot say that a “boo” is
false, for it is not truth-apt so too we cannot say that a linguistic boo of the
15 A.J. Ayer, ‘The Emotive Theory of Ethics’, p. 106.
form “stealing is wrong” is either true or false. Stevenson thus argued that
Emotivism captured the “magnetism” of morality — our moral utterances
track our motivations because our moral utterances are expressions of the
emotions that underpin our motivations.
14. Objections to Emotivism
Despite early popularity, Emotivism is not a popular position today and it is
widely considered to be an unduly and unhelpfully simplistic form of Non-
Cognitivism. We consider three objections here.
Firstly, on a psychological level, Emotivism is unlikely to feel correct. When
I suggest that a certain action is right or wrong, I take myself to be making a
claim that is true and making a claim that reflects how I take the world to be
(reflecting a moral belief in my head). I do not consider myself to be booing
an action in a rather academic and indirect way. We might question whether
abstract philosophising about the meaning of words should ever trump our
own psychological reflections when it comes to what we mean when we utter
moral sentences. Can it be the case that Ayer or Stevenson knew better than I
what I meant when I said that “terrorism is morally wrong”? Can they know
better than you, if you take yourself to be making truth-apt and descriptive
moral judgments?
Secondly, some of our moral utterances do not seem to be in the least part
emotional. For example, Charlotte may feel that “it is wrong to avoid paying
tax” but be quite depressed about this judgment. If we were cognitivists, this
emotional divorce could be easily explained; Charlotte believes there to be
a moral fact that is independent of her mind and her desires and this fact
depresses her. However, it is not immediately obvious how Emotivism might
explain Charlotte’s “boo to avoiding tax” when she harbours a desire to avoid
tax herself. Perhaps we can have second-order emotions about our emotions
(Charlotte is sad that she feels negatively towards tax avoiding), or perhaps
Charlotte feels that others should not avoid tax — boo them — while she is
happy act in this way — hurrah for her own tax avoidance. However, both of
these responses require careful statement and defence if you seek to pursue
them.
Finally, we can return to moral disagreement. Consider a sincere moral
disagreement between William and Wendy over the issue of euthanasia. Wendy
says that euthanasia is morally right in at least some cases, whilst William says
that euthanasia is morally wrong in all circumstances. William and Wendy
may seem to be disagreeing via utilising logic and reason just as scientists,
or economists, or computer technicians, disagree over a substantively correct
answer that is independent of their own minds.
n
7)
‘c
io}
v
a
&
—
o
1)
=
fo
—
7)
is)
—
S$
ip)
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
However, once the facts of matter are agreed upon the emotivist must
reduce this disagreement to a series of emotional boo’s and hurrah’s regarding
euthanasia, where truth is never the aim of the moral utterances. Suggesting
that moral debates are always emotive rather than factual, and so are swayed
only by emotional rather than rational means, is a controversial claim given that
moral reasons seem to be deployed very carefully in just such debates. Indeed,
the emotivist explanation of moral debate seems to suggest moral arguments
have more in common with arguments over which ice-cream flavour is best
(boo for chocolate, hurrah for vanilla) than with truth-based disagreements in
other academic disciplines. If this is not how we believe moral debates should
be described, then Emotivism has a problem. As Richard Brandt suggests
“Ethical statements do not look like the kind of thing the emotive theory says
they are”’.’° Brandt, as per the above discussion, feels that moral utterances
are things we take to be truth-apt, contra the emotivist interpretation of those
moral utterances.
The previous objection to Emotivism may seem to highlight possible links
between Emotivism and moral relativism. But do not be deceived. Recall from
Chapter 1 that relativists, as opposed to absolutists, hold that no moral claim
is ever absolutely true in all circumstances. As a specific type of relativist, the
cultural relativist may suggest that the claim “murder is wrong” can be true in
some cultural settings and false in others depending on the different cultural
standards for behaviour. Thus, there may be some suggestion that Cultural
Relativism and Emotivism have the same set of grounding beliefs — no
absolute moral truths exist and moral expressions reflect the culturally backed
emotions of particular speakers, rather than anything more absolutely and
mind-independently true.
However, this is a mistake. Contra Emotivism, cultural relativists do tend
to believe in a form of realist moral truth, even if such relativists do not hold
that absolute moral truths exist. Whilst the cultural relativist may admit that
ethical judgments often reflect personal and culturally supported emotions,
they define goodness as a genuine property that is determined or fixed in
nature by the cultural standards of a given society.
Thus, if “murder is wrong” is a true relative to my culture, then it is still true.
I am, therefore, mistaken if I claim that “murder is acceptable”, at least within
the boundaries of my society even if not in the societies of others. This truth is
non-absolute and relative to culture, but the cultural relativist accepts that it
exists and that our moral statements attempt to describe such truths. On the
other hand, the emotivist, obviously, does not accept that our moral statements
are such attempted descriptions of realist, albeit relativistic, moral truths.
16 R. Brandt, Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics, p. 226.
15. Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory Two:
Prescriptivism
R. M. Hare was a committed non-cognitivist and anti-realist but he was not
a defender of a simple emotivist position. Instead, Hare was a metaethical
prescriptivist.
As a prescriptivist, Hare felt that our moral utterances express more than
just emotional approval and disapproval. Instead, our moral utterances
express a subjective prescription for others to act in accordance with our
moral judgments. So, for example, if William claimed that “euthanasia is
morally wrong” then this utterance means that William wants others to cease
supporting or deciding in favour of euthanasia. Prescriptivism thus attempts
to capture the action-guiding nature of moral utterances without resorting to
claims of moral truth.
Prescriptivism also seems to better account for moral disagreement than
does Emotivism, because Prescriptivism suggests that the action-guiding
normative edge of moral utterances is fundamentally built into the meaning of
amoral statement. In addition, perhaps crucially, Prescriptivism also allows us
to legitimately criticise another person for their moral views without needing
to invoke claims of realist moral truth or realist moral falsehood. Consider the
following example.
Cristina claims that “murder is universally and absolutely morally wrong”.
According to the prescriptivist, this is not a descriptive belief but is a reflection
of Cristina’s non-cognitive attitude that no one should ever murder. However,
if Cristina later utters the words “murdering this terrible dictator is morally
acceptable”, then we can criticise Cristina’s inconsistency. On the one hand,
she wants no one to ever murder whilst on the other hand also wanting the
murder of a terrible dictator. It is not that Cristina had made a false moral
claim that justifies criticism of her, according to the prescriptivist, but it is her
inconsistency in the actions she prescribes for others that justifies criticism. Thus,
we cannot cry “false!” against Cristina, but we can cry “inconsistent”. This, at
least, may give some genuine meaning back to moral disagreement and provide
a method for legitimately and rationally criticising the moral claims of others.
Prescriptivism is, on this basis, often viewed as a step-up on Emotivism when
it comes to non-cognitivist and anti-realist metaethical theories.
16. Objections to Prescriptivism
Many of the challenges to Prescriptivism carry over from the challenges
suggested regarding Emotivism. The prescriptivist must also explain why
they know better the meaning of our moral statements than we do, at least if
n
7)
‘c
io}
v
fa
&
—
o
1)
=
ce
—
Vv
is)
—
=
Ww
iS
x
=
<
=
ea
=
we take ourselves to be making truth-apt and descriptive claims about moral
properties in the world.
In addition, we might accept that Prescriptivism captures the qualities
of moral disagreement better than Emotivism, but deny that the picture of
moral disagreement offered by the prescriptivist is good enough. After all,
is inconsistency the most serious objection we can make to someone with
whom we disagree morally? Prescriptivism does not allow us to suggest
that a racist who believes “it is morally acceptable to kill those of a different
racial background” utters something false. Indeed, so long as the racist holds
morally consistent views then we have no grounds to criticise his position at
all. If we feel that retaining the ability to cry “false!” — with proper, rational
and realist justification — is important when confronting the moral views of
racists, sexists and other morally deplorable individuals, then Prescriptivism
does not offer the tools that we need. Of course, the prescriptivist may reply
that we cannot claim that Realism is correct just because we wish it to be so
and that Prescriptivism, like it or not, is actually the proper understanding of
the meaning of our moral judgments. Again, this is a judgment you should
make for yourself.
SUMMARY
There is much more that could be said in this chapter. Metaethical
theories are as varied and nuanced as their normative rivals,
and it is impossible to give a fair hearing to all of them in a
single chapter. Catherine Wilson has authored an enquiry into
Metaethics that reflects the challenge of coming to your own,
first-person, view on these issues.'” However, we have tried as
far as possible on this whistle-stop tour to outline these theories
clearly and to give them such a fair hearing. It is for you to decide
where you sit in the debate between Cognitivism and Non-
Cognitivism, Realism and Anti-Realism, and, more generally,
to decide how much importance Metaethics has relative to the
normative and applied camps of ethical study.
17 C. Wilson, Metaethics from a First Person Standpoint, https://www.openbookpublishers.com/reader/417
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
° Not breaking down the chapter so as to be firmly in grasp of the
meanings of key terms, and then the nature of the theories, before
trying to engage in evaluation.
° Confusing Cognitivism, Non-Cognitivism, Realism and Anti-Realism.
° Misunderstanding the queerness complaint.
n
Vv
ol
:=
°
Vv
a
&
—
oO
1)
=
fa
—
Vv
is
—
=
° Forgetting the importance of asking a meaningful question when
explaining the mechanism of the Open Question Argument.
° Not using analogies appropriately — think of other realist/naturalist/
cognitivist/non-cognitivist disciplines and examples, then compare
these to ethics.
° Ignoring the explanations of disagreement offered by intuitionists.
° Not linking criticisms of one position to support for another position;
e.g. Moore’s attack on Naturalism explains his intuitionist views and
Mackie’s attack on Realism justifies his anti-realist position.
° Not using examples to aid explanation because not directly dealing
with obviously normative or applied issues.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Can you create your own Metaethical Map? Try drawing out a flow-
chart style diagram that separates Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism,
followed by the associated theories. If feeling confident, then try to add
weaknesses and strengths to your map. We recommend this as an excellent
study aide!'®
Does Emotivism lend support to Relativism?
Does Naturalism lend support to Absolutism?
4. Does something being queer (in Mackie’s sense of the term) make it
less likely that it exists?
5. Does moral disagreement lend support to Anti-Realism?
6. Cana philosopher ever know what you mean better than you know?
18 For an excellent Metaethical map see A. Miller, An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, p. 8.
Is Metaethics as important as normative or applied ethics?
Are moral judgments meaningless if they are about non-natural
properties? If they are non-cognitive?
Do we just know what is right or wrong based on common sense? Does
this support Intuitionism?
Can you give another example of an Open Question Argument, with a
different candidate natural moral property?
Is there such a thing as moral progress? What does this suggest in
terms of Metaethics?
Can a non-cognitivist properly explain moral disagreement?
What is the Humean account of motivation? Why does it support
Non-Cognitivism?
A priori Prescriptivism
A posteriori Prima facie
Anti-Realism Queer
Cognitivism Realism
Empirical Relativism
Naturalistic Fallacy Semantic
Non-Cognitivism Truth-apt
Normative Verificationism
References
Ayer, A. J., ‘A Critique of Ethics’, in Ethical Theory, ed. by Russ Shafer-Landau
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
—, ‘The Emotive Theory of Ethics’, in Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory,
ed. by George Sher (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 103-10.
Blackburn, Simon, Ruling Passions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Brandt, Richard, Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1959).
Fisher, Andrew, Metaethics: An Introduction (Oxford: Routledge, 2011), https://
doi.org/10.1017/upo9781844652594
Harman, Gilbert, Explaining Value and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000).
Hume, David, A Treatise on Human Nature (London: John Noon, 1739), freely
available at http://www.davidhume.org/texts/thn.html
Joyce, Richard, The Myth of Morality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511487101
Kahane, G., ‘Must Metaethical Realism Make a Semantic Claim?’,
Journal of Moral Philosophy, 10.2 (2013): 148-78, https://doi.
org/10.1163/174552412x628869
Mackie, J. L., Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (New York: Penguin, 1977).
Miller, A., An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics (Cambridge: Polity,
2003).
Moore, G. E., ‘The Open-Question Argument: The Subject Matter of Ethics’,
in Arguing About Metaethics, ed. by Andrew Fisher and Simon Kirchin
(London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 31-47.
Price, Richard, ‘A Review of the Principle Questions in Morals’, in The British
Moralists 1650-1800, ed. by D. D. Raphael (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969),
pp. 131-98.
Railton, Peter, ‘Moral Realism’, The Philosophical Review, 95.2 (1986): 163-207,
https://doi.org/10.2307/2185589
Ross, W. D., The Right and the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930),
https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252653.001.0001
n
&
a
fo)
Vv
ca
&
—
o
12)
=
ca
_—
7)
i]
—
5
W
=
7
=
<
=
ea
=
Tanner, Julia, “The Naturalistic Fallacy’, The Richmond Journal of Philosophy,
13 (2006), freely available at http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/
rjp13_tanner.php
Wedgwood, Ralph, The Nature of Normativity (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:0so0/9780199251315.001.0001
Wilson, Catherine, Metaethics from a First Person Standpoint (Cambridge: Open
Book Publishers, 2016), https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0087; freely available
at https://www.openbookpublishers.com/reader/417
PART III
APPLIED ETHICS
nature sat
considering right i
absolute justified many
EI g another Euthanasia § gy ia scoepeatily tether God's better tabelied
a)
a 8
2 + killing thought & Re pe nom
allowed 8 die condition == persoti== oO = ‘ pea scare Sc roe onsaoes
ihe QEe regarding 2 4u)', people fs . decisions 49 "2, GUM ONE A. OF ex ed Ean
ue SEE as a hee SN Sc 8 $ quality :§are ar rgument & 4 3 fa Fy 'Singer .
ey g eg: os he i? even , aie ra pi fiable good "issue
g eS aE : : we 3 suffering & “3 bjection voluntary
72,0 consequences ' “treatment Chapter
2g Ps negative Fal art slope = example eat
B “i
earlier Sanctity addition
‘morally d cress vase 1, be ge Focereencte fe) ile
Dectrine Cathobe
11)
28
a O. seem ewe @ kind * oeuila BE
=might 4:
methods stoelea Ha
directly
theory Is =
ethical
CHAPTER 7
Euthanasia
His enemies put it bluntly. Singer says it’s OK to kill disabled babies. Singer says seriously
damaged human beings are on a par with apes. Singer says it would have been OK to kill his own
mother. These charges are spat out of the sides of their mouths. One theologian I spoke to said
contemptuously, ‘Peter Singer takes the most basic human instincts and tries to reason them out
of existence. What does he expect us to do, hug him?”
1. Euthanasia Introduction
There is an old adage that only two things in life are certain — death and
taxes. While the morality of the latter would be an interesting topic itself
(and you may look to issues discussed in Chapter 8 for some inspiration), it is
the morality of an issue connected to the former that draws the focus of this
chapter. Specifically, we consider the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
(sometimes labelled as “mercy killing”).
2. Key Terms
The etymology of euthanasia helps to reveal the meaning of the term. Like
most upstanding and respectable philosophical terms, euthanasia has its
roots in Ancient Greek language; it is based on a combination of the terms eu
meaning “well” and thanatos meaning “death”. Euthanasia is thus the act of
seeking to provide a good death for a person who otherwise might be faced
with a much more unpleasant death — hence the term “mercy killing”.
There are different ways to categorise the various types of euthanasia and it
is critical to be confident and familiar with these categorisations.
Voluntary Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person makes their own choice to have
their life terminated in order to avoid future suffering.
1 ‘J. Hari, ‘Peter Singer: Some People are More Equal than Others’, http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/people/profiles/peter-singer-some-people-are-more-equal-than-others-551696.html
WN
OU
—
-
ical
a
Q
es
—
=
a
=<
Non-Voluntary Euthanasia
Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a decision regarding premature
and merciful death is made by another person, because the individual to be
euthanised is unable to make a decision for themselves. This form of euthanasia
is most commonly associated with young infants or patients in a coma who
cannot, due to the nature of their age or condition, make any decision for
themselves.
The above offers a differentiation of types of euthanasia in terms of the
person making the decision. In addition, we can differentiate between types of
euthanasia based on the method involved in ending a life.
Active Euthanasia
If a person is actively euthanised it means that their death was caused by
external intervention rather than natural causes, most likely through a lethal
injection or the voluntary swallowing of a deadly cocktail of drugs.
Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to die due to the deliberate
withdrawal of treatment that might keep them alive. Thus, a person who is
passively euthanised is allowed to die via natural causes even though methods
to keep them alive might be available. A person who has a life-support machine
switched off, for example, dies via natural causes but only as a result of a
decision to allow natural causes to take effect.
Although euthanasia that is both voluntary and passive is not particularly
common, euthanasia could come in any combination of methods and decision-
makers as laid out. Legality of the forms of euthanasia varies from nation to
nation; Belgium allows for voluntary and active euthanasia, the UK does not.
In the next two sections, we outline two different forms of medical afflictions
that will ground discussion of arguments in favour and against the varying
forms of euthanasia. As an applied ethical issue, it is important to make ethical
claims in the light of practical and real-world factors.
3. Case One: Persistent Vegetative State
A person is in a Persistent Vegetative State (hereafter PVS) when they are
biologically able to support their own continued existence, but they have no
meaningful psychological interaction with the world around them. A patient
ina PVS, according to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, can
neither follow an object with their eyes nor respond to the sounds of voices
and will show no discernible sign of emotion. The vegetative state is defined
as persistent when the condition is in place for up to a year and doctors
view no prospect of recovery as plausible. The PVS label may seem crude or
upsetting, but the message about the difference between the physical and the
psychological state of the patient is stark.
Inthe US, Terri Schiavo fell into a PVS when she suffered oxygen deprivation
to her brain as a result of a heart attack. Although she survived the heart-attack,
her husband ultimately came to the view that her continued existence was not
desirable and that she would be better off being allowed to die.
In the United Kingdom, the parents of Tony Bland — a victim of the
Hillsborough football disaster in 1989 — made a similar decision regarding
the life of their son after he fell into a PVS. Tony Bland’s parents campaigned
for their son to be allowed to “die with dignity” rather than continue existing
in his emaciated state. One can only attempt to imagine the emotional turmoil
for the relatives in such cases and it is worth mentioning that Terri Schiavo’s
parents ultimately fought a legal battle against their son-in-law in attempt to
ensure that Terri was not allowed to die.
When considering the morality of euthanasia for patients in a PVS, it is
clear that we should be considering only non-voluntary euthanasia, due to
the fact that such patients are clearly unable to make any kind of voluntary
decision regarding their future interests. For the sake of simplicity, we will
assume there are no relevant letter of intent from such patients, written in case
they should lose their faculties, describing their desires should they fall into
such a condition. However, you may find it rewarding to consider the moral
implications of such a letter. Would the letter provide a voluntary decision
that morally ought to be respected even when the patient is in a PVS?
4. Case Two: Incurable and Terminal Illness
Imagine a patient who has been diagnosed with an incurable disease that will
ultimately bring about their death. As the condition progresses over time, the
patient knows that their ability to live a normal life will decrease and that their
physical suffering will increase. You can imagine for yourselves the range of
diseases and conditions that may have such unfortunate effects upon a person.
Unlike the patient in a PVS, the patient in this example retains the ability
to ask for euthanasia themselves and so these cases can highlight moral issues
surrounding voluntary euthanasia. Again, for simplicity in our discussion, we
do not consider where the line can be drawn regarding patients in fit or unfit
psychological states when it comes to an ability to make a voluntary decision
to be euthanised, although this is also an issue that would reward further
moral thought.
ts}
=
n
(s]
Ss
oe
Zs
a
Ss
oe
W
OU
—
an
e
a
Q
a
—
a
oy
I
=<
5. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument One
In this section, we consider the first of the arguments in favour of the moral
acceptability of euthanasia. This argument is a general argument and would
apply to both non-voluntary and voluntary forms of euthanasia. However, the
argument, if sound, would also seem to suggest that active euthanasia is more
morally acceptable than passive euthanasia for reasons discussed at the end
of this section.
This initial argument can be labelled as the argument from quality of
life. According to this relatively simple idea, sometimes life is actually less
preferable than death. On such occasions, when quality of life is so dreadful
that a person would be “better off” dead, then euthanasia would be morally
justifiable. Evidently, much turns on what counts as a worthwhile life. Recalling
the section on well-being from Chapter 1, there are various philosophical
positions that might seek to provide a criterion to measure the quality of a
person’s life. A hedonist, for example, would suggest that the quality of a life
depends on how much happiness/pleasure a person experiences; a supporter
of a desire-satisfaction theory would suggest the quality of a life depends on
how many of a person’s desires are satisfied; an objective-list theorist would
suggest that the quality of a life depends on how many objectively valuable
goods a person possesses — goods including, but not limited to, knowledge
and love, for example.
Whichever one of these views a person supports, or even if they understand
other factors as being determinants of the quality of a life, there can little
doubt that a person in a PVS has, at best, a non-existent quality of life in
virtue of their extreme psychological limitations. Suggesting that some form
of consciousness is necessary to having any kind of quality of life, Jonathan
Glover (1941-) says:
I have no way of refuting someone who holds that being alive, even though unconscious, is
intrinsically valuable [valuable irrespective of the form of being alive]. But it is a view that will
seem unattractive to those of us who, in our own case, see a life of permanent coma as in no way
preferable to death. From the subjective point of view, there is nothing to choose between the two.”
Deprived of happiness and other capabilities, the life of a patient in a PVS
seems to be at best utterly neutral and at worst negative in respect of quality of
life, perhaps depending on any experience of physical pain. Patients in a PVS
are not merely bed-ridden like some who might have suffered severe strokes
or other such afflictions; they are biological entities lacking the distinguishing
psychological qualities of typical human beings. This may go some way to
2 J. Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives, p. 45.
explain why some (but by no means all) partners and parents of people in
PVS’s are willing to favour an end to the patient's life.
The case of Diane Pretty is informative when considering the quality of
life of a person with a terminal illness who is nearing the end of their life.
Diane Pretty suffered from motor-neurone disease and although she remained
mentally proficient, the worsening of her condition over time led her to request
to be allowed to die quickly and without undue suffering. Although the point
in time cannot be sharply labelled, it seems extremely plausible that many of
those with worsening terminal illnesses will reach a point in time where their
quality of life is non-existent or negative in virtue of their physical suffering
and their inability to enjoy life, satisfy desires or acquire objectively valuable
goods. I recall, as a young teenager, listening to Diane Pretty express her desire
to be allowed to die and wondering how anyone could reach a point where
they would not want to see one more sunrise or live one more day — these
questions, I suggest, reflected more of my inability to empathise with her daily
existence than they did with undue depression on her part.
Thus, if we focus on the quality of life for patients in a PVS, or for those
nearing the final stages of a terminal illness, we may well grant that there is
a time when quality of life either becomes negative or ceases to be relevant. If
we suggest that a life with no discernible quality of life is not worthwhile, then
euthanasia may appear morally justifiable.
If you find the argument from quality of life convincing, then you may judge
that active euthanasia is far more morally defensible than passive euthanasia;
after all the judgment that euthanasia is morally acceptable may seem to be the
load-bearing judgment, with the choice of method more of a practical than a
moral issue. Indeed, in this context, passive euthanasia might seem to be the
worst of all worlds.
According to Peter Singer, “Having chosen death [as a morally acceptable
course of action] we should ensure that it comes in the best possible way”.°
The best possible way, if we remain interested in quality of life, might seem
to be a lethal injection designed to send a patient painlessly to sleep before
shutting down their organs, or a selection of drinkable liquids that have the
same effect. The best possible way might not seem to involve turning off a life
support machine or withdrawing proactive treatment in order to allow nature
to take its course, when the course of nature may be directed by starvation,
dehydration or secondary infections. Although these passively viewed death-
causing effects may be managed with pain killers, Singer’s relatively simple
thought is that if death is deemed morally desirable, then why not simply
provide death actively rather than passively?
3. P. Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 186.
oe
ol
n
oe
Ss
oe
Zs
al
=}
ee
WN
OU
=
-
ical
es
a
es
=
=
Pu
=<
In addition, if we recall the ideas of Situation Ethicist Joseph Fletcher
(as outlined in Chapter 5) then we may wonder whether or not (assuming
death is morally desirable) passively allowing death to occur is actually less
loving than actively bringing death about. As a relativistic normative ethical
theory, Situation Ethics provides no absolute guidance regarding the moral
acceptability of euthanasia in any of its forms; situation-specific, practical
and pragmatic judgments will need to form the basis of moral judgments
in individual cases. However, it is important to consider how loving active
euthanasia might actually be in the circumstance where the death of the
patient is actually our ambition.
6. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Two
The second argument we can offer in support of euthanasia — both in voluntary
and non-voluntary forms — can be labelled the argument from resource use.
Whereas the former argument attempted to defend the moral acceptability
of euthanasia by utilising the perspective of the patient and their associated
quality of life, this argument may seem a little more detached and you may or
may not view this as a strength or weakness.
According to Peter Singer, the non-voluntary euthanising of a severely
disabled and suffering young infant child (who cannot express any wishes
regarding their future) may be justifiable on the following grounds:
When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of
a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.*
Singer’s suggestion may sound callous, and if you view killing an innocent
life as an absolute moral wrong then you may view his claim as immediately
morally out of bounds (this kind of objection to euthanasia is considered in a
later section). For now, however, let us take Singer’s claim at face value. Being
a preference utilitarian (further detail on this theory is available in Chapter 1),
Singer makes his judgment regarding how to act in such a case based on the
quality of life of the individuals involved. So, on his view, the disabled infant
may have a lower quality of life than a healthy child who might be born in
their stead because the latter, and not the former, can secure greater preference
satisfaction. Thus, we morally ought to bring about the situation in which the
healthy child is born.
If we assume that those who are in a PVS, or those suffering near the end
of a terminal condition, have a low quality of life then we might think that
spending our limited medical resources on maintaining their existence, rather
4 Ibid., p. 163.
than spending those resources elsewhere, is not morally desirable. This kind of
argument will appeal to a teleologist rather than a deontologist, for it ascribes
moral values to actions based on consequences rather than duties. In this setting,
the consequences of spending resources on PVS patients may be less positive
than spending those same resources on effectively treating other diseases or
funding medical research to benefit future generations.
Some financial figures may put this possible argument into context.
According to the Madison County Record, Christina McCray (a patient in a
PVS) had medical bills that average out to $250,000 per year.’ If we consider
the years of life that a patient in a PVS may have, along with the number
of PVS patients that exist, then the cost of keeping such individuals alive
becomes clearer. If medicine is sometimes about making difficult decisions,
then it may become clear why non-voluntary euthanasia of such patients
might be considered desirable (at least with the support of the family). In
addition, if a patient with a poor quality of life, who is facing future suffering
with associated expensive care, voluntarily requests euthanasia then it may be
that their death will allow resources to be better directed to other patients who
might have their suffering reduced more significantly.
It is worth noting, for those uncomfortable with this kind of resource
allocation planning when it comes to treating ill, suffering and frail patients
that decisions in the National Health Service are already being made in the
light of teleological and quality-of-life based reasoning. The NHS utilises
QALYs when making financial planning and treatment costing decisions.
QALY is shorthand for Quality Adjusted Life Year, a measurement designed
to consider the benefits of different treatment costs in respect of their pay-
offs to the patients involved. If a potential treatment will lead to a patient
being free from pain and able to perform daily activities (this is a somewhat
rough definition, but enough for our purposes) then the year in which this
outcome is expected can be given a value of 1. Each following year can then
be given a value between 0 and 1 according to the expected lasting impacts of
the treatment. Thus, allocating spending to different forms of treatment for
different patients can be objectively calculated against a common standard
in order to inform those spending decisions in terms of where the better
consequences might be secured.
The argument from resource use is, therefore, an extension of the use of
a QALY to inform medical decision-making. If the positive consequences of
spending money on treating patients who might be cured or helped to have
a higher quality of life are greater than spending money to keep people alive
5 Madison-St. Clair Record, http://madisonrecord.com/stories/510564252-nursing-expert-testifies-that-
plaintiff-s-bills-could-be-8-4-million
ts}
ol
n
s]
Ss
oe
Zs
ot
=}
oe
WN
OU
=
-.
&
es
a
es
=
=
a
=<
who either wish to die and have a diminishing quality of life or who are ina
PVS, then spending on the former is morally defensible rather than spending
on the latter. Again, you might consider how loving it is to spend money
keeping a patient in a PVS alive versus investing in research for cures and
treatments that could improve the quality of life for other patients in a world
where resources are finite.
7. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Three
The final argument we will offer in favour of euthanasia is an argument
often viewed as the most powerful in this applied ethical area, the argument
from personal autonomy. This argument proceeds from the fairly plausible
assumption that people should have the right to make their own decisions
and should be able to decide the paths of their own lives. If the right to choose
our own path applies in life, then why would this not apply in respect of our
choice of how and when to die?
Perhaps the most famous philosophical proponent of a right to personal
autonomy and decision-making was John Stuart Mill. As discussed in Chapter
1, Mill elucidated the harm principle, which suggested that the only legitimate
government interference in a person’s life is to stop that person from
harming others; all other interference is not to be justified. If you subscribe
to this principle, then you seemingly must believe that a person voluntarily
requesting euthanasia should not be denied the right to die, unless their
dying would cause harm to another person. If we discount emotional harm
(because many normal things that we do seem to cause emotional harm to
other people — getting a job over another candidate, for example) then it is not
easy to envisage a circumstance in which a terminally ill patient, requesting
a merciful death before their suffering becomes too extreme, would have a
death that causes physical harm to another person. Therefore, if we believe in
the power and moral right of the individual to act in the way that they deem
correct, unless physically harming another, then we must seemingly allow
that voluntary euthanasia is morally justifiable. Singer sums up the position:
...the principle of respect for autonomy tells us to allow rational agents to live their own lives
according to their own autonomous decisions, free from coercion or interference; but if rational
agents should autonomously choose to die, then respect for autonomy will lead us to assist them
to do as they choose.®
6 P. Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 195.
We have spoken above of voluntary euthanasia specifically, for the patient ina
PVS obviously cannot choose how to die. If we return to the earlier mentioned
possibility of a letter of intent, written prior to the condition taking hold, then
in certain instances non-voluntary euthanasia may also be justified on this
basis — though of course, such cases seem to a species of voluntary euthanasia.
However, if we would trust loved ones to make other important medical
decisions for us if we were incapacitated, then perhaps the same should apply
in this context and non-voluntary euthanasia might be justifiable in virtue of
properly respecting the choices made by one relative on behalf of another. It
is for you to consider if a theory of personal autonomy can be extended to
familial autonomy in such a way.
8. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument One
Thus far we have only outlined pro-euthanasia arguments. In fact, we have
really only provided pro-active euthanasia arguments in virtue of Singer’s
suggestions regarding the undesirability of passive euthanasia. It is now
time to give anti-euthanasia, and anti-active euthanasia, arguments their fair
hearing.
The first objection to euthanasia may be termed the objection from Sanctity of
Life. The Sanctity of Life ethic is usually founded on religious, and specifically
Christian, thinking. Essentially, a belief that life is sacred suggests an absolute
value to life, of atype that means itis worthwhile in all circumstances; in Glover's
earlier words it is the view that life has an intrinsic value that supersedes any
qualitative aspect. For Sanctity of Life theorists and supporters as described in
this section, problems with the quality of a life never undermine the ultimate
value and worth of a life.
It is not necessary to be religious to hold the view that all lives are worth
preserving, irrespective of quality. A non-religious person may prefer to speak
of an absolute right to life that cannot be taken away through non-voluntary
euthanasia, and cannot be revoked by personal decree in the context of
voluntary euthanasia. However, more often, the view is supported by Biblical
reference. In the Bible, we are told that God said: “Let us make mankind in our
image, in our likeness”.”
In addition, our bodies are described as sacred and as containing God’s
Holy Spirit: “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that
God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will
destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that
7 Genesis 1:26, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesist+1%3A26-28&version=NIV
ts}
ol
n
oe
Ss
o
Zs
-_
Ss
ee
W
O
—
an
&
a
Q
a
—
—
oy
I
<
temple” .* These quotes not only reveal the sanctity of our bodies and the cause
of that sanctity — our creation in the image of God and the presence of God’s
spirit within us — they also reveal the punishment for those who might take
life; might this relate to doctors who administer euthanasia?
Whilst the arguments from quality of life and use of resources were
avowedly teleological in nature, considering the painful and potentially
costly consequences of continued life, the argument from Sanctity of Life is
deontological in nature since it relates to a duty to avoid killing. Linking the
Sanctity of Life view to both abortion and euthanasia, Mother Teresa gave a
statement of the appeal of this ethical stance:
For me, life is the most beautiful gift of God to mankind, therefore people and nations who destroy
life by abortion and euthanasia are the poorest. I do not say legal or illegal, but I think that no
human hand should be raised to kill life, since life is God’s life us in us.?
All human life, whether in the womb or in a PVS, is of sacred and God-given
worth such that killing (including euthanising, as a form of killing) is morally
impermissible.
The notion of a sacred life lays behind Catholic teaching on the issue of
euthanasia. A 1980 Catholic Declaration of Faith is clear and absolute in nature:
...no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person
entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly, nor
can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the
violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against
life, and an attack on humanity."°
The language is somewhat complex but the key points are given in our
previous discussions in this chapter — life is sacred and so euthanasia,
whether voluntarily requested or non-voluntarily encouraged for someone
else, is morally impermissible. No legislator, guided by moral ideals, can ever
morally recommend this type of killing, whether motivated by a mistaken
sense of mercy or not.
9. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Two
A related objection to euthanasia, premised on a commitment to Christianity,
is the objection from valuable suffering (keep in mind that not all Christians, by
any stretch, would defend an objection of this type). Let us return to the 1980
Catholic Declaration of Faith. The document states that:
8 1 Corinthians 3:16-18, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3&version=
NIV
9 J. Chaliha and E. Le Joly, The Joy in Loving, p. 174.
10 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Declaration on Euthanasia’, http://www.vatican.
va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html
According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments
of life, has a special place in God's saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ's passion and a
union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will.’
Thus, even if someone requests euthanasia in order to avoid pain, that
request should not be granted because it deprives a person of an element
of God’s plan for them; the experience of suffering at the end of life brings
that person closer to sharing in the experience of Christ. This does not mean
that Christians oppose palliative care (a type of care that does not attempt to
extend life, so much as make an individual as comfortable as possible as they
face the end of their life). However, it does explain why a life should be seen
through to its natural end and why it might therefore be viewed as morally
wrong to shorten it.
10. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Three
The third anti-euthanasia argument to consider can be labelled the slippery
slope objection (sometimes called the Wedge argument). This objection does not
require any view regarding the Sanctity of Life or a deontological duty not
to kill; indeed, the slippery slope objection is both teleological in nature and
does not even require a denial that euthanasia might be desirable in certain
instances when viewed in the abstract or in isolation.
The slippery slope objection is that ifeuthanasia were to become legal in some
situations, then it would lead to euthanasia becoming legal and acceptable in
situations where it is actually morally undesirable. To see the strength of such
an objection, consider earlier pro-euthanasia arguments couched in terms of
resource allocation and personal autonomy.
If euthanasia can be justified on teleological grounds when resources would
be better deployed elsewhere, then what is to stop us justifying not merely
voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, but involuntary euthanasia also?
If euthanasia is justified on the basis of money and time being better spent
on some patients rather than others, then why would permission be required
from the patient or the patient’s family?
If morality is determined by consequences, and consequences justify
euthanasia, then we seem to be slipping down a dangerous slope to euthanising
people without their consent. After all, if you are a teleologist (perhaps, an act
utilitarian) you have already given up ideas concerning absolute rules against
certain actions. It therefore may be objected that either life is sacred, or it is
not, and if it is not then we may end up in a situation we find utterly morally
indefensible even if we start from apparently moral motivations.
11 Ibid.
ts}
ol
n
oe
Ss
oe
si
-_
=}
ie
W
O
—
an
&
a
Q
a
—
—
oy
I
<
In addition, if personal autonomy is respected to the degree that someone
can choose when to end their life, then what is to stop a seriously depressed
person who is otherwise physically healthy from opting for voluntary
euthanasia? Most people might view such enabling of suicide for patients with
mental health needs as being very different from euthanasia for PVS patients
or the terminally ill, but if personal autonomy justifies euthanasia then how
can we justifiably draw a strong enough line so as to allow some people to
choose death, but not others? Again, it may be objected that either personal
autonomy matters or it does not. If we enable a person to have their life ended,
then it is obvious they can never come to a different view on the value of their
life at a later stage, as they might have had they still been alive. On this issue,
it may be worthwhile revisiting the discussion from Chapter 1 regarding a
person’s preferences and whether they are only morally relevant if they stand
up to some sort of psychological testing and counselling; the relevant idea is
due to Richard Brandt.
In addition, opponents of euthanasia often suggest that if one group of
people are euthanised, others may begin to feel pressure to take up that same
option. If non-voluntary euthanasia is granted, and a legal, moral and cultural
line in the sand is thereby crossed, may not elderly patients feel pressured to
not be a burden to their families? May not the financially well-off elderly feel
pressure to allow their children to inherit any accumulated wealth rather than
see that wealth spent on their own care? Granting non-voluntary euthanasia
in even a small number of cases may, over time, send us down a slippery slope
to the non-morally defensible euthanising of many other types of patients who,
as things stand, are quite content to remain alive since they have no reason to
consider other options.
Of course, an easy response to any slippery slope objection is simply to deny
that a change in one fact must lead to a suggested negative change elsewhere.
Why think of negative consequences from a change in the law, when these
consequences might not happen? Indeed, some slippery slope arguments
are logical fallacies if they are premised on the idea that a possible negative
outcome must, of necessity, follow from some change in policy. However, we
should not “straw-man” the objection in this way (i.e. phrase it in such a weak
way that it is easy to argue against). The slippery slope objection suggests
that the negative outcomes might be probable, rather than be certain. Thus,
a response should deal with the issue of probable negative consequences,
rather than cheapening a plausibly reasonable objection through wilful
misrepresentation of its structure. Researching the situation in Belgium, where
the law regarding euthanasia is perhaps the most liberal in the world, should
provide a good grounding to either support or oppose this line of thought, as
would considering the application of Rule Utilitarianism.”
11. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Four
A fourth anti-euthanasia objection is the objection from modern treatment. This
objection brings together two distinct, but relevantly similar, lines of thought.
Firstly, it might be suggested that to euthanise those who are terminally ill,
or those in a PVS, is to kill people earlier than would otherwise happen and
thereby to artificially eliminate their chances of living to experience a cure
to their condition. At the very least, if not a cure, euthanised people are not
around to benefit from any step-forward in treatment that might alleviate
their suffering.
In addition, given the modern advances in palliative care it might also
be argued that end of life care is now so advanced that euthanasia is not
necessary in order to avoid suffering and so cannot be justified even on quality
of life grounds. It might be thought plausible that a person with a severe and
worsening disease who is not euthanised could have their condition and pain
carefully managed by skilled healthcare professionals so as to greatly diminish
any suffering.
In response to these types of objections, Singer grants that were euthanasia
legalised then some deaths may occur for people who could have been treated
had they been kept alive. However, he urges that:
Against a very small number of unnecessary deaths that might occur if euthanasia is legalised we
must place the very large amount of pain and distress that will be suffered if euthanasia is not
legalised, by patients who really are terminally ill.
On balance, Singer suggests, euthanasia would cause more pain to cease than
pleasure missed by those who die early. Whether or not palliative care is able
to reduce suffering to the extent suggested by the objection is something you
may wish to consider and further research, as it would seem to be an empirical
claim requiring contemporary evidence to further the discussion.
12 The following article highlights the use of the law in Belgium: ‘Belgian Convicted Killer with
“Incurable” Psychiatric Condition Granted Right to Die’, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/
sep/16/belgium-convict-granted-right-to-die
13 P. Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 197.
ts}
=
n
(s]
Ss
o
Zs
et
is}
ee
W
OU
—
an
e
a
Q
el
—
a
oy
oy
=<
12. Allowing versus Doing
James Rachels (1941-2003) sums up the supposed moral importance of the
distinction between allowing and doing in the euthanasia debate:
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics.
The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient
to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine
seems to be accepted by most doctors.“
Thus, according to Rachels, most doctors at the time of his paper — and
not much seems to have changed in the UK context since — would think it
permissible to allow a patient to die (passive euthanasia, on our definitions)
but think it impermissible to kill a patient even if they request it or if it is
deemed to be in their interests (active euthanasia).
The plausibility of this distinction is supported by consideration of the
Doctrine of Double Effect, as drawn from the normative Natural Law moral
theory discussed in Chapter 4. Recall from the chapter on Natural Law ethics
that one of the primary precepts for human beings is the preservation of
life. No moral prescription, we might think, could speak more strongly and
absolutely against euthanasia — especially given the Catholic background of
Aquinas’s Natural Law stance and the earlier reference to Catholic views in
the context of the Sanctity of Life ethic. A secondary precept, derived from
this primary precept, would certainly seem to deny the moral acceptability of
artificial shortening of life. However, Natural Law theorists are able to to have
a nuanced stance in the euthanasia debate.
A Natural Law theorist, via the Doctrine of Double Effect, can describe an
action as moral even if it results in an outcome that might not be considered
morally permissible in the abstract. If an act is directed by a desire to do moral
good, yet has a foreseeable but unintended consequence of a bad effect, then
this action may be moral so long as the bad effect was not aimed at, does not
outweigh the good effect and is not directly the cause of the bad itself. If this
brief comment is unclear, it is critical to look back to the relevant discussion of
the Doctrine of Double Effect in the chapter on Natural Law.
Now, let us apply this doctrine directly to the context of euthanasia. A doctor
may be aware that a patient has not long to live and is suffering immensely. The
doctor may prescribe a multitude of painkillers to treat the pain, even though
this will have the foreseeable but unintended effect of killing the patient as
a result of the side-effects of the drugs. Indeed, a doctor may simply refrain
14 J. Rachels, ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, p. 511.
from offering painful treatment methods in order to avoid causing suffering,
with the unintended but foreseeable consequence that the patient will die as
a result of the non-intervention. These actions are not morally wrong, says
the Natural Law theorist, because death is not intended directly but rather
the morally good end of pain reduction is intended directly. Thus, the doctor
who engages in active euthanasia by provision of a lethal cocktail of drugs in
order to artificially kill a patient so that their suffering is reduced is morally
wrong (for the good of “suffering reduction” is directly achieved by the bad
of killing), while the doctor who withdraws treatment in order to relieve
suffering, with the unintended but foreseeable outcome of death, acts morally
justly (for the good of “suffering reduction” is achieved by not administering
painful treatment, death is just a proportionately acceptable side-effect).
Both Rachels and Singer have little time for the distinction between allowing
and doing, and the Doctrine of Double Effect, in this debate. Rachels says that:
If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same position as if he had given
the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons...if the doctor’s decision was the right (to not
intervene on the patient's death) one, the method used is not itself important.’
Meanwhile, Singer comments that “We cannot avoid responsibility simply by
directing our intention to one effect rather than another. If we foresee both
effects, we must take responsibility for the foreseen effects of what we do”.'®
Singer gives the example of a business seeking to save money in order to hire
more workers. This outcome is good and motivates bosses to act to save money
on their recycling bill, with the foreseeable but unintended consequence of
polluting a local river. If we would not excuse the company for ignoring a
foreseeable consequence, says Singer, then we do not really believe we escape
responsibility for allowing death in the euthanasia context.
The application of the Doctrine of Double Effect, and Natural Law ethics
in general, to the euthanasia debate should be considered carefully and in the
light of the earlier chapter outlining the normative theory itself. Despite both
Singer’s and Rachel’s attack, Natural Law and the Doctrine of Double Effect
retain many proponents. If one views moral outcomes as based on more than
consequences alone, then this approach may seem to have more merit than a
preference utilitarian like Singer might grant it; this is for you to judge.
15 Ibid..
16 P. Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 183.
ts}
=
n
(s]
Ss
oe
si
ol
iS}
oe
SUMMARY
Euthanasia is an applied moral topic that has profound
implications; successful moral arguments may lead to legislative
changes that quite literally shorten or extend lifespans. There
are a host of subtleties in the debate to which we can only pay
lip-service — such as the acceptability of active euthanasia
of depressed patients, the importance of pre-injury requests
for treatment or for death; the best way of allocating medical
resources; the powers of people over both their bodies and the
bodies of incapacitated family members. Further issues are
discussed in works such as that by J. David Velleman, and we
suggest the references below as a guide to useful and enquiring
texts.'” However, we hope that you now feel confident to explain
and evaluate the key arguments both in favour and against the
various methods of euthanasia and the various contexts in which
those methods may be employed.
WN
OU
—_
-.
al
a
Q
es
—
=
a
=<
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
e Making the slippery slope objection simpler than it is — it focuses on
likelihood of future consequences, not certainty of future consequences.
e Dismissively suggesting that not being religious is enough to oppose
Sanctity of Life claims out of hand. Life might have absolute value for
non-religious reasons and this is an idea one should engage with.
° Dismissing the quality of life argument just because of a religious faith
without proper engagement — the idea that a life should be prolonged
even in the face of suffering needs suitable defence.
° Misrepresenting the Doctrine of Double Effect in application to
euthanasia — keep in mind the more detailed knowledge gained from
the chapter on Natural Law ethics.
¢ Thinking that pro-euthanasia views must be secular and that anti-
euthanasia views must be religious. All options remain open.
17 J. D. Velleman, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death, https://www.openbookpublishers.com/
reader/349
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. What makes a life worth living? Is a life ever without value?
2. Should the Doctrine of Double Effect be ethically relevant? Is there a
moral difference between allowing and doing?
ts}
ol
mn
ts]
Ss
o
Zs
_—
is}
oe
What is assisted suicide? Is it different from Euthanasia?
4. If euthanasia is morally acceptable, should passive euthanasia ever be
viewed as an acceptable method?
5. Can the slippery slope objection be blocked in this context? Answer
with reference to the development of euthanasia laws in Belgium.
6. Is Rule Utilitarianism the only teleological theory that survives the
slippery slope objection?
7. Is there something morally uncomfortable about the argument from
resource allocation? If so, what?
8. Ifyou were designing euthanasia laws, what would they look like?
9. Should a Sanctity of Life ethic have any role in twenty-first century
medicine?
10. Is the morality of euthanasia determined by empirical factors such as
levels of palliative care available?
11. Should a depressed patient ever be allowed euthanasia? Is personal
autonomy something we must always respect? If not, when should it
not be respected?
12. Could involuntary euthanasia (euthanasia against a person’s wishes)
ever be justified in any circumstance?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Doctrine of double effect Well-being
Palliative care Sanctity of Life
Persistent Vegetative State Straw-man
WN
OU
=
7
e
a
Q
es
=
=
cs
a
=<
References
‘Belgian Convicted Killer with “Incurable” Psychiatric Condition Granted
Right to Die’, the Guardian (16 September 2014), freely available at https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/16/belgium-convict-granted-right-
to-die
Bible, New International Version, freely available at https://www.
biblegateway.com/
Chaliha, Jaya, and Le Joly, The Joy in Loving: A Guide to Daily Life with Mother
Teresa (London: Penguin, 1996).
Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives (London: Penguin, 1990).
Madison-St. Clair Record, freely available at http://madisonrecord.com/
stories/510564252-nursing-expert-testifies-that-plaintiff-s-bills-could-be-8-
4-million
Hari, J., ‘Peter Singer: Some People are More Equal than Others’, freely
available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/peter-
singer-some-people-are-more-equal-than-others-551696.htm1
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Declaration on
Euthanasia’, freely available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_
en.html
Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011),
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511975950
Rachels, James, ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, Biomedical Ethics and the Law, 5
(1979): 511-16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6561-1_33
Velleman, J. David, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death (Cambridge, Open
Book Publishers, 2015), https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0061; freely available
at https://www.openbookpublishers.com/reader/349
—4 make trust & F|
es $ g utilitarian j: oe thar
zfs DOTA Vethical si
rule *" customers B
PBL ads eh ethical tied
. a
nothing 5
means = actions Consider | Kant Quy
regarding al :
simply § peop! aa
, id 25
i]
a)
i
WI Ong: Bnew ining |
treat
mpl questionPIL'O rofit
issues. = & rae Oy ees compan yi envaronental
whether 5 pm CASE though ‘
ey always s course + 2 mil pleasure
much acess something Ps
fiom 4 genre Utilitarianism ;
ent humans towards relationships |)... companies **35
USI
grounds true Well
acce “eae
z
cr
of
=
=]
Late
ral
= E
a.
e
= thought = Howewer irrational -
CHAPTER 8
Business Ethics
There is no such thing as business ethics.
John Maxwell
A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business.
Henry Ford
1. Introduction to Business Ethics
What is a business? Is Christian Aid a business? Is McDonalds? What about
a university? This is a difficult and complicated question to answer but let us
start from the claim that a business is an organization that buys and sells goods or
services for profit.
If I buy some books from a shop, they are goods and the business makes a
profit. If I pay the taxi driver to take me to the airport then that is a service and
I increase the taxi company’s profit.
Maybe then Christian Aid is not a business? Arguably there is no “customer”
purchasing a good or a service, whereas McDonalds clearly is a business. But
what about a university? Well that is a much harder and more controversial
question, and one that we have posed below for you to consider. For any
business, whatever its size, the key feature will be that it sells goods or services
for profit.
Ethics arises because relationships exist. That is, if there is a relationship then
there is a legitimate question of how ought we to behave in that relationship? In
a business there are many different relationships and hence we can ask ethical
questions regarding each of these relationships. Here are a few examples.
(a) A business has a relationship with its shareholders — the people who
own a share of the company. However, if the shareholders want to reduce the
wages of the workers so they can get a larger dividend, would they be doing
something morally wrong? After all, they might arguably be said in some
sense to “own” the business and can do what they want with it.
(b) A business has a relationship with its customers — the people who are
buying the goods and services. For instance, if a business knowingly reduces
the amount of health advice it provides on its labels in order to increase profits,
has it done something morally wrong?
(c) A business has a relationship with its employees. If a business realises that
it can increase productivity by scrapping paternity leave would it be morally
wrong to do so? Conversely, if an employee is privy to some questionable
practices and becomes a “whistle-blower” then has she done anything morally
wrong?
(d) There are also ethical questions that arise regarding the business’s
relationship with the environment. If a business opens a new factory, giving a
much needed boost to the local economy, but can only do so by building on a
nature reserve, has it done something morally wrong?
(e) Also there are others who are affected by the business’s activity. For example,
if a mobile phone company constructs a new phone mast which causes a low
hum to be heard by the local community, has the company done something
morally wrong?
Of course, businesses have always made ethical decisions. The working
conditions in factories before the 1847 Factory Act were certainly morally
wrong, even if this was not recognised at the time.
This is in stark contrast to nowadays, when you find “value and ethic”
statements in full view on the promotional material of any business. Not to be
talking in terms of “values and ethics” is very bad business practice. The phrase
that is often used in this context is a business’s “Corporate Social Responsibility”
(CSR). We can take CSR to mean: “[...] a business approach that contributes
to sustainable development by delivering economic, social and environmental
benefits for all stakeholders”.' A great example of a company with a clear CSR
is The Body Shop, who in 1988 became the founding member of the Ethical
Trading Initiative.’
There is now a plethora of ethical rankings that tell the customer which
businesses are best in terms of CSR, and which is the most ethical (e.g. Forbes,
‘The World’s Most Ethical Companies’).°
Although it is now the norm for a business to have “ethics” statements, it
is arguably irrational for companies to be ethical. Why might this be? Consider
this basic argument.
1. A business’s aim is to make a profit.
2. A business will make a profit if it can attract customers.
q ‘FT.com/Lexicon’, Financial Time, http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=corporate-social-responsibility--
(CSR)
2 Tosee details of the Ethical Trading Initiative see http://www.ethicaltrade.org
3 See K. Strauss, ‘The World’s Most Ethical Companies 2016’, http://www.forbes.com/sites/karsten
strauss/2016/03/09/the-worlds-most-ethical-companies-2016
3. Inthe present context (at least in the West) a business will attract most
customers if it appears to be ethical.
4. It will make more profit if it appears ethical rather than actually being
ethical because it actually costs more to be ethical rather than simply
appearing ethical.
Therefore, given (1)-(4) it seems more reasonable for a business simply to
appear to be ethical, rather than actually being ethical.
Of course, there are many questions that arise from the above argument.
For instance, we might think that the potential costs of being found out (i.e.
appearing but not being ethical) far outweigh the costs of actually being ethical
in the first place — hence (4) might be rejected. However, there remains a great
attraction only to appear ethical and not go through a long, often expensive
process to become ethical. It is of course then an open empirical question
whether businesses are ethical or whether it is window dressing and simply a
cynical marketing device.
In this chapter we are going to look at a few areas of business ethics and
do so through the lens of the normative theories of Utilitarianism and Kantian
deontology.
2. Employers and Employees
In 1992 Mike Ashley started the company Sports Direct; it grew rapidly to become the
biggest sports retailer in the UK and one of the biggest in Europe. However, in 2016 the lid
was lifted on what seemed to be draconian working practices for its employees and it was
revealed that workers were not paid the minimum wage. One employee claimed that, “if we
went to the toilet more than once every four hours we were called into the manager's office
and questioned”. “I lasted six days before I quit”.* Employees were often searched when
leaving the store after work — sometimes having to strip to their underwear. Employees
were docked fifteen minutes’ pay for being one minute late. “Sometimes on my zero-hours
contract, I would end up working for ten days in a row, for ten hours a day. On other weeks
I would get given only one three-hour shift the whole week. There was no routine”.°
Did Sports Direct do something morally wrong? To make this a little more
manageable, let us put aside the illegality of their behaviour. Let’s assume that
they did nothing illegal in their practice.
Given this we might think that they did not do anything morally wrong.
After all, the employees were not press-ganged into working for the company.
They were not chained to their desks nor denied access to exits. Employees
were not prisoners or slaves but were rational human beings who chose to
4D. Avis, ‘Sports Direct: Former Employees Speak Out’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36864345
5 Ibid.
a
)
=
=
n
)
uv
&
D
5
ia]
work for this company. It is plausible that the employees simply failed to read
the “small print” in their contracts. In this case why think that the business did
anything wrong?
Remember that for an “act utilitarian” (see Chapter 1) an act is morally
right if, and only if, it brings about more happiness than any other act, so
maybe then Sports Direct did not do anything morally wrong.
In the case of Sports Direct, it might be that the millions of people who gained
happiness from owning the cheap sports products outweighed the misery and
unhappiness of approximately 27,000 employees. In which case it was morally
acceptable for Sports Direct to treat its employees in the way that it did.
Moreover, the act utilitarian has no time for “rights” in general and an
“employee’s rights” in particular. However, we suspect most people would
believe that what Sports Direct did was morally wrong and even if it were legal,
people would judge that the company ought not to have acted in the way that
it did.
That said perhaps we do not need to draw this conclusion even if we are
act utilitarians. This is because Mill said it would be better to be a human
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. He thought that there were “higher” and
“lower” pleasures. Only humans can experience higher pleasure, non-human
animals cannot.
Mill argues that pleasure should not just be weighed on the qualitative
“hedonic” calculus. If we introduce higher and lower pleasures, then we can
respect the intuition that what Sports Direct did was morally wrong. Mill
thought that higher and lower pleasures were qualitatively distinct. If this is true
then we might think that the lower pleasures of, say, a million people having
a new tennis racket or owning the latest trendy trainers, is outweighed by the
higher pleasure of the three quarter of a million employees being treated fairly.
Furthermore, Consequentialist Theories also spell out the “utility” not in
terms of happiness or pleasure but in other terms such as welfare and preferences.
A preference or welfare consequentialist might then conclude that what Sports
Direct did was morally wrong because its actions did not maximize welfare
and/or preferences. Investigating this claim, though, would take us well
beyond the scope of this chapter.
Moving away from Act Utilitarianism, we might think that the rule utilitarian
would claim that the actions of Sports Direct was morally wrong because the
rule “treat your employees fairly” is justifiable on utilitarian grounds. That is,
people will typically be happier if this rule is followed than if it is not. Hence, a
rule-utilitarian might conclude that what Sports Direct did was morally wrong
as arguably Sports Direct did not treat its employees fairly.
What is important then is to realize that it is not as clear-cut as saying that
a utilitarian would believe that a certain business practice is morally right
or wrong. Rather it will depend on the specifics of the situation and how,
according to the position, we should maximize pleasure, happiness, wellbeing,
preferences etc.
So much for the utilitarians, what about the Kantians? (See Chapter 2.) Well,
the Kantian talks in terms of duty and Categorical Imperatives; for the Kantian
it is always morally wrong to treat someone as solely a means to an end.
On first look, we might think that this is precisely what Sports Direct did
in treating its employees as a means to an end (profit). But it cannot be that
simple. For if this were true then all businesses would be doing something
morally wrong because all businesses use their employees to make a profit.
We need to think a bit harder about what Kant is saying. Kant is not saying
that businesses cannot use people as a means to an end but that the key is
whether the business is treating people as rational and free.
Using a taxi is not morally wrong even though we are using the taxi
driver for our own end. This is because we pay the taxi driver and they are
voluntarily entering into this means-end relationship. The same then could
be said for the employees in a business. Sure, it is true that McDonalds, or
Ford, or Body Shop are using their employees as a means to an end but this is
acceptable because they pay their employees and their employees are entering
the contract of work freely.
Perhaps though the Kantian would say that Sports Direct is different because
it practised a form of exploitation. The people working for Sports Direct are
very often from the poorest group of society. This means they do not have lots
of jobs to pick from so it is not as if they could leave the job and quickly find
another. Moreover, we might suppose that in leaving the job they might end
up in a situation which is far worse, perhaps not being able to pay their rent,
being on the street, having relationships break down.
In this case, we might wonder if the employees really are freely choosing
to work for Sports Direct. If they are not, then Sports Direct is treating its
employees as means-to-an-end even though it is paying them. In which case
the Kantians would say that what was happening is morally wrong. We'll look
at other features of the Kantian position when we consider other issues below.
3. Businesses and Customers
It is clear that businesses can directly affect how a customer thinks about
goods or services, the world around them, and themselves. If they could not
then they would not spend millions of pounds on advertising each year! But
given this then they occupy a position of trust. With this trust comes a question
wn
O
=
“
a
za
—
=
>
<
regarding how much information a company should provide to the customer
and in what form.
In 2011 a court decision meant that banks had to compensate millions of people after they
had been mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) which was judged to be “ineffective
and inefficient”. It is beyond doubt that banks knew that PPI was a con, yet it was not in their
interest to stop selling PPI because it was “a cash cow”. In order to sell PPI banks tapped
into the insecurity of customers by promising a “safety net”. PPI promised to repay people’s
borrowings if their income fell due to illness or job loss.
We might think that here is a case where a business’s actions towards the
customer is morally wrong. But how might we explain this? Well, one obvious
way of explaining it is via trust. As Doug Taylor, who works for “Which?”,
stated: “We’ve always known that people were being mis-sold PPI, but we
were still amazed to discover the scale of it. It appears that salespeople are
chasing their commissions, their bosses are chasing profits — where’s the sense
of responsibility to the customer?”®
But how far does this “responsibility” reach? It is of course not ina business’s
interest — that of making a profit — to give the customer a balanced and
“honest” viewpoint. An advert for a computer that says: “this is very expensive;
you are probably just buying the label. You do realize that the statistics say
you'll use approximately 5% of its capacity, probably for games, a bit of word
processing and surfing the web” will probably not get the company very far
in terms of sales. So it seems unfair to compel businesses to be honest and
balanced in this way.
But on the other hand a company cannot lie. This of course is why the
“horsemeat” scandal and other “food fraud” cases have been so controversial.”
It may be that people would choose to eat horsemeat but the trouble arises
when they are deceived into eating it. These were cases where food companies
deliberately lied, or deceived the customer for profit.
But what is lying? Well, it is not when someone fails to tell the truth but
rather it involves intentional deception. But why ought companies refrain from
lying?
Looking at Act Utilitarianism account it is quite hard to say why it would
always be wrong to do so. Presumably, for the act utilitarian, it is not always
morally wrong for a business to lie and to exploit the trust of the customer.
6G. Wearden, ‘How the PPI Scandal Unfolded’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/05/
how-ppi-scandal-unfolded
7 ‘Horsemeat Scandal: Where Did the 29% Horse in your Tesco Burger Come From?”’, the Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/22/horsemeat-scandal-guardian-investigation-
public-secrecy
If, by lying, a business produces more happiness than by not lying, then it is
morally acceptable for the business to lie.
We might not think that we would get the same result for the rule utilitarian.
A plausible rule might be “do not lie in a position of trust where there are
reasonable grounds that you'll be found out”. If this were justifiable through
utilitarian grounds, then it would be unacceptable for businesses to lie to the
customer. Yet, even on the rule utilitarian account it is true that it is sometimes
morally acceptable for a business to lie.
This contrasts with the Kantian approach. If you recall, for the Kantian it is
always morally wrong to lie. It is true in all instances that one ought not to lie.
Kant uses the Categorical Imperative to show this. Let us reconsider the PPI
case. It would be irrational for the head of a bank to want the maxim “lie to the
customer if it means making a profit” to become a universal law. It is irrational
because if this is a universal law then there would be no trust in businesses at
all and therefore there could be no profit and no businesses. It is self-defeating
and irrational. So it seems that on Kantian grounds the way that PPI was sold
was morally wrong.
4. A Business and the Environment
As we discussed above it is common parlance amongst businesses to talk
about Corporate Social Responsibility; in other words, a business works with the
goal not just of profit but to be in step with the issues of society as a whole.
Typically, though not exhaustively, this amounts to the business being ethically
responsible towards the environment; this might include things such as not
testing its cosmetics on animals or reducing the amount of non-recyclable
plastic bags that the company uses.
But why should a business have any obligation to the environment? If a
business is working within the law but using, say, environmentally unfriendly
cement in the construction of its factories, why does this matter? Why should
a business use a potentially more expensive product, thus reducing its profits,
simply because it is more environmentally friendly?
It is true that the environment is one of the biggest concerns for businesses
and is often an area where they are heavily criticized. This, like many of
the other ethical issues, is only a relatively new phenomenon. In the past,
in the name of profit, businesses could do what they wanted regarding the
environment. There was a view that the world is such a massive place that
a business polluting a pond, or mining on a green space did not really, in
the grand scheme of things, matter. But the increase in globalization, the
advancement of science, and the fact we live in connected communities has
made people realize that businesses can, and do, affect the environment;
climate change and the hole in the ozone layer are prime examples of this slow
realization.
We can bring some of the issues into focus through an example:
In 2000 heavy snow caused the collapse of a dam in Romania. The dam was holding back
100,000 cubic meters of cyanide-contaminated water. The water spilled over some farmland
and then into the Somes river. Although no humans were killed the spill caused the death
of a huge amount of aquatic life and the accident has been called the biggest environmental
disaster in Europe since Chernobyl. The cyanide water was a by-product of the mining of
gold by the Aurul mining company.
Did the company do something morally wrong? It might have done something
illegal; perhaps it omitted to perform the appropriate load tests, or perhaps
it forged safety documentation. But even if it did nothing illegal, did it do
something morally wrong?
I suspect in the twenty-first century our answer will be “obviously yes
But can we give any substance to this thought? What really is wrong? After all,
we intentionally kill billions of fish and aquatic life for food every year.
What would we say if we are utilitarians? Well we cannot talk about
environmental rights, for there are no rights and again we might find it hard
to show why this was morally wrong if we are utilitarians. We might think
that the gold produced might cause a lot of happiness, not least because it
is used in jewellery, computers, electronics, dentistry, medicine etc. The fish,
plants, and other aquatic life do not have a comparably high level of pleasure
or happiness compared to humans so all things being equal it might not be
morally wrong. Of course, as with the other cases this will depend on how
we spell out the details of the case but Utilitarianism does not appear to be as
clear-cut as we perhaps might have hoped.
For the Kantian, we only have moral obligations towards rational agents
and thus there is no such thing as a business’s moral obligation towards the
environment, as the environment is not a rational agent. Now this does not
mean that Kant believes a business can do whatever it wants towards the
1”
environment.
If a business treats the environment as a means to an end (profit) then
they are modelling a certain type of behaviour and this behaviour could then
lead to businesses treating humans as a means to an end, which is wrong. So
although the exploitation of the environment is not morally wrong for the
Kantian, it legitimises and hence increases the possibility of exploitation of
people, which is.
5. Business and Globalization
The world is getting smaller and it is increasingly easy to contact and work
with people across the world. Whereas in the past a UK business might set
its sights on reaching a few cities in the UK, businesses now have greater
international opportunities. This brings a whole host of new ethical issues but
rather than apply our moral theories to these issues, we will leave this to the
reader. The aim in this section is to start you thinking about some of the issues.
Nike, Gap, M&S, H&M, Walmart, Nestlé and many more companies have
been exposed as using child labour. Although this may not be illegal in the
country where the children were used, people think it is very wrong. But is
it? Consider this quotation from a Cameroonian father who is also a farmer:
“{child labour] is considered as part of the household chores children do to
help their parents. I do not consider this child abuse because we are making
money that is used to pay their school fees” .®
We can understand then that a local rural economy may well be wholly
dependent on the use of child labour and therefore a blanket ban on child labour
would have a directly negative effect on the livelihoods of a large number of
people. But how much then are “western ideals” simply idiosyncratic? Should
there be a complete ban or is it the case that:
A global ban [...] shows disrespect for other cultures by imposing a western mindset as to the
economic role of children. A more sensible policy would be to apply some basic rules of humane
working conditions in conjunction with a targeted, evolving approach that duly considers the
actual outcomes of implemented measures.?
Or consider another issue. As we said, it was not until quite recently that
there has been a move to make businesses more environmentally friendly.
During the industrial revolution in the UK there was no such requirement.
Now consider businesses in “developing” countries. They are often trying to
start from scratch with very poor infrastructure and a poor understanding
of the environmental impact of their work. In fact, the West imposing their
environmental standards on businesses would effectively stop such businesses
developing and may lead to their collapse. If a farmer in Kenya has not only
got to produce crops, but has to do so in a more expensive “environmentally
friendly” way then that famer might struggle to survive. What right then do
8 F. Wijen, ‘Banning Child Labour Imposes Naive Western Ideals on Complex Problems’, https://
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/26/ban-child-labour-developing-countries-
imposes-naive-western-ideals-complex-problems
9 Ibid. Here and hereafter the emphasis is ours unless otherwise stated.
a
)
Slee
Fs
7)
)
Vv
&
7)
i}
ine)
businesses in the West have to impose these environmental standards on
businesses in other less affluent countries?
There are many other examples of the ethical issues that come with the
increase in globalization. In general, these arise when there is a clash of
cultures. For example, some cultures operate by using bribes; what then should
businesses do within that culture? What about when a Western business is
located in a culture which treats women as second class citizens; how should
the business treat their female employees and successfully operate? The
general question then is how far can we impose — if at all — Western business
ethics in non-Western contexts?
SUMMARY
The label “business ethics” is relatively new. The customer is
now very sensitive to how “ethical” a business is and thus any
signs of moral wrongdoing by a business will lead to a slump
in profits. This leads to a general question whether there is any
incentive to be — rather than simply appearing to be — ethical.
One question that we have not yet addressed is whether
capitalism — the environment needed for businesses to
exist — is itself immoral? Marx, and many others, certainly
thought that a system that leads us to seek after more money
and more material goods will crush and stunt human flourishing.
If our function as humans involves devoting time to being
healthy, being with friends and family, developing hobbies and
skills, educating ourselves etc., then the “for profit” mentality
of capitalism could be seen as not allowing us to fulfil this role.
The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities
into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with
luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering
mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate,
demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force."
Perhaps then the most ethical response to business is to refuse
to play the capitalist game of business in the first place and
to rethink what “business” might mean and how a “business”
should act.
10 M. Parenti, Against Empire.
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Confusing the legal questions and the moral questions.
Thinking that Kant says we can never use people as means.
Assuming that equal opportunity means treating everyone the same.
Assuming that some from a culture can speak on behalf of all that
culture.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Do you think that a university is a business?
2. What do you think the difference is between a business and a
company?
3. Find some examples of a business’s ethics and/or values statement.
What are they saying? What do you think of them?
4. Write an ethics/value statement for your school.
5. What do you think of the argument that it is irrational for a business to
be ethical?
6. Find a few examples of adverts. Explain in your own words what they
are telling the customer. Is this intentional deception? Is it lying?
7. Imagine that as an employee you are offered a bribe. How would the
utilitarian tell us to act? What about the Kantian? Is it always wrong to
take bribes in business?
8. Some workplace rules seem true in every culture — e.g. do not use
violence. Others, perhaps concerning dress code, do not. How then are
we going to decide between those values that should be part of ethical
business practice and those that are merely idiosyncratic features of
Western business practice?
9. Why should business care about the world they leave for future
generations? After all, future generations do not exist.
10. How far do you think capitalism is immoral?
11. If you do think that capitalism is immoral then what alternative is
there? Why is the proposed alternative more morally acceptable?
12. What do you think about the final quotation from Parenti? What
do you think the utilitarian and the Kantian would say about this
quotation?
7)
9
=
s
_
ea)
wn
)
uv
i=
os
7)
=}
pa
vp)
1S)
=
x
ie
aa)
Q
ea)
=
a
po
oq
<
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Goods Corporate Social Responsibility
Services Whistleblowing
Stakeholders Capitalism
References
Avis, D., ‘Sports Direct: Former Employees Speak Out’, BBC News (22 July
2016), freely available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36864345
‘FT.com/Lexicon’, Financial Time, freely available at http://lexicon.ft.com/
Term?term=corporate-social-responsibility--(CSR)
‘Horsemeat Scandal: Where Did the 29% Horse in your Tesco Burger Come
From?’, freely available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/
oct/22/horsemeat-scandal-guardian-investigation-public-secrecy
Parenti, Michael, Against Empire (Saint Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995).
Strauss, K., ‘The World’s Most Ethical Companies 2016’, Forbes, freely
available at http://www. forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2016/03/09/the-
worlds-most-ethical-companies-2016
Wearden, G., “How the PPI Scandal Unfolded’, the Guardian (5 May 2011),
freely available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/05/
how-ppi-scandal-unfolded
Wijen, F., ‘Banning Child Labour Imposes Naive Western Ideals on Complex
Problems’, the Guardian (26 August 2015), freely available at https://www.
theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/26/ban-child-labour-
developing-countries-imposes-naive-western-ideals-complex-problems
right =
Bet something
_qignor ance
cipereg
: , authority stage
| :
mind | things
camel: However
even
Ie Consci
E development
&
wet
tl fink ¢ £
ence y=
CHAPTER 9
Conscience
The bite of conscience, like the bite of a dog into stone, is a stupidity.
Friedrich Nietzsche
1. Introduction
Each of us has, at one time or another, talked about our conscience. We might
have been “pricked by our conscience” or our conscience might have “butted
in” when it was not wanted. We might be going on quite happily telling a lie
to a friend, or might have accidentally walked out of a shop without paying
for something and it is our conscience that makes us confess or stops us in our
tracks spins us on our heels and takes us back into the shop.
People from different walks of life talk of the “conscience”, from the
religious believer, the politician, the celebrity, to every day folk; we might hear
someone berate their conscience for nagging them to do something they do
not want to. People might be labelled “conscientious objectors” because they
feel their conscience is telling them to object to certain political actions, e.g.
war. A protester might lament the erosion of their “freedom of conscience”.
And we can find concepts very similar to “conscience” in many non-Christian
religious traditions both Eastern and Western throughout history and from
around the globe.'
However, the nature of conscience is obscure and consequently the
philosophical discussion of conscience is complex and has a long history.
It draws on issues in philosophical psychology, philosophy of religion,
epistemology, philosophy of mind, applied ethics, normative ethics and
Metaethics.
In this chapter we'll give a general overview of two theories of conscience.
One draws on Aquinas’s account; the other Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939).
Although Freud is not typically seen as a philosopher (he’s a psychologist)
his account will provide us with some insights which allows us to think
philosophically about this thing we call “the conscience”.
1 See P. Strohm, Conscience, p. 18, for a good overview of this.
W
O
—
x
eal
aa
a
eal
—
=
i
By
<=
2. The History of Conscience
In the twenty-first century conscience is not thought of as solely a religious
idea. However talk of “conscience” was popularised, at least in “the West”,
due to its adoption by both Protestant and Catholic traditions. In this section
we'll look how “conscience” is, and has been, used in order to draw out some
general features.
“Conscience” played a role in one of the most famous speeches in the
protestant reformation. Martin Luther (1483-1546), being charged with heresy
and being forced to recant by Charles V, stands his grounds and says “Here
I stand, I can do no other” and “I cannot nor will I retract anything, since
it is never safe nor virtuous to go against conscience”. Luther believed that
his God-given conscience was not allowing him to recant, not even under the
considerable pressure by the powerful people before him. Or consider a more
recent example.
In the midst of political turmoil of the civil rights movement Martin Luther
King Jr., who was under threat and constant pressure to change his views said:
But, conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a
position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right?
Conscience is, then, powerful. It seems that it can move a person to put
themselves in mortal danger, to “stand up and be counted”, to act contrary to
self-interest.
But it is not just saints and heroes that talk of conscience, conscience has
been cited by the most repugnant and morally abhorrent people who have
ever lived, racists, murderers, tyrants, dictators. For example as Bettina
Stangneth’s states in Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass
Murderer,? a discussion of the inner life of one of the Nazi’s most notorious
officers: “Conscience was simply the ‘morality of the Fatherland that dwells
within’ a person, which Eichmann also termed ‘the voice of the blood”.
Conscience can be male or female or both or neither, it can be one voice
or many, it can echo religious ideas, social ideas, racist ideas, lofty ideas or
ideas found in the filth of human corruption. Conscience can develop at any
particular age and dissipates at any age. It does not “speak”, and it does
“speak”, and does not have a language of choice. All of these observations then
leave a number of observations and questions.
2 M.L. King Jr., ‘A Proper Sense of Priorities’, http://www.aavw.org/special_features/speeches_speech_
king04.html
3. S.Benhabib, ‘Who’s on Trial, Eichmann or Arendt?’, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/
whos-on-trial-eichmann-or-anrendt
There seem to be (at least) three related functions that we think the conscience
plays. First, it tells us what we ought to do as a guide for our lives. Second, it is
a source of moral knowledge. That is, we might say “I know that stealing a pen
is wrong because my conscience told me”. Third it might be thought of as a
motivation. That is, it might be the thing that actually gets us up out of our seat
to act in certain ways, even when things are difficult or even life threatening.
Just to clarify, we can see the difference in the first two of these functions if
we think of a tyrant who says for example: “my conscience tells me I have to
kill all mentally ill people to help the country”. Clearly this is a case where her
conscience is telling her how she ought to behave. But, given that we think that
killing the mentally ill is morally wrong, we do not want to say that in this case
her conscience gives her knowledge of what is right and wrong. So it might be
true that the conscience gives us guidance but not knowledge.
Equally the opposite seems true, that we might know what is right and
wrong yet fail to be guided to do it. This predicament is what Shakespeare
captured in this famous quotation: “conscience doth make cowards of us all”
(Hamlet 3.1.78-82).
Consider another point. Conscience is subjective in that it is about one
reflecting inwards on oneself, on how one might “feel” about certain things. It
is not about looking out into the world, at a set of rules or laws. We experience
the conscience differently than we would if a friend, priest, politician or Imam
was telling us what to do. Of course, although conscience is “inward looking”,
that is not the same as saying that we just make up what the conscience
allegedly tells us. For instance, we might think that what is right and wrong
is dependent on God but also think that we come to know what is right and
wrong through our conscience.
Finally it is worth noting that the term “conscience” was only formalized
in its modern moral meaning in the mid eighteenth century (e.g. neither Plato
nor Aristotle talk of conscience). However, note that just because a term is
modern, or just because there is disagreement with how a term is used, that
does not mean that the ideas themselves are new.
Consider the point that the terms “molecules” and “atoms” were recent
inventions, and that in their development they might be used to talk about
different things, and they engendered disagreement within the scientific
community. This in itself does not lead us to the conclusion that there are no
molecules and no atoms. So the lack of term “conscience”, and disagreement
about what “conscience” means does not mean that conscience is merely an
“invention”. With all these points in mind let’s consider one of the key thinkers
in relation to conscience, Aquinas.
i?)
is)
=
7)
m=
is}
a
i=
lo)
O
W
O
—
x
eal
aa
QO
eal
—
=
By
Ry
<=
3. Aquinas on Conscience
If you recall from Chapter 4, Aquinas developed a Natural Law theology. The
basic idea is that through reason (what he calls ratio) we can come to recognize
certain precepts that we ought to live by. Aquinas thinks that this reliance on
thinking and reflection is revealed in the Bible:
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also
bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending
them.*
Notice then that for Paul — and Aquinas — the “conscience” bears witness
sometimes accusing the person, sometimes defending them. For Aquinas
conscience is morally neutral, it simply “bears witness”, it is a “sign-post” and
after all signposts do not opinions on things (see Aquinas, Summa, Part 1,
Question 79, Article 13).
To be clear then Aquinas did not take conscience to be a source of moral knowledge
but as a guide. This means that Aquinas, unlike Luther and post-reformation
thinkers, took conscience to be fallible. For Aquinas we may be wrong in
following our conscience as it can move us in the wrong direction/mislead us
For Aquinas the conscience is the act of applying the universal principles
(the Eternal/Divine law) to actual real life situations.
Aquinas explicitly defines “conscience” as the “application of knowledge
to activity” (Summa Theologica, I-II, I). So, if conscience for Aquinas is about
the application of knowledge to activity, this raises the question how we get
this knowledge? This is where another key technical term is introduced. The
synderesis. Synderesis is not the same as conscience but is the innate ability of
the mind — what he calls a habit of the mind — to apprehend the eternal/divine
laws. The role of conscience is to apply the primary precepts discovered as the
content of synderesis.
To get a better understanding of synderesis consider someone trying to work
out the quickest way to get between two points. Through rational reflection
they will see that it is the straight line. This “coming to recognize through
reflection” is what Aquinas has in mind when he talks about synderesis. For
Aquinas, unlike conscience, synderesis is never mistaken. Humans do wrong,
thinks Aquinas, when conscience (and not synderesis) makes a mistake. This
means that a failure of conscience needs to be clearly thought through on
Aquinas’s account.
4 T. Aquinas, Romans, 2:15.
For Aquinas, conscience errs because of ignorance about how to apply
the eternal/divine laws, of which there are two types. Ignorance that can be
overcome by using one’s reason (vincible ignorance), and ignorance that cannot
be overcome by using one’s reason (invincible ignorance). Invincible ignorance
is doing something wrong when one could not have known better; vincible
ignorance is doing wrong when one ought to have known better. But how
might this relate to conscience?
Imagine two people going into a gun shop. The first person has no criminal
record, has never been in trouble with the police nor at school and they have
no record of mental illness. He is, for all intents and purposes, a model citizen.
This person buys a gun and goes on a killing rampage. The owner of the shop,
by following her conscience, has not done something morally wrong because
her ignorance is invincible; there was no indication that this would have been a
likely outcome.
This contrasts to the person who is sold a gun even though he has a violent
criminal record which would have shown up on a basic background check.
In this case, the owner of the gun shop following her conscience has done
something morally wrong because in this case her ignorance is vincible.
To conclude, Aquinas thinks all of us can know infallibly what is right and
wrong through synderesis. However, even though we are infallible about
this, we can, and do, make mistakes in applying this knowledge. It is our
conscience (conscientia) which tells us how to apply this knowledge and moves
us to act. It can go wrong through ignorance. Ignorance which could have
been avoided (vincible) means our action is morally wrong. Mistakes deriving
from ignorance we could not have avoided (invincible) means our action is not
morally wrong.
In the next section, we will consider what Freud has to say about conscience,
and explain how he reconceptualises it as a psychological and not theological
concept, and in doing so argues we should not accept it as an inherently good
notion.
4. Freud and the Conscience
Freud is best known as a psychologist and the architect of psychoanalysis. He
is controversial and most philosophers and psychologists reject the ideas he
presents. However, his ideas have been incredibly influential, and indeed his
name has entered our everyday talk in the form of a “Freudian slip”. Among
Freud’s many ideas his conceptualization of the structure of the mind is key to
his views on conscience. He thinks the mind can be thought of as containing
i)
3)
=
7)
om
is)
a
i=
lo)
O
W
O
—
x
ial
aa
a
eal
—
=
By
Ry
=<
three parts: the id, the ego and the super-ego. Freud’s account of conscience is
understood as the relation between these.
For Freud the id is the collection of our primal drives, e.g. the basic desires
for food, sex, drink and is the oldest part of the mind. The id cannot be
properly formalized or understood and Freud likens it to chaos. It is instinctive,
emotional and illogical. We cannot list all the drives that make up the id as they
are inaccessible to us. Freud has a nice way of describing the id; he calls it: “...a
cauldron full of seething excitations...”. (SE, XXII.73). Although we can say
very little about the content of the id, Freud did think that there was a general
principle to help us understand the drives in the id, what he calls the “pleasure
principle”. This is the claim that what identifies and unifies the drives of the id
is the avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure.
Now, as a very young child it may be OK to be driven by the pleasure
principle; they crawl single-mindedly after the chocolate buttons to put
in their mouth, they crave their mother’s milk irrespective of anything else.
However, as we develop we soon realize that we cannot simply act on the
primal instincts of the id as we have to navigate ourselves in the social spaces
we inhabit! We have to understand boundaries, sanctions and consequences.
To successfully operate in the world, we need to consciously reflect and reason
and ultimately, we have to delay instinctive behaviour and “weigh-up” the
situation. Put bluntly someone whose id is unchecked would cease to be
acceptable in society and find themselves physically, socially and emotionally
isolated. It is what Freud calls the “ego” which plays this policing role.
But if we only have the id and the ego then it is unclear why we would
not simply follow the pleasure principle. That is, although the ego rationally
reflects, it needs something to weigh-up against the id. We need some authority
that monitors what the ego is doing. This authority is what Freud calls the
super-ego.
Early in our life our parents (as well as society, religious leaders etc.) tell
us what we can and cannot do and chastise us for breaking rules, and as we
grow older we internalize these things and “hear them” as a voice of authority.
Imagine that your mum has always told you not to sit with your elbows on
the table then you internalize this rule. So when you are much older and not
living with your mum any longer the voice of your “super-ego” speaks with
authority — “take your elbows off the table!” These are the very basics of
Freud structure of the mind. Our ego balances the primal drives of the id with
the voice of authority from the super-ego.
Where does the conscience come in? For Freud the conscience is the form that
the super-ego takes in addressing the ego. When the internalized authority derived
from parental (social/religious) rules and regulations controls the ego is it is
understood as “the conscience”. In our last example it is our “conscience” that
tells us to remove our elbows from the table.
Notice then that our conscience often requires certain things from us which
we fail to achieve and this gives rise to guilt. For Freud, the conscience can be
thought of as synonymous with the “guilty conscience”. Our ego is punished
through guilt by the form of the super-ego we call conscience. Furthermore,
Freud says that when the super-ego fails to deal properly with the id — when
the pleasure principle is repressed — this forms what he calls neurosis.
You can also hopefully see the differences between Aquinas and Freud.
First, the obvious point is that for Freud the conscience is not the voice of
God. Second, unlike Aquinas, Freud thinks that the conscience could be bad,
destructive and unhelpful. The conscience is the way the ego experiences
the authority of the super-ego. But the super-ego is arrived at through the
experiences we have. And, of course, we might have had really bad experiences
growing up where parents are stifling, overly authoritarian, distant, cold, hard,
violent, abusive etc. In these sorts of cases the conscience would be stifling,
overly authoritarian, distant, etc. This means that although Freud does not
think we can, or should, get rid of the conscience he does think we should treat
it with a healthy dose of scepticism and hence not be kowtowed by the “guilt”
that is our ego’s punishment for falling short of the super-ego; conscience is
the product of our often non-ideal upbringing rather than a divinely-inspired
force for good.
5. Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory
Psychosexual Development Theory is a theory of sexual development from
birth to death. Freud was the first thinker to look at the entire lifespan in terms
of development. Freud thought that as we develop we move through different
stages. At each stage our libido (sex drive) is focused towards different things.
If we fail to move through a stage completely, or return to a stage, then
problems arise and we might become fixated with the area associated with
that stage. This can be a serious problem for our relationships and could be an
underlying cause of mental illness.
The first stage is the oral stage from birth to about one and a half. This stage
is where babies get pleasure through putting things in their mouth, pleasure
in biting, chewing and sucking. For example, babies soon after they are born
are breastfeeding and as the baby develops they navigate and explore the
world through putting things in their mouth. Notice that during this phase
babies are very dependent on others. According to Freud at this stage not
only do we get information about the world, but we also fulfil the id. Babies
v
12)
=|
Vv
|
1]
wn
=|
lo)
OU
W
O
—
x
ia)
za
a)
eal
—
—
By
By
<=
who can bite, chew and such as much as they want are being guided by the
id. Freud explains behaviours like smoking, chewing gum, overeating, with
failure to move properly through this stage which prevented the successful
development of the id.
The next stage, from about one and a half to three years, is the anal stage.
Here pleasure is gained through controlling going to the toilet. This stage is about
gaining control of one’s body, and it starts with controlling the bladder and
bowels (being potty trained). It is around this time that the ego develops. This
control of their bodies is a source of pride and pleasure for children. Agents
who fail to properly move through this stage are what are sometimes called
“anally retentive”. That is, someone who is overly controlling or out of control
and messy, because — according to Freud — they do not want to let go of their
waste, or do not care where or when they let go of their waste.
The next phase of development, from about three to six years, is the phallic
stage in which a child discovers one’s genitals, and importantly that they are
different in men and women. This stage is where Freud thinks we develop
the Oedipus and the Electra complex. A problematic phallic stage will cause
problems with intimacy in later life.
The next stage, the latency stage, is from six years to the onset of puberty. This
stage is not about pleasure in the body as the libido is “latent” or hidden — this
is the stage where sexual desire is repressed and no new sexual desires emerge.
At this stage girls play with girls in order to learn the role of a girl and boys
play with boys in order to learn about the role of boys.. The child learns how to
navigate the social world. A difficult latency stage leads to relational problems
and understanding one’s gender.
The libido then reappears in the final stage which lasts to our death and
which Freud calls the mature genital stage. This is where the individual not only
recognises the difference between men and women but also shows a desire to
engage in a sexual relationship and, more generally, a pursuit of pleasure and
happiness. People become sexually active, fall in love and get married. This is
the stage where we acquire a fully developed conscience.
SUMMARY
The notion of “conscience” has appeared for thousands of years
in different cultures, even though it has not always been called
“conscience”. Modern Christian orthodoxy popularised it and
characterised it in relation to God’s voice, and guidance. Aquinas
thought that conscience is the way we understand how to apply
what we know. In Aquinas’s view, our conscience is fallible and
might guide us wrongly. When our conscience “gets it wrong”
we can be either culpable — through vincible ignorance — or not
culpable — through invincible ignorance.
Freud is less convinced that conscience is a force for good, and
he is certain that it has not got anything to do with God. For Freud
conscience can be either a good or bad. We can think of our mind
as having three parts, the id, ego and super-ego. The conscience for
Freud is the form the super-ego takes when it is trying to keep the
ego in line. It is internalized as the voice of authority. The super-
ego is about following rules but those rules do not come from
“on high”, they derive from the upbringing we have had. So if we
have had a repressive upbringing then the super-ego — the voice
of conscience — will be repressive. How we develop these three
features of the mind is through what Freud calls Psychosexual
Development; if we do not develop correctly then we become
fixated and repressive, form a neurosis and ultimately become
mentally ill. Freud thought that this could be avoided by working
through the Psychosexual Stages in the normal way, and can be
treated through psychosexual counselling.
Vv
12)
c
Vv
oo]
1]
wn
=
>}
1S)
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
° Writing conscious when meaning conscience.
° Confuse synderesis and conscience.
° Confusing conscience as guidance with conscience as the source of
knowledge.
e Believe Freud thinks the conscience is always bad.
e Thinking that for Aquinas conscience is way of knowing what is right
and wrong.
° Thinking that because the term conscience is new, conscience itself is a
modern invention.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Do you think you have a conscience? What does it tell you?
2. What is the difference between synderesis and conscience?
3. Do you think that everyone ultimately knows — if they reason
correctly — what is right and wrong?
W
O
—
x
ee
aa
a
ea
—
=
By
By
=<
4, What is the difference between vincible and invincible? Is not most of
the supposedly invincible knowledge, really vincible? We just need to
try harder?
5. What are the possible different roles for the conscience?
Could the conscience be a morally bad thing?
Why does Freud think we need to be cautious about listening to our
conscience?
8. How does Freud’s account of conscience relate to his Psychosexual
Development Theory?
9. What do you think about Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory?
10. Draw up a table of the key stages and accompanying characteristics of
Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory.
11. Could it ever make sense to talk about animals/robots having a
conscience? If not, why not?
12. Do you think conscience will still shape our lives in one thousand
years?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Pleasure principle Vincible ignorance
Id Invincible ignorance
Ego Psychosexual Development
Theory (oral, anal, phallic,
latency and mature genital
Synderesis phases)
Super-ego
References
Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, freely available at http://www.
newadvent.org/summa/
—, Romans (Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans).
Benhabib, Seyla, ‘Who’s on Trial, Eichmann or Arendt?’, The New York Times
(21 September 2014), freely available at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.
com/2014/09/21/whos-on-trial-eichmann-or-anrendt
Freud S. and Freud A., Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (New
York: Random House, 2001).
Giubilini, Alberto, ‘Conscience’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Winter 2016 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta, freely available at https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/conscience/
King, Martin Luther, ‘A Proper Sense of Priorities’, 6 February 1968,
Washington, D.C., freely available at http://www.aavw.org/special_
features/speeches_speech_king04.html
Strohm, Paul, Conscience: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), vol. 273, https://doi.org/10.1093/
actrade/9780199569694.001.0001
i?)
s)
=|
7)
m=
is)
a
i=
lo)
O
even
simply
ends
- dition work ae
mouth cet
a JS al Kant . ie a
wale fu ry ex UI ts ghtg
fi
hough 2 need homosexual Tustrate
whe ther : ; ac: particular _ =
marriage fanction ** genre ee erties i) ght.
‘ , 7 Cc f) u 3
involved O § understand different e 8 Noeatn | end oe mor al penned
Natural ip eople = jm" procreation a i
43
Bo
© f
aculties
on
5S vagiian
rape general acting r=] relationships
sth testes ONE > Utilitarianism J jthings - 3 hinpioes
mah ake Dy acts iy ‘ood ¢ 3 caasturbation whe z. Ten ty view
= surrender also cs) Y cheotlec - is f whole
hands reasons g s complex ,
nasigienn| SOM others opooey way be the act
coitus 2 8 5 cades
8 : £
CHAPTER 10
Sexual Ethics
Only when you [have sex] [...] are you most cleanly alive and most cleanly yourself. [...] Sex
isn’t just friction and shallow fun. Sex is also the revenge on death. Don’t forget death. Don’t ever
forget it. Yes, sex too is limited in its power. [...] But tell me, what power is greater?!
There is no morality intrinsic to sex, although general moral rules apply to the treatment of others
in sex acts as they apply to all human relationships.?
1. Philosophy of Sex Introduction
While we write this chapter, a court in the United Arab Emirates have detained
a foreign couple in their twenties for having sex outside marriage and if found
guilty they will both face a lengthy jail sentence.’ Shortly after the 2017 General
Synod vote in the UK on whether same sex couples could be “blessed” in
church, the eminent theologian and academic Professor John Milbank tweeted:
“There is no need to demand “celibacy” in gay relationships. That wrongly
equates same sex physical affection with full (heterosexual) sex”.* Now there
might have been a subtle and sophisticated theological point here. Or there
might not. Whatever the right response to Milbank is, what it makes clear,
and what probably does not need pointing out, is that “sex” is, has been, and
always will be an issue of great importance to people. Moreover, it makes clear
that the very notion of “sex” is a philosophically interesting one. What, after
all, is “sex”? What does it mean to talk about heterosexual sex as “full” sex
in such a context? Was Monica Lewinsky correct to say that she did not have
sex with Bill Clinton, the then president of the US, because it was “only” oral
sex? What is the role of sexual pleasure in defining sex? What is consent? Is
pornography wrong? What is sexual perversion? Of course, we can only deal
here with a very small fraction of some of these issues (for an excellent survey
1 P. Roth, The Dying Animal, p. 69.
Alan H. Goldman, ‘Plain Sex’, p. 49.
3 ‘Couple “Detained in UAE for Sex Outside Marriage”’, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
world-africa-39208946
4 _ https://twitter.com/johnmilbank3/status/831996919400513536
N
WD
O
—_
x
e
a
Qa
zs
—
=
po
ie
<
of articles see Sobel 2008) and our focus will be on some of the ethical issues to
do with sex.
We start this chapter by discussing the very definition of “sex”; we then
move onto discussing some of the things that different moral philosophers
might say about sex. Hopefully you can see why this is the right order. For,
we suggest, a lot of the ethical discussions about sex already presuppose what
sex is, but that presupposition is controversial. Thus we need to be clear about
the different ways to understand sex and this will enable us to explore more
usefully the various moral issues associated with sex.
2. What Is It to “Have Sex”?
This question is not the same as what is “sexual orientation”, or, what is one’s
sex — as opposed to one’s gender. There might be some that would be bemused
when faced with the question “what is it to have sex?” Typical (frustrated)
philosophers! Is the answer not obvious? Sex is penis-in-vagina penetrative
intercourse (coitus) — end of story. Well maybe...but consider some other
questions. How essential is orgasm in the definition of sex? Imagine that two
people engage in coitus but there is no orgasm: is this “having sex”? What
about if one person has an orgasm where the other does not? Or imagine that
people are involved in manual genital stimulation to orgasm, is this sex? What
about people engaged in oral sex, can this count as “having sex”? What about
rape? If someone is raped is it correct to say they have “had sex”? And things
get even more confusing....
Given the definition of sex as coitus, then this obviously means that by
definition homosexual sex is conceptually impossible. This might seem false
and simply offensive. Sex as coitus also gives rise to some odd situations.
Imagine a women asked her partner if he was a virgin and got the following
response: “yes I am...I’ve only been involved in homosexual penis-in-anus
penetrative intercourse”. The women might be perplexed (to say the least).
She might sensibly think he is deluded in calling himself a “virgin”. Anal sex
is sex, and consequently our initial definition of “sex” as coitus is incomplete.
Notice that things are also complicated by the fact that people who are
involved in sexual activity sometimes themselves report uncertainty about
whether they have actually had sex. We can imagine someone being asked:
“did you have sex with her?” and receiving the answer: “well it depends...” It
seems then that “having sex” is a more complex notion that we might have
first thought. These points are worth keeping in mind when we talk about the
ethical questions that are involved in “having sex”. In particular, the reader
should ask themselves if a particular account of “having sex” is being used
and importantly what if that definition were changed.
3. Natural Law and Sex
If you recall when we discussed Natural Law Theory (NLT) in Chapter 4,
something is good if that thing fulfils its function. A good knife is one that
cuts well, a good guitar is one that plays well, etc. Therefore, in order to work
out what “good” sex is we need to ask what sex is for. What is its function? In
answering this question, we should then be able to work out what is morally
acceptable sexual activity.
St. Aquinas and other Natural Law theorists would say that our sexual
faculties have one true end — procreation. True, sex is pleasurable but it is
pleasurable in order to fulfil this end. If this is correct then sexual activity is good
if, and only if, it is consistent with procreation and bad in so far as it frustrates
that end. It is important to understand that the outcome is independent of
desires, wants, reasons, hopes, fears etc. and that for the Natural Law Theorist
(NLT) it is simply an objective fact whether a sexual act is wrong or right,
something which is not affected by culture, religion, etc. This means that for
the NLT there are objective moral truths regarding how we ought, and ought
not, to behave sexually.
We can say then that, for the traditional NLT, premarital sex, masturbation,
bestiality, contraception, homosexual acts, pornography and adultery are
all wrong. Premarital sex is wrong because children would be brought into
the world outside the safe confines of marriage. Homosexual acts have no
tendency towards procreation at all; contraception frustrates procreative
ends; masturbation and pornography focus the sexual acts inwards towards
oneself, frustrating procreative ends. However, it is vital to make a number of
clarifications as people often misunderstand NLT.
The NLT is not claiming that anything that frustrates natural ends is wrong
but rather only human acts. So, according to the NLT, the fact that, for instance,
the Bonobo monkeys engage in “rape”, “masturbation” and “homosexual”
acts does not mean that they are doing something morally wrong.
Furthermore there is a difference between using something wrongly and
not using it at all. We use a knife wrongly if we try to use it as a violin bow but
not by leaving it in the knife drawer. So, not using sexual faculties (celibacy) is
morally acceptable for the NLT.
However, on the face of it NLT does seem to have a lot of counter examples;
there are lots of things that we agree are not wrong but do seem to frustrate
Dn
1)
=
ca
_—
sa)
=
o
=}
rad
i)
Ww
WD
O
—_
x
e
a
al
zs
—
=
po
ie
<
natural ends. For example, imagine I regularly walk on my hands, or I am fed
through a tube rather than using my perfectly good mouth, both these seem to
be frustrating the natural ends of my hands and mouth, but surely such things
are not morally wrong?
But, an NLT would agree because these sorts of examples are not cases of
the faculty being used to “frustrate” the natural end of the hands or mouth. If
on the other hand we wired someone’s jaw shut so they could not eat through
the mouth, or if someone always walked on their hands even though they had
perfectly good legs, then this might be different. But as it stands simply using
a faculty for something other than what it is for is not the same as using that
faculty to frustrate its end.
Furthermore, the claim is not that if you use a faculty with the knowledge
that it will be frustrated then it is wrong; it is that if you intend to use it to be
frustrated. So, for example, sex between a man and women when the woman
is pregnant is not wrong for the NLT.
Also, the claim is not that if something is “unnatural” it is wrong. Deciding
whether something is right or wrong is not the same as asking whether
something is “man-made or not”. If this was the case, wearing glasses and
taking medication would be wrong and the NLT is not committed to this. So
the use of sex toys, or various medications such as Viagra is not wrong even
though they are unnatural.
We might think that linking sex to procreation in this way would take all
the fun out of sex but this is not the case. Just as one can eat a dish in many
different ways whilst always fulfilling the natural function of eating, one can
be involved in different forms of sexual act, fantasy, etc. as long as it is part
of the long term function of the sexual organs (so, for example, oral sex is not
necessarily ruled out as long as it is, overall, part of a sex act that is intended
for procreation).
As noted, the NLT does, though, rule out homosexual sex and all forms
of contraception because having sex whilst using contraception is to use the
sexual faculties whilst intending to frustrate their end.
The plausibility of this theory need not turn on how religious you are. We
could give an atheistic evolutionary biological account that also talks about the
“function” of our sexual faculties.
There are many things which we could ask regarding this overall NLT
approach to the ethics of sex. However, the main question to ask turns on
why we might think that just because something is the case; namely, it is the
function of sexual faculties to reproduce, that this is how things ought to be.
5 These examples are cited by Edward Feser here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynlfg
gqAcU&t=5773s
This “is/‘ought” gap plagues many moral theories but seems particularly
pressing here. Put simply, it does not seem problematic for someone using
contraception to say: “true, I am intending to frustrate the natural function of
my sexual faculties but why does that mean I ought not do it?”
Summary of Natural Law Theory’s view on sex
= Morally Morally
1 Act/A
scence Acceptable Unacceptable
Celibacy Xx
Oral sex Xx
Homosexual sex
Contraception
Premarital sex
Adultery
Masturbation
Sex toys X
Sadomasochism xX
Viagra X
Pornography
Anal sex
Prostitution
It Depends...
| ><] ><] >< | ><
x |< | ><
4. Kant and Sex
Kant thinks that sex is morally permissible within the context of a
heterosexual, lifelong, and monogamous marriage. Any sexual act outside
these contexts — homosexuality, masturbation, adultery, premarital sex — is
morally wrong. His reasons for thinking this are very complex, not least because
his writing on the subject, like just about all of his writing, is incredibly dense,
but broadly speaking, his views on sex are based on his Second Formulation of
the Categorical Imperative (see Chapter 2): act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as
a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Kant, like St. Augustine (354-430) and sometimes Freud, is what Alan Soble
(1947-) calls a sexual pessimist (Plato and many modern philosophers would
be counted as sexual optimists). The broad feeling amongst the pessimists is
that our sexual desires and impulses, and acting upon those impulses, are
undignified. The sexual part of our nature is unbefitting to how humans
should behave and threatens our proper moral life.
For Kant, sexual desire is the only impulse in us that takes the body of
another human as the object of indulgence. Kant says regarding sexual appetite:
Dn
1)
I
&
_
sa)
=
o
=}
rad
i)
Ww
WD
O
—_
x
e
a
a
es
—
=
cs
ie
<
Far from there being any concern for the happiness of the loved one, the lover, in order to satisfy
his [sexual] desire and still his [sexual] appetite, may even plunge the loved one into the depths
of misery [...] [and after having sex] the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has
been sucked dry.°
If you recall from Chapter 2, Kant believes that treating others as whole persons
is key to being moral, but for him, this is precisely what is missing in sexual
desires. That is, in sex we are treating others as objects and not treating them
as whole persons and hence we are acting immorally. In the language of
his second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: in having sex we are
treating people merely as a means to an end. Consider this full expression of
Kant’s sexual pessimism:
Because sexuality is not an inclination which one human being has for another as such, but is an
inclination for the sex of another, it is a principle of the degradation of human nature, in that
it gives rise to the preference of one sex to the other, and to the dishonouring of that sex through
the satisfaction of desire.’
So if this is his general pessimistic view of sex how does that relate to a view on
ethics? As it stands it looks like any sexual desire or act is going to be morally
wrong, but if that is the case, then that means that for Kant the continued
existence of the human race is evidence of immoral behaviour! That is surely
wrong. Well, for Kant, the only reason it is not wrong is the role of marriage.
In the context of marriage, and only in marriage, Kant thinks that sex and
sexual desire is more than simply treating another merely as a means to an
end. But why?
First we must understand what Kant means by marriage:
[Marriage] is an agreement between two persons by which they grant each other equal
reciprocal rights, each of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person to the other
with a complete right of disposal over it.8
So we can avoid the charge of objectifying and using a sexual partner merely
as ameans to an end because in sex within marriage you are treating each other as a
whole person and thus there is reciprocity. Sex within marriage is about the whole
person and not simply the genitals, sexual desire and pleasure. How does this
work? This is how Soble starts to approach this question:
But because the acquisition [of another through sex] in marriage is reciprocal, each person
regains his or her personhood (and hence does not lose it, after all). When I “surrender” myself to
you, and you thereby acquire me, but you also “surrender” yourself to me, and I thereby acquire
6 I. Kant, Lectures on Ethics, cited in A. Soble, The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, p. 200.
7 Cited in ibid., p. 260.
8 Ibid., p. 202.
you, which “you” includes the “me” that you have acquired, we each surrender but then reacquire
ourselves.”
This reciprocity though is not present in non-marital sexual relationships. This
is very hard to understand on many levels and we urge the reader not to get
too caught up on this.
We wanted to show you that Kant is complex and that the answers are not
simple. The greatest Kant scholars are still not sure how to understand his ideas
on sex. The thing to remember though is that via the second formulation of the
Categorical Imperative Kant thinks that sex outside heterosexual marriage is
wrong. Within marriage it is acceptable.
5. Sex and Utilitarianism
As you will recall from Chapter 1 Utilitarianism does not rule out an act on
the basis of it being a particular act. This means that if Utilitarianism is correct
we cannot say that any particular sex act is always wrong. Premarital sex, or
homosexual sex, or masturbation, or oral sex can be morally acceptable. The
matter is decided by whether or not performing that act brings about more
pleasure overall than not doing so. This leaves a few questions and qualifications
that need to be made.
First, although sex will typically lead to pleasure that does not mean that
Utilitarianism is committed to the claim that the act of having sex is always
good. Utilitarianism does leave space for us to show that rape and paedophilia
are morally wrong. For even though the rapist or paedophile might get pleasure
from their act, it does not take much to see that the overall unhappiness, the
mental and physical suffering of the victim, the distress of relatives and loved
ones etc. is much greater because the act has taken place.
Second, just because sex is typically pleasurable it does not mean
Utilitarianism is committed to the claim that we have a duty to have as much
sex as possible. For there are things we can do that bring about more overall
happiness. Or we might suppose that having sex all the time might have
detrimental effects on relationships and one’s mental and physical health.
Third, for Utilitarianism, heterosexual sex within a marriage might be
morally wrong if there has been coercion or threats, or just a general unhappiness
with perfunctory sex, where almost any other activity would bring about more
happiness. (Notice then the contrast with the Kantian and the NLT accounts).
Fourth, adultery or having multiple sexual partners can be morally
acceptable. We can imagine a case where, for example, the overall happiness is
9 Ibid., p. 278.
Dn
1)
=
&
_
=a
=
oO
i=}
rad
vu
ep)
WD
O
—_
x
e
a
a
es
—
=
po
ie
<
increased if a married couple agree to have sex with other people to keep their
own marriage fun and interesting. Or we might think that someone who is
generally not interested in, or does not have time for, a long-term relationship
is happier with mutually consenting multiple sexual partners (or prostitutes).
Fifth, Mill gives a different answer to Bentham to questions regarding what
we ought to do when considering various sex acts because of his distinction
between higher and lower pleasures. In general Mill did not value sex and he
took the pleasures that arose from it to be fleeting and of lower value. This
is because Mill thought that some pleasures are qualitatively distinct from
others and thus outweigh other, lower, pleasures. Bentham however would
not make this distinction (see Chapter 1 section 9).
So if we keep this distinction in mind we might be able to distinguish
between types of sex acts. Perhaps some sex acts are lower and some higher
than others? We'll leave the reader to think through some of the implications
of this.
6. Sex and the Virtue Theory
Although virtue theorists do write about many applied ethical issues, they
typically do not write about sex. Those that do (e.g. Elizabeth Anscombe
(1919-2001), Peter Geach (1916-2013) and Roger Scruton (1944-)) often
support a more conservative sexual ethic. However, there are a few (e.g. Raja
Halwani (1967-)) who do not defend traditional accounts of sexual ethics and
consequently, it is unhelpful to try and work out “the” virtue theory view on
sexual conduct. So we will give the reader a framework to think through some
issues that arise when you think about sexual ethics through the lens of virtue
theory.
If you recall, virtue theory is not a theory devised to help us make decisions.
We cannot ask a virtue theorist: “how should we calculate what to do in this or
that situation”? When faced with this sort of question, the virtue theorist will
answer that you should do whatever a virtuous agent would do. But what is it
to be virtuous? Well, the general idea is that to be virtuous is to develop certain
dispositions or habits so that we respond to things in the world in the right way,
at the right time, with the right reasons, to the right extent.
To get a sense of this, recall the “Doctrine of the Golden Mean” from
Aristotle (see Chapter 3 section 4). The idea here is that by acting between
excess and deficiency regarding certain feelings we are acting rationally, that is,
virtuously. If we keep doing this then we will develop a habit or disposition
for this sort of action, and we will just get better at “seeing” what is required
of us and responding in the right way in any particular situations. For instance,
take “fear”.
To have an excess of fear is to be cowardly whereas the lack of fear is to be
rash or headstrong. To act rationally with regard to fear is to have the virtue
of courage. The more we act courageously then the better we will be at having
courage and thus will need less help from others in order to see what is
courageous. We can repeat this for other virtues, e.g. the virtue of “generosity”
would be the mean between stinginess and wastefulness.
When discussing sexual ethics a number of different virtues might be
relevant. In terms of an Aristotelian approach the virtue that is relevant is
temperance (the vice being intemperance). This virtue is to do with our desires
or appetites — this includes the desire for food, drink, and importantly for us,
sex. A rough modern interpretation of this virtue would be “moderation”.
The person who has the virtue of temperance will not either be a drunk or a
glutton or be someone who is teetotal or who starves himself. In relation to
sex, the agent who has the virtue of temperance will not simply be driven by
unchecked sexual desires nor will he deny natural sexual desires completely
but rather he will have sex at the right time, with the right people for the right
reasons.
One way of seeing if our action is intemperate is if our actions conflict
with our other goals and virtues. One example is health. Someone who is
intemperate with regard to sex (e.g. promiscuous) would potentially become
unhealthy — perhaps physically and emotionally. Or consider other things we
might value such as friendship or education: in these too we can imagine how
intemperance might make these ends hard to achieve — e.g. just consider how
a friendship would be wrecked or made impossible with constant unwanted
sexual advances. There are some other things that the virtue theorist might say
about sex.
First, the virtue theorist would say that rape is always wrong because it
violates the other person’s sexual autonomy which is the choice of when and
how to have sex and with whom. Second, paedophilia is also always wrong for
similar reasons. Adultery might be wrong because an intemperate person would
break the marriage vows because of their sexual desire.
So, like Utilitarianism, the answer to whether a virtue theorist would think
a certain sexual activity is right or wrong will depend on whether a virtuous
agent would do that act, and that would depend on whether the activity fitted
within the Golden Mean.
Dn
1)
=
f=
_—
sa
=
o
=}
rad
i)
Ww
SUMMARY
Philosophers since at least Plato have discussed sex as it raises
a number of interesting philosophical questions. Sex is about
relationships and interactions between people and consequently
it seems to be a moral issue. Anyone that believes that sex is not
a moral issue should ask themselves whether they think rape or
paedophilia is morally wrong. However, when we move past
such clear-cut cases, the issues become more subtle and complex.
We considered a number of philosophical theories which give
very different views. The Natural Law Theorist uses the idea of
function and goal to ground a “conservative” view of sex. The
Kantian also uses the idea of autonomy and respect for a person
to ground a conservative view of sex, with a splash of pessimism
about the unbefitting nature of sexual desire thrown in for good
measure. Utilitarianism and Virtue Theory are less pessimistic
and, as with their views on the other issues we have looked at
in this book, more open to see what arises in different situations.
The two questions we leave you with are these. Having read
this chapter, what do you think sex is? And how should moral
theory guide our sexual practice?
wn
©)
—d
x=
a
ss)
a
=
i!
4
ou
iw
<
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
° Believing that Aquinas thinks that if sex doesn’t lead to pregnancy it is
wrong.
° Believing that for Aquinas sex has to be perfunctory and boring.
° Thinking that the Utilitarian must think we should be promiscuous.
° Not realizing that it isn’t clear what “sex” means.
° Not realizing that how one defines “sex” will change how one answers
moral questions.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1
10.
11.
12.
Imagine you were visited by an alien. The alien says “I’ve heard lot
about ‘having sex’. What do you humans mean by this?” How would
you respond?
Do you think that sex is a moral issue? If so, what sorts of questions
should moral philosophers consider in this area?
Would the NLT think that using ear plugs or riding a bike were wrong?
After all, they seem to frustrate the natural faculties of the ears and the
legs.
Could you be an atheist and be a NLT?
In some countries same sex marriage is permissible. Do you think that
in these countries Kant would say that homosexual sex is morally
acceptable?
Why does Kant think having multiple wives or husbands is morally
wrong?
Would you count Mill as a sexual optimist or pessimist?
For Utilitarianism could bestiality be morally acceptable?
What might Rule Utilitarianism (Chapter 1) say about some of these
issues, e.g. whether adultery is morally right or wrong?
How might Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures be
relevant in this context?
What virtues and vices might be associated with sex?
Use the Doctrine of the Golden Mean to think through the morality of a
sexual activity.
KEY TERMINOLOGY
n
is}
om
co
=)
jaa
=
iss}
=
*
ic?)
Ww
WD
O
—_
x
e
aa
al
es
—
=
cs
ie
<
References
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), freely
available at http://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/index.htm
‘Couple “Detained in UAE for Sex Outside Marriage”’, BBC News, freely
available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39208946
Goldman, A. H., ‘Plain Sex’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6.3 (1977): 267-87.
Halwani, R., The Philosophy of Love, Sex and Marriage: An Introduction (Oxford:
Routledge, 2010), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856369
Mill, J. S., ‘Utilitarianism’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. by Alan Ryan
(London: Penguin Books, 2004).
Milbank, John [@johnmilbank3], ‘There is no Need to Demand “Celibacy” in
Gay Relationships. That Wrongly Equates Same Sex Physical Affection
with Full (Heterosexual) Sex’, https://twitter.com/johnmilbank3/
status/831996919400513536
Bentham, Jeremy, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. by Alan Ryan (London:
Penguin Books, 2004).
—, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, freely available at
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html
Roth, Philip, The Dying Animal (London: Random House, 2010).
Soble, Alan, The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings (Plymouth: Rowman
& Littlefield, 2002).
—, The Philosophy of Sex and Love: An Introduction (Paragon House, 1998).
r
¢ ihaiecibe one
7
propert y vith di 1 ussed ota | es applying j sivuntioc Thus
. co ru ES hy perio S coory mere paieram ain consider 3 g
reason l: ingry seem ; situations
virtuous § hu g =I 9° basis Q) © prowde 3) clear even AE
a | | \Ora 5 Siss ssue — a & G2! 8 also —G coe =| theft 4 ys E
3 4 1SSU actions eo di S spec
seat PED ardin: ‘reference idea
S S ef Rants m ays © consent
ae ight eee rn ths : Kantian wom cits Ef i‘
sac ee ot isg* ° view © -
Ce ‘examp
> 3
2.
a] I © real Sg ood Preference —— S
ss make Case 2 theorist
pa imperative
2
a
wrong
maxim Ac Sts
stealing
CHAPTER 11
Stealing
You shall not steal.!
1. Stealing: Introduction
The Bible reference above is absolutist in nature. It does not say that you should
not steal so long as you have enough resources available to you, or that you
should not steal if your neighbour has been good to you. Rather, it simply
says that you should not steal full stop. Partly as a result of this particular
commandment and the impact of Christianity upon social custom in many
parts of the world, the message that stealing is a moral wrong is pervasive
and fairly uncontroversial, at least prima facie. For example, if you hear that
someone has been sent to prison for stealing, it would likely take something
atypical for you to question whether or not the person deserved punishment
for his or her crime. In this chapter, we apply the key normative theories of
Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics to the issue of stealing.
2. Defining Stealing
Beginning a chapter on the ethics of stealing, it is important to make clear
exactly what “stealing” amounts to. At first, this may seem like a fairly simple
task; stealing is just the taking of another person’s property without their
consent. Indeed, if reality television programmes following British Traffic
Police are anything to go by, this definition is of use not merely for philosophy
classes, but for the real world also; theft of vehicles is often categorised as an
example of TWOC — “taking without owners’ consent”.
Yet, it is not always clear that stealing comfortably fits this definition. For
example, we might wonder if it is possible to steal an item even though the
owner has given you consent to take it. The original definition would rule
this out as a conceptual impossibility, but consider someone who, whilst
inebriated (perhaps even drugged against their will), gives you permission
1 Exodus 20:15, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20
WD
O
—
x
lanl
a
a
es
—
S
cs
is
<
to take an item of value from their house. Even though you have their explicit
permission, acting on this verbal instruction and stealing their television still
might seem to be an act of theft.
As a second counterexample to the original definition, imagine that you
are better at cards than someone else, although you hide this fact from them.
If you play a game for real money, and beat them in hand after hand after
hand, might it be suggested that you have stolen their money even though
they freely entered into the game?
There are responses to these two examples, of course. We might deny that
either is an act of stealing, or deny that proper consent was ever given — this
seems particularly compelling in the first example. However, we can also
cast doubt on the definition by focussing not on the issue of consent, but on
the idea of property. For example, if a person is being paid by the hour, but
spends an undue amount of time on social media or checking sports scores,
have they stolen money or time from their employer? Or, as a second possible
example, if I make up a joke that is then retold by someone else, have they
stolen “property” without my consent? This is a genuinely important issue
in the field of comedy, for example. Again, the original definition might be
defensible as a mechanism for capturing such instances of stealing. However,
if it is defensible, it is only because of a broad reading of the idea of property,
taking the concept far beyond the physical.
Finally, consider the example of someone who fails to pay their legally due
portion of tax to the government. Again, we might wonder if this person has
“stolen” money just by refusing to hand over their financial property. If so, our
reading of the original definition of stealing would again need to be rather
broad.
All of this has hopefully opened your minds to the variety of acts that may
or may not be labelled as stealing. We will proceed in this chapter with the
rough understanding of stealing provided at the start of this section, but with
a broad and liberal interpretation of both “property” and “consent”.
3. Kantian Ethics on Stealing
In Chapter 2, we outlined the structure of Kantian Ethics, named after its
creator Immanuel Kant. It would be best to engage with Chapter 2 before
considering the application of Kantian thinking to the issue of stealing in this
section. Background knowledge of this theory is therefore assumed in what
follows.
To determine whether an act is morally permissible (acceptable) or not, we
can utilise two formulations of the Kantian Categorical Imperative. According
to the first formulation, if we consider the maxim behind an action (the general
principle that supports the action in the mind of the person acting), then
we should consider whether or not that maxim could be willed to become
a universal law. According to the second formulation, we should consider
whether or not the action involves treating another person merely as a means
to an end, rather than an end in themselves.
To consider what guidance Kantian Ethics would provide regarding stealing,
let us first take an example of stealing where the question of whether it seems
possible that it might be morally acceptable can apparently be answered
uncontroversially with a “no”. Consider a person who steals a toy from a child
when their parent’s back is turned. The thief, in this case, seems to act on the
maxim “take the property of others whenever you please”. It seems that we
could not will this maxim to become a universal law, because if everyone took
the property of others whenever they pleased, then whole concept of property
would break down. Thus, such a maxim could not be universalised without
contradiction (much like the example of breaking promises). The reason for
the breakdown of the concept of “property” in this case is clear if we think
about the idea of “ownership”. If anyone can take any object whenever they
want, then no one can truly be said to own anything. For example, if I could
(without moral condemnation) take the pen out of your hand on the basis
of the universalised maxim as described above, then there is a clear sense in
which you might have been holding the pen without ever owning the pen.
Indeed, not only does the act of theft as described fail against the first
formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it also fails against the second
formulation. If you steal from the child, then you are quite clearly not treating
the child (or the person caring for the child) as a free and rational agent with
their own dignity; on the contrary you are using them merely as a means to
your own end of securing property that you desire.
That Kantian Ethics speaks against the moral permissibility of stealing
toys from children should be no surprise — any theory that did not speak
against such actions would likely be in trouble. However, the structure of
the Kantian response to this case is what really matters, for it is a structure
that we can apply to other cases. Take an example of stealing that is plausibly
moral defensible, perhaps involving stealing from a financially powerful and
internationally influential supermarket chain in order to feed your hungry
family. The Kantian view regarding this case will be informative as to the
wider response of Kantian Ethics to stealing.
In this new example, the maxim behind the action might be thought to be
“take the property of others only when it is necessary for survival” (putting
this example into the most extreme and therefore plausibly morally defensible
form that we can). Can this maxim be willed to be a universal law? Well, even
as it stands, there are reasons for thinking that such a maxim could not be
185
Stealing
W
O
—d
x
ic
a
a)
zs
—
S
cs
ie
<
universalised. For one, food is always strictly necessary for our survival, along
with water, medical treatment and, in the modern age, some financial resource.
Indeed, even someone who burgles a house to steal a television might act on
such a maxim if they plan on selling that television in order to pay a debt to
a potentially violent individual. The breadth of such a universalised maxim
thus brings us back to the issue that afflicted the previous maxim, and the
concept of property may not survive universalisation of such a maxim.
Still, even in referring to the maxim in the more specific form of “take
the property of others only when it is necessary for survival”, it might be
suggested that we are venturing away from the approach with which Kant
would be happy. Alasdair MacIntyre (1929-) has suggested that when it
comes to applying the test of universalisation the system can be manipulated
by being overly specific with the maxim. He says:
All I need to do is to characterise the proposed action in such a way that the maxim will permit
me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the action if
universalised.”
Thus, on this view, I apparently could universalise the maxim “take bread
from a financially powerful supermarket only when you or immediate family
members are at the point of starvation”. Indeed, less desirably, I seemingly
could universalise the maxim “People with my fingerprint can steal from a
shop whenever they feel hungry”, since there would be nothing contradictory
in this becoming a universal law; the concept of property would not break
down if only I could steal things I desired. However, there is a question — as
referred to in Chapter 2 when this formulation of the Categorical Imperative
was explained in more detail — as to whether or not a maxim of this type
could be understood as a universal law. This is because its application would
clearly not be universal in the sense that it would apply only to me or, in the
case of the first maxim of this paragraph, to a limited number of desperate
people. This, therefore, forms the basis of a response that the Kantian can offer
to the MacIntyre-style worry.
Indeed, the maxim universalised must also be the maxim acted upon, so,
just because it might be the case that we could attempt to universalise a maxim
of the form “take bread from a financially powerful supermarket only when
you or your immediate family members are at the point of starvation” (as per
the MacIntyre approach), this would not help someone who actually acts on
the maxim “steal food when hungry”, but tries to cover this maxim up with
more dramatic language. Thus, even if the MacIntyre criticism has some bite
to it, this will still cover only a very small number of instances of possible
2 A.MaclIntyre, A Short History of Ethics, p. 126.
theft; moral assessment must be of actual maxims motivating behaviour, not
reinterpreted maxims described as favourably as possible.
What is more complex in this example of stealing from the internationally
owned and financially powerful supermarket is the question as to whether
or not it involves the use of another person merely as a means to an end,
thereby denying them their fundamental human dignity as a rational agent.
In this case of stealing from a supermarket — an act sometimes referred to as
a “victimless crime” — it is not immediately clear who might be being used
merely as a means to an end. Is it the management of the supermarket? Is
it the shareholders? Is it the shelf-stacking staff? Is it the security personnel
on site? If stealing from a sole trader, this issue would not arise. However, it
is far more complex in the modern context of large supermarkets. Working
through specific instances of stealing, perhaps with real case studies, and
seeing if those examples could escape falling foul of the second formulation of
the Categorical Imperative, would be useful for you to consider for yourselves.
4, Act and Preference Utilitarianism on Stealing
Chapter 1 is the location of the full discussion of the broad normative moral
theory of Utilitarianism. Utilitarian theories — Act, Rule, and Preference — are
linked by their commitment to the view that it is consequence that determines
the morality of actions, although the three theories have slightly different
views on how this central claim should be interpreted in practice. Rule
Utilitarianism and the ideas of John Stuart Mill will be discussed in section
five of this chapter; for now our attention is focused upon the ideas of Jeremy
Bentham and Peter Singer as defenders of Act Utilitarianism and Preference
Utilitarianism respectively.
The teleological, consequentialist and relativistic nature of Utilitarianism
may seem to make it more open to the idea that examples of stealing will
sometimes be morally acceptable. This is because all that needs to be the case
for an example of stealing to be morally right is for the good consequences to
outweigh the bad consequences. Indeed, this very much seems to be the case in
the example of a person stealing bread from a multinational supermarket chain
in order to survive. Thus, the key issue for Act and Preference Utilitarianism
when it comes to stealing is not “can stealing ever be justified” (this was the
key question facing Kantian Ethics) but rather “does Utilitarianism justify
stealing in too many cases”.
Consider the following situations:
1. James has two children who are desperate for a particular Christmas
present. If he steals the present, which he cannot afford to buy, from a
oD
=
pies
oC
i)
~
W
Ww
O
—
x
ial
bo
Q
eal
a
—
i
oH
<
major international retailer then this action would very likely lead to far
more pleasure for his children than pain for the company.
2. Matthew can illegally download a music album that he would greatly
enjoy, saving himself money in doing so. Or, he can pay full price for the
music and allow his money to line the pockets of an international pop
star, her record label and a financially powerful music retailer. In this
case, more pleasure would seem to be produced by an illegal download
rather than a paid-for download.
3. A gang of thieves has the ability to steal 1p from every bank account in
the world. The pain of losing 1p, even when multiplied an extremely
large number of times, is minimal. However, the theft would make the
thieves rich beyond their wildest dreams, filling their lives with extreme
pleasure.
4, A football club requires a large donation in order to keep running its
youth teams and providing pleasure for hundreds of children in the local
area. Imogen, a fan of the club, breaks into the mansion of a millionaire
and steals £10,000 worth of property to sell in order to raise the necessary
funds to save the youth programme. If the goods stolen were of trivial
importance to the millionaire, the balance of pleasure versus pain may
favour the theft.
5. Bryony and Robert are going to miss a concert that they have been looking
forward to for a very long time because their car has broken down. By
chance, they notice an unlocked car parked on a driveway near them.
If they steal the car, attend the concert, refill it with petrol and park it
back on the driveway — all without the owner’s knowledge — then their
action appears to provide them with a great deal of pleasure and no pain
at all to the actual owner of the car.
Inall five cases as described (and we should not cheat and change the examples!)
the Benthamite, hedonistic act utilitarian would seem to be forced to suggest
that stealing would be morally right; indeed, not stealing may well be morally
wrong in all of these cases because not stealing would fail to create the greatest
pleasure for the greatest number. If we replace “pleasure” with “preference
satisfaction” in the five cases, the situations do not seem to be different in any
key respects, and so the preference utilitarian would seem to face the same
issue.
In response, we should pay attention to Bentham’s suggestion that act
utilitarians would have “rules of thumb” that provide general guidance
against stealing. We are better off being disposed not to steal, for example,
because we cannot be sure of the consequences.
If James, for example, was caught then far more pain would result from his
action than pleasure might have been generated if successful. Indeed, in the
real world, thieves often have no idea what pain their victims suffer as stolen
items can often have hidden sentimental value beyond any that a thief could
recognise in the abstract (this seems most relevant to cases four and five). The
thief who stole an iPad in Colorado Springs, for example, probably did not
factor in the pain of an eight-year-old boy losing photos of himself with his
recently deceased father.*? Thus, even when we might think an individual act
of stealing will produce the maximum amount of pleasure in a given situation,
we should be wary of over-confidence in our analysis, and not downplay the
painful consequences associated with that possible action.
As an objection, it can be asked whether or not such “rules of thumb”
are enough to save the utilitarian from being overly promiscuous in terms
of allowing morally justified stealing. There is good reason for thinking
that Utilitarianism does not offer enough in respect of cautioning against
stealing in general. Although stealing may be viewed as undesirable in some
of the previous situations (and similar such cases) for the reason alluded to
in the previous paragraph pertaining to rules of thumb, there are plenty of
situations where the consequences obviously point to stealing if total pleasure
or preference satisfaction is all that determines morality. We are sure that
you can imagine many such situations yourselves where consequences are
relatively easy to predict. There may be a difference between wanting to be
less than absolutist about the wrongness of stealing, and being so liberal that
stealing turns out to be morally required in a potentially enormous number of
situations.
Act and preference utilitarians may make their final stand on this issue by
suggesting that greater attention should be paid to the psychological costs
associated with stealing. The pain of a victim will not be fully accounted for
if we only think of immediate pains to do with finance and anger. In addition,
we must recognise the psychological pain often resulting from the fear of
having property stolen or a house burgled. This psychological distress may
be so severe that it outweighs even large-scale pleasures resulting from the
theft. In addition, it might be the case that engaging in an act of stealing in
one potentially morally justifiable situation would make someone more prone
to stealing in a second, or third or fourth situation where moral legitimacy is
either more questionable or obviously not present.
Perhaps if one becomes comfortable with stealing and therefore less
empathetic as a result, then the long-term costs of stealing — as they pertain
3. K.Leon, ‘Family Seeks Stolen iPad with Photos of Deceased Father’, http://fox2Inews.com/2014/10/03/
family-seeks-stolen-ipad-with-photos-of-deceased-father/
189
Stealing
Ww
O
=
x
ic
bol
Q
bol
=
—
a
i
<
to the character and future actions of the perpetrator — may be far higher
than originally thought. This idea has much in common with Kant’s indirect
concern for animals, as discussed in Chapter 14.
Whatever your views on Act and Preference Utilitarianism as they impact
the issue of stealing, it will be well worth your while coming up with your own
examples and then applying the theories to those cases in order to make clear
that you understand, and can defend, the scope of cases in which utilitarians
would morally criticise or morally support stealing.
5. Rule Utilitarianism on Stealing
If you find yourself wishing to defend Utilitarianism, but are left uninspired
by the extent to which Act Utilitarianism and Preference Utilitarianism can
speak against instances of stealing, then Rule Utilitarianism may provide you
with reason for optimism. As a reminder, the rule utilitarian suggests that
moral action is action that would be recommended by the set of rules that, if
followed, would promote the greatest good for the greatest number. On initial
viewing, it might seem that a rule banning stealing would be a good candidate
to be included in the set of rules that would produce the greatest good for the
greatest number, especially given the potential psychological costs associated
with stealing as described above.
Indeed, if we think more broadly about the “best set of rules”, then it
might seem likely that there would be a rule requiring adequate provision
of food for those hungry or lacking resources, and a similar rule regarding
provision of medical treatment and housing etc. Such provision would not be
free, of course, but the best set of rules would very likely include provision for
collecting adequate taxation, given that a pound spent on someone in distress
is likely to facilitate greater future happiness than a pound spent by someone
economically comfortable (though we encourage you to consider this idea in
more depth, perhaps with your own examples).
Despite the previous ideas, it may be suggested that the best set of rules
would allow for stealing “when necessary” and thus discriminate between
“sood” stealing and “bad” stealing in a way that satisfies the non-absolutist.
How easy it would be to write such a rule that is consistent with promoting
the greatest happiness for the greatest number, yet does not “get it wrong’
with individual instances of stealing and their moral status, is something that
you again should find it useful to consider. Here, it will be worth revisiting the
distinction between Strong Rule Utilitarianism and Weak Ruse Utilitarianism
as discussed in Chapter 1.
e
Finally, it is worth considering the impact of a style of “demandingness”
objection as it pertains to applying Rule Utilitarianism in the context of stealing.
Recall from Chapter 1, Mill’s harm principle:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral,
is not a sufficient warrant.’
If the harm principle informs rules in the set that promotes the greatest
happiness for the greatest number, then there would be no rule allowing people
to take assets from private individuals in order to redistribute resources for
the purpose of promoting happiness. A useful example to have in mind would
be of jewels stored in a safety deposit box in perpetuity, when those jewels
could be used in ways that would promote greater levels of happiness if stolen
and sold. Such action — which seems to have the appearance of stealing from
private individuals for the greater good in the style of Robin Hood — would
not appear to sit neatly with Mill’s own harm principle. At the very least, in
would need a particularly interesting interpretation of the notion of preventing
harm to others.
This entire issue in itself highlights the difficulty of actually fixing the rules
by which the rule utilitarian wants us to judge specific actions in our minds,
and this also raises another problem for the rule utilitarian in respect of the
difficulty of practically applying the theory to stealing. It might be useful
to return to cases 1-5 as outlined in section four and ask yourself what the
rule utilitarian would suggest in those cases — does the answer of the rule
utilitarian put them in a more or less attractive position than the answers of
the act and preference utilitarians?
6. Virtue Ethics on Stealing
As anormative moral theory, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics was explored in Chapter
3 and, as with all of the theories discussed in this chapter, it is important to
read everything here in the light of issues raised there.
The virtue ethicist is not interested in the moral status of individual actions,
but rather is interested in the character traits and dispositions of the person
performing those actions. Using reason to work out the virtuous Golden Mean
in the different spheres of life, Aristotle suggested the following as virtuous
and non-virtuous (vice) character traits.
4 J. S. Mill, On Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html
6D
i=
pies
oC
i)
~
W
Ww
Se)
=
x
ic
bol
Q
ea]
—
=
i
a
<
; ‘ , di Virtuous Disposition |,,.
Feeling/Emotion | Vice of Deficiency (Golde Mean) Vice of Excess
Anger Lack of spirit Patience Irascibility
Shame Shyness Modesty Shamefulness
Fear Cowardice Courage Rashness
Indignation Spitefulness Righteousness Envy
Situation
Social conduct Cantankerousness_| Friendliness Self-serving flattery
Conversation Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery
Giving money Stinginess Generosity Profligacy
Thus, those who engage in the act of stealing on the basis of righteousness,
courage and virtuous patience may be considered moral, whereas those
who engage in the act of stealing on the basis of rashness, shamefulness and
irascibility will not be considered moral. This reveals something interesting
about the application of Virtue Ethics to stealing. According to Virtue Ethics,
the very same act, performed by two different people, can be viewed differently
from a moral perspective.
Take the act of stealing a loaf of bread from a supermarket, and then passing
that loaf to a hungry and homeless woman on the street nearby. If a person
commits this act out of self-serving flattery, then they act in accordance with
a vice of excess. Yet, if someone else commits the very same act of stealing,
but does so on the basis of righteousness and generosity, then they act in a
virtuous way. This example is over-simplified, but the point is hopefully clear.
One of the bigger worries regarding Virtue Ethics is its lack of specific
guidance, and this worry would seem to be at its most acute when it comes to
seeking advice from Virtue Ethics over an applied ethical issue such as stealing.
After all, how are we to determine if our stealing a loaf of bread would be
based on righteous and generous character dispositions, or reflect rashness
and self-serving flattery? How can we ascertain what the virtuous course of
action would be in a specific situation?
One possibility is to look to the actions of virtuous people for guidance,
but this raises the troubling issue of subjectivity. For example, if I view St.
Augustine as virtuous, then I may view his complete aversion to stealing as
representative of the Golden Mean. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) says of
Augustine that:
It appears that, with some companions of his own age, he despoiled a neighbour's pear tree,
although he was not hungry, and his parents had better pears at home. He continued throughout
his life to consider this an act of almost incredible wickedness. It would not have been so bad if he
had been hungry, or had no other means of getting pears; but, as it was, the act was one of pure
mischief, inspired by the love of wickedness for its own sake.°
Stealing for petty reasons looks to be the height of non-virtuous behaviour.
However, if I view the fictional character Robin Hood as the paradigm of a
virtuous person because of his willingness to steal from the rich in order to
give to the poor, then I may have a different view as to which actions the
virtuous character trait of generosity would give rise to. Or, more extremely,
if I view a famous fictional pirate of the high seas as representing a virtuous
individual, my views would once more be different; how do we decide which
of these people are the right people to seek virtuous guidance from when it
comes to stealing? Aristotle can refer to practical reason (phronesis) and human
flourishing, but this may be a serious weakness.
In addition, we might wonder how to act when virtues themselves seem
to clash, as well as when the advice of possible virtuous people also seems to
clash. An act of stealing might seem to be both courageous and self-serving, or
both brave and rash. Resolving how to act requires use of practical reason, but
again this language might be thought unhelpful by the critic of Virtue Ethics
as it is still being unhelpfully vague.
7. Metaethics and Stealing
AQA require you to understand how the various metaethical theories as
discussed in Chapter 7 might be applied to the applied ethical issues on
the specification, of which stealing is the first we have considered. Below,
assuming some grasp of the theories from Chapter 7, we offer guidance as to
how metaethical theories might relate to this issue. Much of the guidance below
is easily applicable to the other applied ethical issues also discussed in the remaining
three chapters.
Cognitivism and Realism
The combination of Cognitivism and Realism in this area would entail that
moral claims about stealing are truth-apt propositions, expressing beliefs
that will be made true by genuinely existing moral properties at least
some of the time. For the utilitarian, moral claims regarding the ethical
acceptability of individual actions will be made true by natural properties
such as pleasure, happiness or preference satisfaction. For the intuitionist,
5B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 364, https://archive.org/stream/westernphilosoph03
5502mbp#page/n3/mode/2up
193
Stealing
Ww
O
=
x
ic
hol
ao
ea
—
—
oq
i
<
the non-natural property of goodness will make some of our moral claims
regarding stealing true.
Cognitivism and Anti-Realism
The moral error theorist believes that our moral claims regarding the ethics of
stealing are intended to be true, but can never achieve truth because no moral
properties exist as truth-makers for those moral claims. Importantly, just
because the moral error theorist cannot endorse the claim that “stealing can be
morally wrong at least sometimes”, this does not entail a love of stealing on
their part. The moral error theorist may have a non-moral reason for opposing
stealing on many occasions, or indeed supporting stealing on other occasions.
Moral reasons are not the only reasons not to engage in stealing, as legal and
social/personal reasons will also be a factor as they often speak against the
wisdom of theft. Moral error theorists who care about the property rights of
others, for example, may well strongly oppose stealing.
Non-Cognitivism and Anti-Realism
According to the simple non-cognitivist considered in this book, our moral
utterances regarding stealing are not truth-apt because they are not expressions
of belief; they are expressions of emotion or other non-truth-apt attitudes such
as approval or disapproval. Thus, according to theories such as Emotivism
and Prescriptivism, a phrase such as “stealing is wrong” expresses a negative
emotional attitude towards stealing (Emotivism) or makes it clear that we do
not want people to steal (Prescriptivism).
Whichever non-cognitivist theory you prefer, the non-cognitivist position
is defined by the commitment to the idea that the moral utterances do not
reveal something true about the world and do not even try to describe features
of the world.
Therefore, we cannot criticise a thief as morally wrong when using this
argument (something akin to the claim of the moral error theorist). However,
if we adopt Prescriptivism, we might at least be able to criticise the thief
for inconsistency if she speaks of the general wrongness of stealing whilst
defending the rightness of stealing in her case. Despite this, one big worry
for those interested in adopting a view like Emotivism or Prescriptivism is
that it cheapens and eliminates the value of moral debate over the moral
rightness of stealing, since we cannot defend our ethical claims as being
genuinely true or false in the way that realist seeks to do and in the way that
most people would wish to.
SUMMARY
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
195
Many will want to avoid an absolute moral view regarding the
unacceptability of stealing, the kind of view that Kant might
be thought to defend. Neither Utilitarianism nor Virtue Ethics
offer an absolute prohibition against stealing, but each has their
own problems. In terms of showing your understanding of these
issues, applying normative theories to your own variety of cases
is a tactic that may best enable you to write with confidence about
the various nuanced issues afflicting each theory.
Stealing
Not applying the strengths and weaknesses of the various moral
theories as discussed in theory-specific chapters.
Having too narrow an understanding of stealing. It is advisable to
discuss a range of cases (real and fictional).
Assuming too much when explaining how a theory might be applied to
an issue of stealing — give a full explanation, showing understanding,
and using key terms.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Is keeping due tax from the government an example of stealing?
2. Can you create your own satisfactory definition of stealing?
3. How does the definition you arrived at in (2) fit with the idea of
stealing ideas?
4. Does stealing once make you more likely to steal again?
Is it possible to measure the psychological pains associated with
stealing?
Is an absolute prohibition against stealing defensible? Why or why not?
7. Do people you consider virtuous have any history of stealing?
Wn
OC
—
x
&
es
Q
Lol
—
=
cs
a
<
8. Would the best set of rules for promoting the greatest good for the
greatest number contain a rule absolutely prohibiting stealing?
9. Is it worth debating the ethics of stealing if you are an emotivist or a
prescriptivist?
10. What would the error-theorist say about the morality of stealing?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Categorical Imperative Truth-apt
Universalisation
References
Bible, New International Version, freely available at https://www.
biblegateway.com/
Leon, K., ‘Family Seeks Stolen iPad with Photos of Deceased Father’,
Fox21 News (3 October 2014), freely available at http://fox21news.
com/2014/10/03/family-seeks-stolen-ipad-with-photos-of-deceased-father/
MacIntyre, Alasdair, A Short History of Ethics (London: Routledge, 2002),
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131121
Mill, J. S., On Liberty (London: Longman, Roberts, Green & Co., 1869), freely
available at freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/
mlLbty1.html
Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy (Woking: Unwin
Brothers, 1947), freely available at https://archive.org/stream/
westernphilosoph035502mbp#page/n3/mode/2up
killer por Siete
lays Mill tragedy -€,
. ft be ¥ 3 e higher
different
course
x
‘Op:
7 5 Rg. olence
V1 wort ate WIO nig Fests Utilitarianism
we makes am = 2 "moral get duty chapter “**
léssé ath 2 * C mute G17 2 wees) think
sem Orally Us if) i © fhe [eee
they Bead & So
animals ethical sidence 3 benefits Virtue firs
H lpn © i able V issues ete much many "S violent , /2=t seems simibr
Lh! idé "= end @
- on
[or
z simply GO § & real
ASs. VY o eC
4 es a question MU 2 la ext C r way
* film § AL
or Mean
o
CHAPTER 12
Simulated Killing
Can you avoid knowledge? You cannot! Can you avoid technology? You cannot! Things are going
to go ahead in spite of ethics, in spite of your personal beliefs, in spite of everything.’
Technology: the knack of so arranging the world that we don’t have to experience it.
1. Introduction
Ethics is about how we live in the world and how we interact with one another.
Given that “simulated” killing is, well, “simulated”, we might think that it falls
outside ethical consideration. However, this chapter will challenge this claim.
Simply granting that a scenario is not “real” does not mean that it should not
be thought of as ethical. We think through how the various ethical theories
we have looked at in this book might have something to say about simulated
killing. The chapter relies on the work of Michael Lacewing (1971-) and Garry
Young.?
Simulated killing can mean anumber of things and at first itis perhaps easier
to say what it is not. Obviously simulated killing is not actual killing, nor is it
a description or representation of killing. So J. K. Rowling’s description of the
death of Voldemort will not count as simulated killing nor would Caravaggio’s
painting depicting John the Baptist’s decapitation. However, acting in a film
involving killing — Schindler’s List for example, or acting Romeo killing Tybalt
on stage, would. Furthermore, with the advent of computer games and virtual
reality there are interesting, and arguably morally different, dimensions to
simulated killing. Specifically, modern technology helps us all be part of the
simulation.
Of course, one reaction to supposed ethical worries surrounding this
topic might be simply — “grow up”! There are many horrific things — real
things — going on in the world, poverty, torture, crippling debt. They are the
1 J. Delgado, quoted in John Horgan, ‘The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips’.
M. Frisch. Homo Faber: A Report.
3 M. Lacewing, ‘Simulated Killing’, http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/
9781138793934/A22014/ethical_theories/Simulated killing.pdf. See in particular Garry Young’s Ethics
in the Virtual World: The Morality and Psychology of Gaming.
N
Sa)
O
—
x
&
aa
a
el
=
ou
my
<
things that as ethicists we ought to be concerning ourselves with. In contrast
these simulated things are just entertainment. After a killing scene in a film the
actors will go home; the actors in Romeo and Juliet will dust themselves off
and go out for a drink, and the pixels will be altered on the computer monitor
and reformed due to electrical charges. No one is actually hurt!
However, to counter this more dismissive attitude, consider a few examples.
The thing to keep in mind when reading them is whether this “who cares, it’s
not real!” attitude seems right? And if it is not, why?
1. A local high security prison has a large number of child killers. They
often riot which causes massive destruction and suffering. However, the
prison warden proposes a way of stopping the rioting. At little cost, each
inmate can be given his or her own virtual reality headset that gives
each prisoner the ability to engage virtually in his or her favourite child
killing fantasy. Experiments have shown that the immersive nature of
this seems to act like a safety valve and prisoners become quiet and
helpful and are willing to get involved in educational and community
programs. Should they be given the headsets?
2. It is common for armies to use very realistic computer gaming to train
their soldiers. Imagine that soldiers are currently fighting in Syria and
their Syrian training simulator — along with realistic Russian and US
soldiers, realistic maps, civilian sites such as mosques etc. — is released
for sale. Is there anything wrong with this?
3. As part of one level of the video game Call of Duty — Modern Warfare
2 you are expected to participate in a mass shooting of civilians at a
Moscow airport in order to pass yourself off as a Russian terrorist. If you
play this level are you doing something morally wrong?
4. InJune 2015 a video game called “Hatred” was released. The aim of the
game is simple, to kill as many civilians as possible. The gamer controls
the character through a town, shooting, burning, running over, blowing
up, and executing random innocent people. (Equally controversial is
Super Columbine Massacre RPG! Where players can play Eric Harris and
Dylan Klebold and re-enact the Columbine High School Massacre). Is it
morally wrong to play such games?
What is interesting is that we suspect that many of you reading this chapter
would find some or all of (1)-(4) objectionable. Even, perhaps, morally
objectionable.
In this chapter we will start by looking at different moral theories and how
they might capture this intuition. We will then consider the type of cases, one’s
in which we are observing the simulated killing. We end by highlighting a famous
philosophical problem that might relate to these issues, the Paradox of Tragedy.
2. Utilitarianism and Simulated Killing
For Utilitarianism no act, qua act, is right or wrong. So we cannot say that
playing at killing others is wrong. What we have to focus on is how much
happiness is created in particular examples of simulated killing.
In asking this question regarding the amount of happiness we might
conclude that there is nothing wrong with (1)-(4). After all, the inmates, the
players of Call of Duty or Hatred get enjoyment and there is a lot of happiness,
no one is hurt, and there is no unhappiness. In fact, we can imagine that there
might be more unhappiness if someone stops playing these games. Perhaps
people who are stopped from playing their video games might turn to making
life miserable for those around them or slump into depression. In fact, then,
according to Utilitarianism it might be that playing a killer in a computer
game is something that some people morally ought to do. In some situations, it
might even be their duty to play such games.
This said, notice that the question is an empirical one (i.e. it is a question
answered a posteriori rather than a priori). If playing the killer in simulated
killing leads to more unhappiness than not doing so, then playing the killer is
wrong. But why might such simulated killing bring about unhappiness?
Perhaps playing a killer makes people more inclined to violent behaviour?
Perhaps it makes the player less able to empathise and trust, each of which might
lead to the player being more likely to harm others (what McCormick calls
“risk increasing acts”*). Or perhaps playing simulated killing desensitises the
players to violence in ways which might be harmful to both themselves and
other?
As Young (2014) reports the evidence relevant to these sorts of claims is
mixed. In some cases, where a gamer perhaps already has a predisposition to
violence, playing the killer will lead her to violence and harm. So the utilitarian
would say it is morally wrong for this person to play such games. Whereas in
other cases, where the player has a “normal” disposition, playing a killer in
a video game may have no negative effects; in which case, it is not morally
wrong.
So, for Utilitarianism if there is a clear link between risk-increasing acts
and playing the killer in games then we might be able to say that such game
playing is morally wrong. But the evidence does not support this claim. There
is though, a further consideration to be made when thinking about playing the
4 M. McCormick, ‘Is it Wrong to Play Violent Video Games?”, p. 279.
oD
i=
|
=
=
NA
mo)
i)
~
is}
=
=}
&
cl
ep)
a)
1S)
—
x
&
aa
e
eI
=
ou
my
<
killer. If you recall from Chapter 1 Bentham and Mill differ in their approaches
to “happiness”. Bentham famously claims:
Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and science of music and
poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either... If poetry
and music deserve to be preferred before a game of push-pin, it must be because they are calculated
to gratify those individuals who are most difficult to be pleased.°
Because “push pin is as good as poetry” Bentham would treat playing the
killer in a video game in the same way as any other pleasure. However, you'll
also recall that Mill thought that this was not quite right, and that push-pin (or,
in our case, playing the killer in Call of Duty/Hatred etc.) is perhaps not of equal
value as the pleasure we get from other activities such as poetry.
Maybe then when doing a utilitarian calculation regarding the pleasure
involved in playing at killing we need to consider — not just the empirical
questions highlighted above, but also whether such pleasure is higher or
lower? We might reasonable conclude (though this is debatable) that it is a
lower pleasure. Mill might argue that the inmate gaining pleasure from enacting
virtue kill fantasies is not just of less quantity, but is of less quality than joining
a drawing class or, say, visiting an Art Gallery.
Of course, introducing the distinction between higher and lower pleasure
will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that playing the killer in video
games is morally wrong. We might argue (can you?) that playing such games
as Call of Duty can in fact lead to higher pleasure. Or we might agree that it is
correct to think of such activities as a lower pleasure but still maintain that in
some instances it would be right to play the killer in these games.
There are further things that Utilitarianism would have to take into
account in each case. For instance, what is going to be important is not only
the type of person playing the simulated killing — do they have a violent
disposition? — but the type of killing that is simulated. Maybe the way that
the killing is simulated: the age, race and gender of the person killed and the
method of death are important. Perhaps, for example, a simulated killing
which is highly sexualized is much more likely to bring about harm in the
gamer. Or in contrast maybe the simulated killing of uniformed soldiers in
a video game does not change people’s outlook and behaviour. The simple
point is that the utilitarian questions about “simulated killing” can only be
answered if we first pin down the precise details of the situation.
Young is a good place to end this section:
We have a very good idea of the benefits of video games. Their economic impact is quantifiable as is
the number of hours of entertainment they bring to gamers. GTA [Grand Theft Auto] alone sold
5 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, pp. 206-07, http://www.econlib.
org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html
over 66 million games by 2008, evidence that at least this many people derive entertainment from
game violence. Other heavily criticized violent games are likewise usually among the top sellers.
There are also a number of educational benefits. The improvements in visual perception, hand-eye
coordination, and other motor skills from gaming are also well documented. The difficulty only
lies in deciding how much these benefits should weigh against any harm that games do, but this is
a problem intrinsic to utilitarian theory and should not be counted against violent games.°
3. The Kantian and the Virtue Ethics Approach
We have placed these two theories together because in the end what they
have to say about playing the killer in video games is going to be similar.
Specifically, whether they think playing the killer is right or wrong is going
to depend directly on the empirical data about how doing so will change the
person playing the game.
Recall from Chapter 2 that Kant said that we have no moral duty towards
animals because they are non-rational. But, he argues, that this does not mean
we can treat animals cruelly. This is because if we did treat them cruelly we
might become less able to act rationally and discharge our duties in areas where
we do have a moral duty towards other. Put simply it makes us worse at being
moral beings. An Aristotelian would say a similar thing. Namely, although it
is not wrong to harm animals because of animals “rights”, it is wrong because
it does not help us develop the right types of virtues, e.g. sensitivity, empathy,
compassion (see Chapter 14 for a discussion of this).
The point of this diversion into animal ethics is that the morality of playing
the killer in video games will be dealt with in the same way. If playing the
killer makes us less able to reason and hence discern our duty towards others,
then Kant would say that we should avoid them. But, as stated above, this is
an open question as the empirical evidence is inconclusive.
Shifting to virtue theory, if playing the killer makes us less virtuous — e.g.
less courageous, empathetic, sensitive etc. — then the virtue theorist will
claim this will make us less able to do the right thing at the right time to the
right proportion. This means that playing the killer is to be avoided. So to
the question “would the Aristotelian or Kantian think it is wrong to play the
killer in video games?” the answer is: “Not directly, it just depends on the link
between doing so and its effects on us as moral agents”.
4. Films and Plays
Recall, we started this chapter by pointing out that simulated killing takes
place in films and plays. Notice that this might include watching simulated
6 G. Young, Ethics in the Virtual World: The Morality and Psychology of Gaming, p. 131.
6D
=
ci
—
=
NA
uo)
Vv
ae
is}
=
=}
&
-
ep)
a)
1S)
—
x
e
aa
a
eI
=
oo
mo
<
killing, or acting out the killing. Playing such characters is — we guess — of
less direct relevance to our readers. Anyway, we suggest that we could treat
playing the killer in films and plays in a similar way as we have in video
games. Of course, there might be further complications when asking how
playing a killer on stage or in a film differs psychologically from playing one
in a video game. However, we suggest the issues are still fundamentally the
same, it is just how we extract the empirical data — what sort of empirical
questions we need to ask — which will be different. For example, perhaps
physically holding a (fake) knife or gun makes us more — or less — likely to
hold a real knife or gun. Or perhaps watching people being (virtually) shot
and (virtually) bleeding makes us less — or more — sensitive to real blood
and death. And perhaps this is fundamentally different to how playing a
knife-wielding killer in a video game affects us. But again, this is an empirical
and not a philosophical question. (It is interesting to note that because of the
increase in the sophistication of virtual reality, the gap between playing video
games and acting in films/plays might be closing.)
What then about simply watching simulated killing? Well, we do not need
to rehearse again the general approaches discussed above. Does the utilitarian
think that watching killing is wrong? Well it depends on the consequences.
Does the Kantian or the Aristotelian? Well it depends on how it affects us as
moral agents. And the answer to these questions is, again, an empirical matter.
We end with an ancient philosophical problem which has come to be known
as the Paradox of Tragedy. Although it is not directly about ethics, it brings to
the fore issues to do with authenticity and character which might have a direct
link to other issues we have discussed.
5. The Paradox of Tragedy (or More Correctly the Paradox
of “Negative Emotions”)
Imagine that we go into a hotel room and we see bloody hand marks on the
wall and in the shower. We feel disgusted, anxious and scared. We quickly
turn around and get out of there as quickly as possible. Such emotions are
unwelcome and make us uncomfortable. However, consider all the time and
money spent on watching and making films which have upsetting scenarios.
Watching films (of course it does not have to be a film — the same reasoning
applies to plays or video games) generate in us disgust, anxiety and fear but we
flock in our droves to such films. In fact, the more scary/disgusting/disturbing
the film is, the more attractive it seem to audiences. Consider Hitchcock’s
groundbreaking Psycho for example. Here then is the “paradox”. On the one
hand negative emotions are not desired, whereas in other context they are.
Although it is not a genuine paradox it is certainly a tension — an odd
thing that needs to be explained. We will not go into the possible explanations
here. What is interesting to us is that this paradox seems to be particularly
pertinent when we refer to simulated killing. Presumably we would find it
particularly horrific if we witnessed real life killing, but if it is “simulated”
perhaps these emotions — horror, fear, etc. are qualitatively different. Call
them *fear*, *horror*, *disgust*.
This in turn might mean that we need to be less worried about the changes
in our character that might come about through simulated killing because they
are to do with *fear* not fear, *horror* not horror, *disgust* not disgust etc.
Again, we do not need to go into the details of this. It is though just another
dimension to simulated killing which may have moral significance and
consequently deserve consideration.
“Simulated killing” covers a number of different areas; it could
involve playing the killer, or watching someone play the killer. In
the first category it could be an actor on film or stage, or it could
be someone playing a video game.
Initially we might think that because it is “simulated” this
topic is outside ethics. But using Utilitarianism, Kantian and
Virtue Ethical lenses we have shown that this is not the case. For
Utilitarianism whether it is simulated or not is not important, the
question is how much happiness each of these activities generates
compared to doing something else. If it is more, then we ought to
do them, if not, we ought not. For the Kantian and virtue ethicist
the question is how being involved in simulated killing changes
us as a person. If it makes us less able to be a moral agent — e.g.
less rational or virtuous — then we ought not to be involved in
simulated killing.
However, the main lesson from this chapter is this. Issues
surrounding simulated killing are going to be addressed via
psychology. Which is thus far inconclusive. So it seems the best
we can Say is that “yes simulated killing is a moral issue”, but the
decision of whether a particular activity is morally right or wrong
will be advanced via experimentation.
a)
\S)
—
x
e
aa
eS
eI
s
oo
mo
<
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Thinking that the Utilitarian would say there is nothing wrong with
simulated killing.
Missing how important the psychological data is to the ethical question.
Thinking that we can answer the Paradox of Tragedy by simply
pointing out that sometimes we like bad things.
Assuming that bad taste just means morally wrong.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1.
Watch the 2015 film Gamechangers starring Daniel Radcliffe. This film
looks at the court case between the creators of Grand Theft Auto and Jack
Thompson. How do you think the film deals with the ethical issues? Do
you think that a particular ethical theory comes out as more favourable?
What is “simulated killing”?
Reading (1)-(4) do you think that simulated killing generates a genuine
moral issue?
How might you consider (a) the simulated killing of animals? Should
it be treated any differently from the simulated killing of humans? (b)
young children playing games that involve killing, e.g. a playground
game of soldiers.
Should we treat “simulated killing” differently from other “simulated”
actions, such as stealing or rape?
¥
Do you think that the pleasure gained by the inmates in (1) is a “lower’
pleasure?
What would the Kantian/virtue ethicist say about (1)?
Imagine a case in the future where one can buy ultra-life like Al
robots. These robots can be “killed”. They will “bleed”, they have been
programmed to beg for mercy, to whimper, etc. Once they have been
“killed” they can be reset and “killed again”. Should we treat this case
differently? What happens if the robots are so lifelike that people no
longer know the difference between them and real humans? Does that
change things?
Governments have censored video games, such as Call of Duty, and
Hatred. Are they right to do so? That is, even if we find them immoral,
how might this relate to laws governing “simulated killing”?
10. What is the “Paradox of Tragedy”? Do you think it has any relevance
when discussing the morality of simulated killing?
11. Use Google Scholar to find the most up-to-date research on the
psychological effects of “simulated killing” (any version you want).
What does the current psychological research tell us about the ethical
issues raised in this chapter?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
References
Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,
freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.
html
Frisch, Max, Homo Faber: A Report (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1959).
Horgan, John, ‘The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips’, Scientific American, 293.4
(October 2005): 66-73, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1005-66
Lacewing, Michael, ‘Simulated Killing’, freely available at http://documents.
routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/ethical_
theories/Simulated killing.pdf
McCormick, Matt, ‘Is It Wrong to Play Violent Video Games?’,
Ethics and Information Technology, 3.4 (2001): 277-87, https://doi.
org/10.1023/a:1013802119431
Young, Garry, Ethics in the Virtual World: The Morality and Psychology
of Gaming (Abington: Routledge, 2014), https://doi.org/10.5860/
choice.51-1780
foe)
<
|
—
=
4
mo}
i)
~
is}
=
=)
he
Ww
might Seem
seemse 0
ak 3 tt Oy. A g invols
(3) $.a% & ilies a a4 werodussd
PH + intend - q é makes thousands be
Gc sees 3 8 OR. G&S sxial st aa
ran ect less. 2 de 15 ee cases A 3
A °
: rather
believe Utilitarianism O oe 2
counterintuitive bss E heed ple good
in
committed
ie
S required answer & maybe ‘reply — deceive con Sequences
moral fs eople
eCase shi Jus ei right =) 825. h
f° 4 likemorallys;,"¢' wel 5/igtrut
Go 3
status
ring py regard li = @ political
Mm man g consequentialist gran mks w= belief
responses Divine % © book ent lied me é = fae} intention 4
wearing
Qo g &
2
°
=
a
ks Means 5
wm * a telling acceptable
ROW’ theories see s
definition §
nothing will
wrong
guards
sonkerd Crime
CHAPTER 13
Telling Lies
I’m not upset that you lied to me; I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
1. Introduction
What is it to tell a lie? Is it always wrong to tell lies? Is it sometimes acceptable
to lie, and if so, what are the conditions that make it OK? Humans have dealt
with these types of questions, regarding lies and truth, ever since they began to
interact with one another. Truth and trust are key to the working of our society,
in fact people who are caught in a lie are sanctioned, blamed and punished.
We have many examples of politicians being brought down by lies; Nixon and
the ensuing Watergate is a good one (although see the final section regarding
Politicians). Children are told “not to lie”, religious leaders and religious texts
condemn lying, relationship guidance talks about the importance of not lying
to your partner etc. We will start to consider some of these questions and apply
some of the thinking thus far discussed in the book to lying.
2. What Is It to Lie?
Let’s consider some examples; when you read them you should ask yourself
whether there is a lie involved.
1. A friend asks you where you went on holiday last year. You say
“Cambridge”, which they understand to be Cambridge, UK, but you
really mean Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2. You are teaching chemistry to primary school children and you hold up
a football and say “Atoms are just like this...”
3. You are having a really bad day: your partner has split up with you, you
have lost your house keys, and your friend just shouted at you. You meet
an acquaintance in the corridor; they say, “how are you?” You say, “fine
thanks, and you?”.
ep)
©)
—_
x
=
a]
Q
w
—
—
i
oo
<
4. Your gran has saved up her pension, bought some wool, and knitted
you ajumper. You hate it. She is visiting you and you put it on. She asks,
smiling, “so, do you really like it?” You reply, “of course Gran, thanks so
much for thinking about me”.
5. You are taking a maths test and one question asks the solution to sinx*+
cosx? You write “10” [the answer is “1’].
6. A recent divorcee keeps wearing his wedding ring.
7. You are smuggling Bibles into China. At the border, the guards ask you
what you have in your truck. As it happens, you have hundreds of Bibles,
so you say “oh, hundreds of Bibles”. The guards think this is a joke and
wave you through.
So what do you think? Are these cases of lying or not? Let’s take them in turn.
(1) This does not fall into the category of lying as there was no intent on
your part to mislead your friend.
(2) Is harder. Strictly speaking atoms are nothing like footballs; they are, for
example, mostly space. And as Kirsten Walsh and Adrian Currie’ state “the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is no teacher’s maxim”. This
is because it is simply impossible to go into all the details of science or history,
or chemistry etc. But does this mean that you are lying to the class? We think
the answer is “yes” and in fact all teaching involves lying. Of course, whether
this is right or wrong is something that we'll return to below.
(3) Arguably this would not be categorised as lying as the reply given is
generally considered to be a standard answer to a standard question; the
questioner would be expecting this reply in most circumstances.
(4) This does seem as if it is a clear case of lying. Having been asked a direct
question by your gran, you look her in the eye and lie. Now whether this is
wrong is something we consider below; it would seem that it is precisely for
cases such as this that we have the phrase “little white lie”.
(5) This does not seem to be a case of lying, rather just bad maths. It is
certainly false but there is no lie involved.
(6) This could be a case of lying. If the social context is one in which we
understand that wearing a wedding ring indicates that someone is married,
then wearing a wedding ring when you are not married seems like a case of
lying.
(7) This does not seem like a case of lying as you were completely honest
in your reply to the guard. However, if there was an intention to deceive then
this may not be the case. But as it stands (7) is not a case of lying.
1K. Walsh and A. Currie, ‘Caricatures, Myths, and White Lies’, p. 424.
What then can we take from these quick examples?
Lying does not simply involve saying something false. That is what (5), the
maths case, shows us.
Lying can involve things other than speaking; it can involve writing, signs
and symbols; that is what (6) — the wedding ring — shows us.
In cases such as (3), even if we say something we know to be false, it is not
necessarily thought to be a lie as the intention to deceive is missing.
That is why “yes I like the jumper Gran” in (4) is a lie. You intend that your
Gran adopt the false belief that you do like the jumper.
Notice finally that in the Bible smuggling case if the person knew that by
telling the truth — “yes there are Bibles in the truck” — then the guards would
form the false belief that there were no Bibles in the truck, then this might
count as lying. So for something to be a lie, what is important is the intention to
deceive — but it need not be the case that what is being said is false.
Of course, all these claims are controversial but they at least give us some
starting points for thinking about the moral question.
Finally, as an aside, it is a controversial and philosophically interesting
question whether we can lie to ourselves. We do not discuss this here but “not
lying to oneself” is a common phrase used by psychologists, self-help books,
counsellors etc. It is then a genuinely interesting question which deserves
consideration at some point — just not here.
We can now frame the moral question like this. When, if ever, is it morally
acceptable to intend for someone to adopt a belief which you know to be false?
Let’s consider this question through the lens of some of the theories already
discussed in this book.
3. Utilitarianism
If you recall (Chapter 1) Consequentialism has two features. First is the
definition of “good” (happiness, pleasure, well-being, preferences etc.) and
then the consideration of right and wrong actions in relation to good. In
particular, an action is right if, and only if, it brings about the greatest amount
of happiness, pleasure, well-being, preference satisfaction etc.
The second feature is that everyone counts as equal in the calculations. That
is, your good is as important as my good, which is as important as anyone
else’s good.
It follows from these two claims that no action is morally right or wrong
irrespective of context. So we cannot say that lying is wrong because the action
of lying will only be wrong if it brings about less good than not doing so. If
I intend that you adopt a belief which I believe to be false but in so doing I
generate more good than if I had not, then I have done something right.
n
Vv
=
el
6D
c
-
iS
=
WD
O
—_
x
=
a
a
es
—
—
po
Pu
<
Utilitarianism seems to be intuitive in some cases. Imagine, for example,
a soldier captured and tortured but who still continues to lie and say that
she does not know how to break the allies’ codes, and in so doing she saves
hundreds of thousands of lives. In this case people believe that she was
right to have lied; given the horrific consequences of telling the truth she is
morally required to lie. However, the intuitions work both ways and there
are cases where we think that sometimes it is morally counterintuitive to be
required to lie.
Consider a famous example from H. J. McCloskey known as “McCloskey’s
Sheriff”?
Imagine a scenario where there has been a serious crime in a town and the Sheriff is trying
to prevent serious rioting. He knows that this rioting is likely to bring about destruction,
injury and maybe even death. The problem is that he has no leads; he has not the slightest
idea who committed the crime. However, he can prevent these riots by lying to the town
and framing an innocent man. No one will miss the man and he is hated in the town.
If he frames and jails this innocent man, convincing people to believe that it was this
man that committed the crime, then the town will be placated and people will not riot.
The consequentialist will judge in this case that it is morally required that the Sheriff lies
even if this means that an innocent man is jailed. This then shows that the fact that the
consequentialist says it is sometimes morally required to lie can lead to counterintuitive
conclusions.
Let’s consider a mundane case. If lying to your gran brings about the best
consequences — i.e. she is happy, you are happy, and she continues to
knit which makes her happy etc., then it is morally acceptable to lie. Notice,
however, that the consequentialist would say that we ought to lie; not just that
it is acceptable to lie but that we have a moral obligation to lie.
Of course, the utilitarian should try and think harder about the possible
consequences and outcomes in order to try and prevent some new problems
arising. Consider the sheriff example; it could be that the real criminal
confesses resulting in worse consequences than if the truth had been told at
the outset. Now, not only will there be riots but there will also be no trust in the
law enforcement. So, in fact, lying would bring about worse consequences, which
means it would be wrong to lie.
Or consider the gran example. If your brother tells his gran that you lied,
then we can imagine that this might mean she would not be able ever to trust
her grandchildren again, may give up knitting, and thus make her unhappier
than if she had originally been told the truth about the jumper.
However, because no action is right or wrong qua action in Utilitarianism, it
follows that the action of lying is neither wrong nor right. So to the question
“does the utilitarian think that lying is wrong?” the answer is “it just depends”.
2 McCloskey, ‘A Non-Utilitarian Approach to Punishment’.
4, The Kantian and Lying
In contrast the Kantian (see Chapter 2) claims that actions are wrong or right,
qua actions. So rather than first defining good and then defining the right
and wrong actions they first define right and wrong. How they might do this
will depend on what type of deontologist they are. The Kantians ground the
rightness and wrongness on reason. In particular, we introduced one version
of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. We can show, using this, that Kant — and
in fact all deontologists — think that the action of lying is wrong in all cases.
Even if the consequence is saving a billion people, your own mother or an
orphanage of children.
It is worth noting that in the other Kantian formula that we introduced,
lying also comes out as wrong. Kant said that we should always treat others as
an end in themselves, and never solely as a means to an end. We can see that
this makes lying wrong. For if we lie to someone then we are not treating them
as an end in themselves but are controlling what they can do by taking certain
decisions out of their hands; we are basically saying we should be allowed to
deceive them for our own ends. We are not treating them as rational agents
and for the Kantian this is always morally wrong.
This might seem counterintuitive, and it is. However, it is perhaps less
so if we revisit our definition of lying. Go back to the soldier case. Imagine
she is being tortured for military codes. It seems that one way to stop the
consequence that hundreds of thousands of people die would be simply to say
nothing. And, given our definition, saying nothing would not be lying. So the
Kantian may not be committed to the implausible conclusion that she has to
reveal the secrets. Keeping silent is not the same as lying.
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that there are different ways of telling
the truth! Saying to your gran: “I really appreciate all the work you’ve put in
to my jumper, and my friend thinks it is an amazing jumper, but it really is not
my style, I’m really sorry”, seem less objectionable than “No, I do not like it”.
So there are — maybe — ways of making Kant’s theory less objectionable
when considering lying by thinking harder about what it actually means to
lie. Even so, it seems undeniable that there are some cases where we think it is
morally acceptable to lie but for the Kantian there are no such cases.
Notice that it is not just the Kantian that would say this. Other deontological
theories would as well. For example, the Divine Command Theory, the
theory that says that actions are right or wrong depending on whether God
commands or prohibits them. If God says lying is wrong — and at least in the
main monotheistic religions He does — then it is, full stop. Or consider the
Catholic theologian Aquinas.
n
7)
7
—
cto)
c
=
o
=
WD
O
—_
x
=
a
al
es
—
—
Po
Pu
<
5. Some Final Thoughts about the Political Context
As we write, Donald Trump has just been elected as US president. Whether you
agree with his policies or not, what has been interesting is how the presidential
campaign has been run; in particular, it has put under serious doubt our initial
claim above, namely, that lying in public office is something to be avoided at
all costs. However, Trump seems unaware and uninterested in truth — hence
some people have suggested that he has ushered in a “post-truth” era.* This
era seems to be created in part because of the propagation of false news stories
on social media sites — so much so that Facebook and other social media
groups have been working on ways to alert people to “fake news”.
Thus, the questions we leave you with are whether you think that it makes
sense to talk about lying in the political “post-truth” era. When Trump says “I
won the popular vote because millions of people voted illegally” is this a lie?
We do not mean is it true, because it is patently false. We mean do you think
the concept of a lie has changed throughout time? Has the political landscape
changed so dramatically that the concept of lie has no currency? Related, what
is the moral status of lying? If politicians and constituents do not care about
the truth, then does this affect the moral status of lying (at least in the political
arena)? We do not attempt to answer these questions here but they show, as if
we need reminding, that the moral status of lying is of vital importance at the
local, national and international levels.
SUMMARY
Philosophers, in many issues, like to start by asking what we
mean by the key term. Once we ask the question “what is it to
lie?” it becomes quickly apparent that the issues are complex and
unclear. To lie does not just mean to say something false, rather it
has something to do with trying to get another person to believe
what you claim to be true, when you in fact think it is false.
Different theories we have looked at so far in this book have
different responses to the question “is it wrong to lie’? The
utilitarian says “it depends”. That is, if the consequences of lying
are better than telling the truth then we are morally required to
lie. The deontologist — the Kantian or Divine Command Theorist
3. See http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien for 101 of his lies.
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
Thinking that Kant says that we should always tell the truth. Whereas
in fact he says it is wrong to lie.
Thinking that the utilitarian says that if a lie leads to pleasure then it is
morally acceptable to lie.
Mistaking being nasty with being immoral.
Thinking that you require words to lie.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
1. Read (1)-(7) at the start of this chapter. Do you think these are cases of
lying or not? Give reasons for your answers.
2. Do you ever think it is morally acceptable to lie? When?
Could a robot lie?
4. In the local town there is a sign at the roundabout — “Happy birthday
Keith, 40 today!” It has been there about a year. Is this lying?
5. Do you think it makes sense to talk about “lying to oneself’? If it does,
how might this change our definition?
7)
om
_
icle)
a
oO
io
6. Reflecting on your answers so far would you agree with our definition
of “lying”? Or do you think it needs modifying?
7. Give an example where the consequentialist would say we are morally
required to lie.
8. How might the rule and the act utilitarian differ in their response to the
question whether it is morally wrong to lie?
7p)
=
an
=
aa]
e
=
S
a
e
<
9. Give an example where the deontologist would say we ought not to lie.
10. If you had to go for either a deontological approach to lying or a
consequentialist approach, which would it be?
11. Do you think that we are living in a “post-truth” era? If so, how does
this change (if at all) how we think of lying?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
References
McCloskey, H. J., ‘A Non-Utilitarian Approach to Punishment’, in
Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment, ed. by Gertrude Ezorsky (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1972), 119-34.
Walsh, Kirsten and Adrian Currie, ‘Caricatures, Myths, and White Lies’,
Metaphilosophy, 46.3 (2015): 414-35.
number whether HG context 5
‘vegeta
pleasures “** Beles
towards pleasure“ © 4 thinking «
| a eee eee” (cen F — i “se ; : |
ec 1 i | pate pages oo meat a pol i
Ling Ged ‘ sao Kant associated Chapter ,. a |
angument
wcteg :% r
greatest — & ain ag wchge end g seem rather »..
§ oi W § C “So Sins s o meat-eating far 38 , Utilitarianism ‘moral
Ga e— ere question chicken = h without Humans ‘
& Sy a al oe rerests © perhaps ie grig ts = z ” chickens acceptable worth y
20," anima = “jacceptabilty Fence §
a ” Shree} geaté 8 § wer Gren something S virtue ™” im uae
; & BS O53 "he Fa suggested TT ion SP however VIEW
vonuiaiin Talk 5 5S act 5 2 ss a £
ws bs a D therefore Pomble 5 a4 :
Moline 8 ie Eating 5
cample » food
-Yez4 4 Bentham
relevant
CHAPTER 14
Eating Animals
A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he
participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.'
1. Eating Animals Introduction
The British, and many other nations, have something of an odd relationship
with animals. I have, for example, just returned to begin typing up this
chapter after adding extra straw for my chickens — chickens that I care for on
a daily basis and chickens in whose well-being I am invested. This, however,
followed on from my enjoyable consumption of a chicken dinner last night,
a fact that would seem to suggest I am far less invested in the well-being of
chickens more generally. This oddness in terms of the relationship between
myself and my chickens is not, however, peculiar to me. Few people in the
UK are vegetarians — the data has consistently suggested between 2% and
3% in recent years — yet many more would claim to identify as animal lovers.”
In this chapter, the applied ethical issue of the moral acceptability of eating
animals is considered; it remains to be seen what conclusions might be drawn
to be either justify or condemn some aspects of our multi-faceted behaviour
and attitude towards animals.
2. Justifying Meat Eating
It seems sensible to begin by considering on what grounds the eating of
meat might be morally justified. To this end, two possible justifications are
considered below.
Comparative Justification
Itis hard to give a proper name to this oft-cited justification for the consumption
of animal meat. When questioned as to why meat-eating is morally acceptable,
1 _L. Tolstoy, Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence.
2 Data available at https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=753
a fairly common reply relates to the comparison between humans as meat-
eaters and other animals as meat-eaters. So, just as lions eat gazelles, bears eat
salmon and foxes eat chickens (if they can get their paws on them), so humans
eat pigs/cows/sheep etc. Given that it would be odd, even for the most ardent
vegetarian, for us to morally criticise the lion, the bear or the fox, then it might
seem to follow that there is a moral equivalence between the actions of these
different species that extends to the actions of non-vegetarian human beings,
such that we too should be free from moral criticism in our consumption of
meat.
However, possible weaknesses in the above response should not be too
challenging to identify. For one, we do not often base our moral judgments
regarding the acceptability of certain actions on the behaviours of lions, bears
and foxes etc. Indeed, the fact that lions sometimes eat human beings does not
suggest to us that eating other humans may be morally acceptable. In addition,
those who find eating some types of meat more acceptable than eating other
types of meat (chicken as more acceptable than gorilla, for example) will find
limited resource in this type of justification. If there is some merit in this blunt
argument for meat-eating, it will very likely need to be brought out more
precisely and sharply, perhaps within the context of a wider normative ethical
theory.
Dominion-Based Justification
The second justification we will consider for meat-eating may have slightly
more going for it, depending on your wider outlook on the world. According
to the Bible, “[...] the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
being”.’ This verse is often interpreted as God providing man with a soul, and
thus differentiating mankind from the rest of animal creation. In addition, after
“the Flood”, God says that “[everything] that lives and moves about will be
food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything”.*
It is therefore apparently quite clear that God has no objection to the eating of
animals, although a number of Christians do opt for a vegetarian lifestyle for
a variety of other factors (the fact that something is allowable does not make it
necessarily desirable).
In the remainder of this chapter, however, we consider the ethical issues
surrounding meat-eating from the perspective of Utilitarianism, Kantian
3. Genesis 2:7, New International Version, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+
2%3A7&version=NIV
4 Genesis 9:3, New International Version, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+
9:3&version=NIV
Ethics and Aristotelian Virtue Ethics; theories in which Biblical references
are not central for deciding how to act. Thus, although a religious ethic
focussing on Biblical teaching may seem to provide a clear answer on the
justification of eating animals, students studying for the AQA exam must be
familiar with the application of the three theories mentioned above in order
to be well prepared for the exam. In the next section, we begin this process of
applying the normative theories as previously outlined in Chapters 1, 2 and
3. The application of metaethical theories to this applied ethical topic can be
understood from Chapter 6, and the discussion of Metaethics in an applied
context in Chapter 11.
3. Act Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, as explained in Chapter 1, comes in a variety of different
forms — Act, Rule and Preference Utilitarianism as suggested by Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer respectively. It might seem that
the views of Jeremy Bentham and other act utilitarians, when it comes to the
acceptability of eating animals, would be fairly simple to ascertain. The act
utilitarian of a Benthamite variety simply seeks to secure the greatest amount
of pleasure for the greatest number of people. Although Bentham holds to
the idea of equal consideration of interests — the pleasures of a queen should
count no more than the pleasures of a peasant, irrespective of their social
standing and societal power — this notion of equality might be thought of as
applying to human beings only. If understood in this way, the view of the act
utilitarian would be clear, as the pleasure of a human being when eating a beef
burger would outweigh any morally relevant pain. After all, on this version of
the equal consideration of interests, any pain that might be suffered by the cow
would not have any moral weight in deciding how to maximise total pleasure.
However, Bentham did not adopt this anthropocentric (human-centred)
approach to the principle of equal consideration. In one of his most famous
passages, he states that:
The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never
could have been [withheld] from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already
discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without
redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of
the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the [pelvic bone] are reasons equally
insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate [...]. The question is not, ‘Can they
reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but, ‘Can they suffer?’
5 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, http://www.econlib.org/library/
Bentham/bnthPML18.html
i)
cs
E
|
<
it)
&
<
fd
In this passage, Bentham makes it clear that animals cannot be excluded from
the calculation of total pains and total pleasures associated with a particular
act just because of their inability to talk or their deficient rational capacities
in comparison to human beings. On the contrary, so long as an animal does
experience some suffering or pain, then this suffering or pain must be factored
into the calculation determining which act will produce the greatest pleasure
for the greatest number; simply put, all suffering creatures — human or
not — are part of the group of morally relevant beings.
This idea of equality of consideration for animals is justified by Bentham
in the initial section of the passage, where a comparison to the ethical failing
of racism is drawn. Bentham says that skin colour is deemed to be a morally
irrelevant feature of an individual and affords no reason to ignore their pains
or pleasures. So, just as denying moral relevance based on skin colour or race
is arbitrary, and just as we in the contemporary world believe that denying
moral relevance based on gender is arbitrary, denying moral relevance based
on species alone is also arbitrary. If what matters is pain and pleasure, then the
species that acts as host to that pain and pleasure would seem to be irrelevant.
Bentham’s openness to weighing the pains and pleasures of animals in
utilitarian decision-making has made him a heroic figure in animal rights
and animal welfare movements. Whether you agree with Bentham or not, his
views were certainly somewhat out of kilter with many of his philosophical
contemporaries. For example, just a little over a century earlier, one of the
most respected philosophers of all-time — René Descartes — was, according to
some accounts, cutting open his wife’s pet dog after nailing the poor creature
to the wall in order to study its mechanistic movements. For Descartes, there
was no moral issue in this type of action, since a soulless animal such as a
dog could not feel pain and only mimicked the appearance of genuine pain.
Bentham, had he known of Descartes actions, would have likely recoiled at the
inability to recognise the morally relevant pains of the dog.
By putting the individual pieces of his theorising together, we can come
to the view that Bentham would count the pains and pleasures of animals as
morally relevant when considering the acceptability of eating animals, and he
would seemingly count those pains and pleasures as just as valuable as the
pains and pleasures of human beings given his commitment to a principle of
equality when counting pains and pleasures. Thus, if the total pain (including
pain suffered by animals) associated with acts of meat-eating were to outweigh
the total pleasure associated with such acts, then Bentham and Benthamite
philosophers would be forced to conclude that those instances of meat-eating
were morally wrong.
Before moving on, it is worth noting that the language used in the paragraph
above is important. Neither Bentham nor any other relativistic utilitarian
would ever comment that eating animals is absolutely right or absolutely
wrong. The ideas of relativism and absolutism are explored in more detail in
Chapter 1, but for now it is worth reminding ourselves that the act utilitarian is
interested only in working out how to bring about the good in each individual
situation. Thus, meat-eating may be morally acceptable on this view if a
research scientist, close to curing cancer, needs to eat a healthy dog in order to
survive long enough to pass his research on. On the other hand, eating a turkey
burger produced cheaply and with much suffering to the animal may not be
justifiable because the pleasure associated with consumption is so minimal.
These are, of course, “cardboard cut-out” cases, some distance from real-world
ethical decision making in the context of Act Utilitarianism and eating animals.
However, it will be of far greater benefit for you to consider the range of cases
in which Act Utilitarianism may speak against eating animals, and the range
of cases in which Act Utilitarianism will speak in favour of eating animals, in
order for you to form either a robust critique or defence of the application of
this theory in this applied context. Does Act Utilitarianism seem to provide the
right sort of decision procedure, with the right sorts of conclusions?
4, Challenges to Bentham
One challenge to Bentham’s act utilitarian view may be based upon the idea
that the making of a moral distinction between animals and human beings
is far from arbitrary and that there is a difference between such a “speciesist”
(Peter Singer made this term famous) distinction and discriminatory thought-
processes such as racism and sexism. Perhaps it is the case that the pleasures
and pains of human beings are worth more, in virtue of our intellect or our
capacity for higher-order thinking and experience.
However, we should be cautious when responding to Bentham in this way.
Consider an elderly human being who is suffering from dementia, or a two-
month-old baby, or a patient in a Persistent Vegetative State (as discussed in
Chapter 7). All three of these individuals would seem to be lacking in rational
capacity to fairly serious levels. To this end, in the portion of text removed
from original Bentham quote, Bentham says that a “full-grown horse or dog
is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal,
than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old”.® Thus, those who
seek to draw a line in the sand in terms of rationality, a line that separates
human beings from animals, a line that might justify eating those below the
line but not those above the line, are faced with a seemingly insurmountable
dilemma — either rationality is morally relevant and so some humans lack
6 Ibid.
wn
1S)
:
|
a
za
[al
a
wi
<
moral standing, or rationality is not morally relevant and this attempt to
separate humans from animals is a failure.
In order to overcome this problem, a potentiality argument may be put
forward. Since babies of two months have the potential to become more rational
than they currently are, and since this applies to dementia patients and PVS
patients also if successful treatment could be discovered and administered,
then the morally relevant line in the sand between humans and animals may
be redrawn on the basis that all humans have potentially higher rational skills
that any non-human animal has.
However, Singer has a clever response to this potentiality suggestion, which
is clear if we consider the powers of Prince Charles. Whilst he is a potential
king, Prince Charles is currently only a prince. This means that, at the moment,
he has only the rights of a prince, not a king. He will not earn kingly rights
until he actually becomes a king. Analogously, although a two-month-old is
potentially more rational than a dog or a horse, they should not acquire any
extra moral consideration until that potential is actualised. Therefore, any
attempt to morally separate animals and humans on grounds of rationality
or intellect is again seemingly confronted by the dilemma as stated in the
previous paragraph.
5. Utilitarian Reasons for Eating Animals
The previous two sections should make clear that for utilitarians such as
Bentham and Singer, there will be times when it is morally wrong to eat animals;
when the pain associated with eating animals outweighs any corresponding
pleasure. It is worth noting, however, that Singer is very clear that eating
animals can be entirely morally justifiable, and not just in extremely unlikely
situations. It is true that Singer is scornful of the moral acceptability of eating
factory-farmed foods, as the following quote suggests:
These arguments [relating to the moral relevance of pains afflicting animals] apply to
animals who have been reared in factory farms — which means that we should not eat chicken,
pork or veal, unless we know that the meat we are eating was not produced by factory farm
methods.’
Singer also objects to the consumption of eggs that are not sourced from free-
range chickens; the same would presumably apply to the eating of the chicken
itself. However, this type of objection to the eating of particular animals, in
particular conditions, does point us towards the situations in which meat-
eating may be morally acceptable to a preference utilitarian such as Singer.
7 P. Singer, ‘Equality for Animals?’, p. 174.
If chickens, for example, are allowed to roam freely, before being painlessly
killed (something that seems entirely possible, even if this is not what is
always achieved in reality), then the balance of preference satisfaction may
swing in favour of the hungry family seeking a healthy diet and away from the
continued existence of the chicken itself — chickens, as those who deal with
them will know, are unlikely to have the mental capacity to have long running
future preferences that will go unfulfilled if their lives are cut short.
Indeed, even Bentham himself supported the idea of eating animals, despite
all that was suggested earlier. Animals farmed and killed, thought Bentham,
may suffer far less pain than animals left to die in the harsh reality of the
unmanaged wilderness. Well-managed and quickly administered slaughter
may lead to less pain than starvation, disease or violent death after the attack
of a predator.
In an ever changing world, where the practices associated with animal
slaughter vary from company to company and culture to culture, the
utilitarian cannot provide a clear-cut answer on the general acceptability of
eating animals. Singer sums this up when he says that:
[...] the important question is not whether animal flesh could be produced without suffering, but
whether the flesh we are considering buying was produced without suffering. Unless we can be
confident that it was, the principle of equal consideration of interests implies that it was wrong to
sacrifice important interests of the animal in order to satisfy less important interests of our own;
consequently we should boycott the end result of this process.§
The various criticisms applied to Utilitarianism in Chapter 1 — objections
based on demandingness, or based on issues of calculation of pleasures or
preferences, for example — are not irrelevant in this chapter. However, for
the sake of avoiding repetition, you should consider the application of these
criticisms yourself when coming to your view regarding the potential success
of utilitarian (act and preference) responses to eating animals.
Given the previous comments, it may be suggested that the lack of
discussion of Mill and Rule Utilitarianism, as well as a discussion of higher
and lower pleasures, is a critical omission from this chapter. In a sense, we
agree. However, once the issues regarding the application of Utilitarianism
to the act of eating animals have been set out as above, then applying rule-
utilitarian-style thinking should be a far easier task. For now, the following
issues are suggested for consideration.
1. Is meat-eating a higher or lower pleasure? Does it make a difference
if lamb is consumed in a greasy-spoon café, or if it is prepared by a
8 Ibid., p. 175.
wn
1S)
:
|
Q
za
lal
Bs
wi
<
world-renowned chef? Should the moral acceptability of eating an
animal turn on the way in which an animal is prepared for consumption?
2. Are animals worth less than humans because they cannot access higher
pleasures?
3. Would an outright ban on factory farming be a rule that, if universalised,
would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number? What other
rules might be advocated by a rule utilitarian in this applied ethical
setting?
Answering these questions, in the light of the discussion in both this chapter
and Chapter 1, should provide a solid grasp of utilitarian thinking in this area.
6. Kantian Ethics and Eating Animals
According to Immanuel Kant, a human being is “[...] a being altogether
different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with
which one may deal and dispose at one’s discretion”.’ Of course, the idea
that humans have no responsibility to animals, and therefore may seemingly
consume them at will, is open to the same objections as outlined in section
4. However, putting those concerns to one side, it may then seem as though
Kant has given us a usefully clear statement of his ethical thinking as it may be
applied in this context.
Kant is clear that we have no Direct Duties towards animals because the
eating of animals does not fall foul of the two formulations of the Categorical
Imperative as explored in Chapter 2. The eating of animals can become a
universal law, as there is no issue with either conceiving this action as being
universalised or willing the universalising of this action. In addition, eating
animals does not itself entail the treating of another person merely as a means
to an end (and Kant is clear that animals exist themselves only as a mean to an
end’°). Of course, we may treat a person merely as a means to an end in seeking
to secure food, but there is nothing necessary about this taking place when
animals are consumed. Thus, eating animals will generally be permissible
and will only be impermissible when we act wrongly towards a fellow human
being in securing our food — the animal itself is not relevant to the assessment
of our duty.
Yet, for all of the above, Kant does encourage us to treat animals with care
and concern rather than with no consideration at all, despite our lack of a
direct duty to care for them. Kant says of a person that “[if] he is not to stifle
9 I. Kant, Lectures on Anthropology.
10 I. Kant, ‘We Have no Duties to Animals’, p. 395.
his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who
is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men”.'' Those who
are needlessly cruel to animals, who kill wantonly or who treat animals with
scant regard for their suffering, become familiar with this approach to life and
will be, as a result, less likely to act in accordance with duty in their dealings
with other human beings. Our duty to animals, says Kant, is therefore indirect
rather than direct — it exists only in so far as it pays out in our dealings with
our fellow humans.
In terms of applying this line of thought to eating animals, Kant would have
no objection so long as we were not cruel or unkind in our approach. Perhaps
it is the case that the eating of factory-farmed foods could be considered an
act, or an endorsement of, cruelty. In any case, it seems that, rather ironically,
Singer and Kant end up in much the same position when it comes to advice
regarding how to act in the sphere of eating animals.
It is worthwhile noting, finally, that contemporary Kantians such as
Christine Korsgaard (1952-) have objected to Kant’s own disregarding of the
notion of Direct Duties towards animals. Korsgaard does not accept that it
is permissible or acceptable to treat a pain-experiencing creature merely as a
means to an end, since “[...] it is a pain to be in pain. And that is not a trivial
fact”.’* It therefore may be an open question whether Kantians should allow
for Direct Duties to animals, even if Kant himself did not.
7. Virtue Ethics and Eating Animals
Being an agent-centred moral theory, it would be a misunderstanding of Virtue
Ethics to expect absolute moral answers on the ethical acceptability of eating
animals. Rather than attempting to make ethical judgments on the morality of
specific instances of eating animals, Virtue Ethics instead opts to discuss the
dispositions and character traits associated with virtuous people, who then
may provide guidance when it comes to whether or not the virtuous person
would eat no animals at all, just some animals, or all animals on offer.
From the explanation of Virtue Ethics offered in Chapter 3, we should
draw the following important lesson from the outset. It is not possible that
vegetarianism could be a virtue in and of itself, since vegetarianism is a way
of life rather than a character trait or a disposition. Rather, if we are to follow
virtue-ethical thinking, we should ask in what circumstances and at what
times would a disposition to refrain from eating meat be virtuous, and when
such a disposition might be labelled as a vice of excess or deficiency.
11 Ibid.
12. C. Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity, p. 154.
Rosalind Hursthouse draws interesting comparisons between the
arguments of Singer in this area and the approach of the virtue ethicist.’*
Hursthouse suggests that Singer, in arguing against cruelty to animals from
his preference utilitarian perspective, provides evidence in favour of the
view that the eating of animals will often reflect a vice-like character trait
rather than a virtuous character trait. Given that many of us are aware, when
we purchase our meat, that the animal in question may have led a rather
unpleasant existence, our willingness to ignore this information hardly coheres
neatly with exercising the virtuous mean of compassion in the sphere of life
of shopping or making dietary decisions; wilful ignorance may be viewed as
vice of deficiency.
The example above of shopping in the value aisle for our food puts the
issue of eating animals into a particular setting, perhaps the choice of cheap
chicken for dinner rather than a more expensive and less attractive vegetarian
alternative. However, it is not difficult to conceive of a situation in which
meat-eating might be considered to be the result of a virtuous characteristic,
such as the eating of an animal in order to promote the health of your children
when other options are unavailable (perhaps through economic factors). In
this setting, a stubborn commitment to vegetarianism over and above a clear-
headed recognition of the needs of your children may represent an action
based on a vice of excess. (Roger Scruton is one virtue ethicist who speaks of
the virtue of meat-eating; his ideas are worth exploring for a slightly different
virtue-ethical response to this issue)."*
Of course, rather than the specific study of virtuous responses in two
outlined cases, it would be useful to have more general guidance. Again,
focussing on promoting compassionate rather than cruel decision-making
when it comes to choosing whether or not to eat animals, Hursthouse says:
[...] we need a substantial change in our outlook to get any further — in virtue ethicists’ terms,
a clearly seen and effective recognition of the fact that human beings, and thereby human lives,
are not only interwoven with each other but with the rest of nature. Then, and only then, will we
apply virtue ethics correctly to what we are doing.’°
Aristotle was more concerned with the application of the virtues as they pertained
to human conduct, but human flourishing is supposed to be a whole-life process
and it is therefore not without motivation to focus on our dispositions towards
animals as Hursthouse does. Whether this guidance is an accurate interpretation
13 R. Hursthouse, ‘Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals’, http://www.
hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Hursthouse_Essay.pdf
14 R. Scruton, ‘Eat Animals! It’s for Their Own Good’, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-25/local/
me-54_1_animal-rights
15 R. Hursthouse, ‘Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals’, p. 154, http://www.
hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Hursthouse_Essay.pdf
of Aristotelian ideas, or whether it is an independently advantageous extension
of Aristotelian ideas, is something that is worth reflecting on in the context of
the virtues as actually outlined by Aristotle, and provided in Chapter 3. A key
question to answer is whether or not Hursthouse’s reasoning is in line with core
Aristotelian thinking, or has she created a rival version of Virtue Ethics?
Of the criticisms that might be applied to Virtue Ethics, the objection from
unclear guidance may seem highly troubling, even in spite of the ideas above.
Considering the following three issues may help you to clarify your thoughts
as to the practical usefulness of Virtue Ethics for deciding how to act in this
setting.
1. Who are the virtuous role models from whom we can learn when it
comes to eating animals? TV chefs, who speak of “doing justice to the
animal” when cooking it? Vegetarian campaigners? Peter Singer?
2. TV presenters such as Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford are often dropped
into inhospitable locations for our entertainment, and can only survive
by killing animals for food. Does their killing reflect a virtue, or a vice?
3. Angela is a vegetarian who is eating with a friend at a highly expensive
restaurant. Angela’s friend has paid for dinner, and has chosen the
courses to eat. One dish involves the eating of carefully prepared duck.
Would it be virtuous for Angela to eat the duck, or to stand by her
beliefs even in an extreme situation? (It is worth researching Singer’s
idea of the “Paris Exemption” to develop your answer.)
If you can answer these questions, you should feel more confident in terms of
your ability to apply virtue ethical thinking to the issue of eating animals.
8. Cora Diamond
To conclude this chapter, we will briefly reflect on the ideas of Cora Diamond,
who offers a perspective on the ethical acceptability of eating animals that
stands apart from the normative ethical theory-based views hitherto discussed
(AQA also recommend reading Diamond’s article).’° Much of the focus in this
chapter has been on the question of whether animals are morally relevant, or
whether they have rights to the same degree as humans when it comes to
considering the ethical acceptability of consuming them. Diamond objects
to this approach entirely and does not seek to criticise the morality of eating
animals via talk of moral rights; she has a different kind of criticism altogether.
16 C.Diamond, ‘Eating Meat and Eating People’, http://www.laurentillinghast.com/DiamondEatingMeat.
pdf
For Diamond, the notion of “moral rights” for animals is irrelevant when it
comes to explaining the moral acceptability of eating animals, because we make
decisions in other spheres of life that eating certain entities is unacceptable
without any associated talk of rights. Specifically, Diamond suggests that our
aversion to eating the human dead is not based on the moral right of the dead
body not to be eaten, but because we feel uncomfortable at the very mention of
the possibility of consuming human dead bodies, or amputated human limbs.
This uncomfortableness is explained not by talk of rights, but by the idea that
“a person is not something to eat”. This is a thought that comes about because
of the nature of our interactions with human beings and human body parts in
our lives.'”
Extending this line of thinking to the issue of eating animals, Diamond
takes issue with the following line of argument:
If
You would not eat human beings
and
You would not eat your pets
then
You should not eat other animals (at least higher primates, perhaps) because there is no
meaningful difference between such animals and things that you would not eat.
For Diamond, such an argument is extremely unpersuasive. This is because it
misses, in its cold and logical form, the fact that pets, like dead human bodies
and amputated human limbs, are also not things to be eaten. As Diamond
says, pets are given names, we let them into our houses and we interact with
them in ways that we do not with wild animals. Wild animals may be things
to eat, just as a chicken on display in a supermarket is something for me to eat
whereas my own chickens in the garden are not.
This approach may be appealing to a non-cognitivist, anti-realist
interpretation of moral thought and moral talk (these theories are explained
in Chapter 6). We might wonder if the cries of the campaigner regarding the
moral status of certain animals as “things not to eat” are designed to pick
up on genuinely existing moral properties in the world as the cognitivist or
realist would like, or whether these calls reflect a non-cognitivist, perhaps an
emotivist-style, attitude.
However, Diamond herself holds a vegetarian position that she thinks can
be advanced, not by cold and logical arguments as previously identified, and
not by talk of moral rights, but by reshaping our relationship with animals
to add to the list of things not to be eaten. To this end, Diamond offers a Jane
17 _ Ibid., p. 468.
Legge poem, Learning to be a Dutiful Carnivore, as an exemplar of tactics that
may be far more effective for securing movements towards vegetarianism:
Dogs and cats and goats and cows,
Ducks and chickens, sheep and sows
Woven into tales for tots,
Pictured on their walls and pots.
Time for dinner! Come and eat
All your lovely, juicy meat.
One day ham from Percy Porker
(In the comics he’s a corker),
Then the breast from Mrs Cluck
Or the wing from Donald Duck.
Liver next from Clara Cow
(No, it doesn’t hurt her now).
Yes, that leg’s from Peter Rabbit
Chew it well; make that a habit.
Eat the creatures killed for sale,
But never pull the pussy’s tail.
Eat the flesh from “filthy hogs”
But never be unkind to dogs.
Grow up into double-think
Kiss the hamster; skin the mink.
Never think of slaughter, dear,
That’s why animals are here.
They only come on earth to die,
So eat your meat, and don’t ask why."
This poem, says Diamond, does not preach a form of behaviour, but instead
challenges assumed beliefs regarding which animals are acceptable sources
of food and which are not. If we view animals as fellow creatures rather than
as objects for consumption, then we may change our relationship with them
such that killing and eating them will seem as out of bounds as consuming a
dead human being. Cannibalism is not always viewed as being morally wrong,
of course, as difficult situations will change our perspective; most of the time,
however, we recoil at this possible act without the need for formal utilitarian
or Kantian justifications.
Diamond’s paper is worth your careful attention, and she responds to a
challenge that her line of argument opposing unethical treatment of animals
might create unfortunate analogies with ways in which we should oppose
sexism and racism. In cases of sexism and racism, we might hope that moral
rights justify fair and equal treatment, rather than the mere fact that we might
happen to see people as fellow creatures (a fact that appears to depend on us,
18 Ibid., pp. 472-73.
&
©
-
S
<
op
iS]
As
is)
sa]
and not the person who should have the moral right). We might suggest that
our recoiling at racial discrimination follows from the moral right a person
has, not that our recoiling is what makes such discrimination morally wrong.
Whether you find Diamond’s approach compelling or not matters more, in
all likelihood, than whether you agree with her conclusions; if her method is
sound, then does this show a weakness in the approaches of the normative
theories based on reference to rights or duties?
n
1S)
:
I
a
=
[el
Bs
wi
<
SUMMARY
Few moral theorists will claim that eating animals is absolutely
and completely acceptable in all circumstances and at all times.
Even Kant recoiled at the idea of cruelty to animals in spite of
his expressed denial that humans possess any duty towards
animals. This fact suggests that conclusions regarding the ethical
acceptability of eating animals may often be determined by
empirical and real-world data regarding the preferences, pains
or pleasures of animals and the impact of the processes of rearing
and then slaughtering animals for human consumption. The
real-world situation is constantly in flux, but this chapter should
provide you with the moral framework into which real-world
research can be plugged, in order to explain the different key
theories, as well as coming to your own viewpoint.
COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES
* Over-simplifying Kant’s position on animals — no Direct Duties does
not mean no duties at all towards animals.
* Completely avoiding metaethical issues that may be relevant to
criticising moral positions — such as the Open Question Argument
against a naturalistic utilitarian who associates goodness with pleasure
(see Chapter 6).
* Claiming that the issue of eating animals must turn on the issue of
equal consideration of interests and the rights of animals, without
considering the argument of Diamond.
° Failing to give due consideration to Emotivism and/or Prescriptivism
as non-cognitive ways of interpreting this debate.
° Falling into the total vegetarianism versus total meat-eating narrative
without drawing deeper distinctions as to when meat-eating might be
acceptable and when it might not be.
“2)
—_
is}
&
5
<
op
=|
os!
is)
ee
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
Some questions are provided at the ends of sections 5 and 7.
1. Moral statements regarding the acceptability of eating animals are
often emotional. Does this mean the emotivist explanation is the best
explanation?
2. Do all animals deserve equal consideration of interests? Do only some
animals? Which ones?
3. Should we expect clear moral answers when it comes to the
acceptability of eating animals?
4. Does moral disagreement in this applied ethical area lend support to
Anti-Realism?
5. How much of this moral issue turns on empirical data regarding the
treatment of animals before slaughter?
6. Should you apply your favoured normative moral theory in order to
find the correct conclusion in this ethical area, or should you check
your favoured normative moral theory to see if it gets it right in this
ethical area?
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Speciesism Direct Duties
Equal consideration of Indirect Duties
interests
n
iS)
—
an
aa
ee
QO
=
|e
a
Pu
xq
<
References
Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,
freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.
html
Bible, New International Version, freely available at https://www.
biblegateway.com/
Diamond, Cora, ‘Eating Meat and Eating People’, Philosophy, 53.206 (1978):
465-79, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819100026334;, freely available at
http://www.laurentillinghast.com/DiamondEatingMeat.pdf
Hursthouse, Rosalind, ‘Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other
Animals’, in The Practice of Virtue: Classic and Contemporary Readings in
Virtue Ethics, ed. by Jennifer Welchman (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing,
2006), pp. 136-55, freely available at http://www.hackettpublishing.com/
pdfs/Hursthouse_Essay.pdf
Kant, Immanuel, ‘We Have No Duties to Animals’, in Ethical Theory, ed. by
Russ Shafer-Landau (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 395-96.
—, Lectures on Anthropology, ed. by Allen Wood and Robert Loudon
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Korsgaard, Christine, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511554476
Scruton, Roger, ‘Eat Animals! It’s for Their Own Good’, Los Angeles Times (25
July 1991), freely available at http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-25/local/
me-54_1_animal-rights
Singer, Peter, ‘Equality for Animals?’, in Ethics, Humans and Other Animals:
An Introduction with Readings, ed. by Rosalind Hursthouse (London:
Routledge, 2000), pp. 169-79.
Tolstoy, Leo, Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence (Philadelphia:
New Society Publishers, 1988).
Glossary
Absolutist: A normative moral theory is absolutist, rather than relativistic,
when it suggests that an action is wrong (or right) in all circumstances, without
exception. For example, murder might be thought to be absolutely wrong,
irrespective of any circumstances.
Act-centred: A normative moral theory that associates moral rightness/
wrongness with actions (e.g. Utilitarianism).
Active euthanasia: If a person is actively euthanised it means that their death
was caused by external intervention rather than natural causes, most likely
through a lethal injection or the voluntary swallowing of a deadly cocktail of
drugs.
Act Utilitarianism: See Consequentialism.
Agape: Greek word meaning “love”. Refers to the love of God for humans and
humans for God. The “highest” form of love. Agdpé, as discussed by Fletcher, is
an attitude and not a feeling, one which does not expect anything in return and
does not give any special considerations to anyone.
Agape calculus: Introduced by Fletcher. The claim that we ought to always act
so as to bring about the most love for the most people.
Agent-centred: A normative moral theory that associates moral rightness/
wrongness with people (e.g. Virtue Ethics).
Agent-Neutrality: The view that moral decisions should be made without
special weighting being given to personal feelings.
Anal stage: The second stage of Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory
roughly from one and a half to three years old. Pleasure is gained through
controlling going to the toilet. This stage is about gaining control of one’s body,
and it starts with controlling the bladder and bowels (being potty trained).
Antinomianism: The term introduced by Fletcher which says that morally an
agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation.
Anti-Realism: Simply the denial of Realism. Anti-realists deny the existence
of any mind-independent, objective, moral properties.
235
Glossary
236
Glossary
Apparent good: Introduced by Aquinas when discussing his Natural Law
Theory. An apparent good is when a secondary precept is out of line with the
Natural Law so we are not morally required to follow it.
A priori: Knowledge gained through reason alone, without needing to test/
experience the world.
A posteriori: Knowledge gained as a result of experience of the world.
Attitudinal Hedonism: The theory of well-being which holds that what
makes a life go well is entirely determined by the amount of pleasure a person
experiences where pleasure is understood as an attitudinal state (ie. taking
pleasure in something) rather than a sensation. Fred Feldman is a defender of
this view.
Belief: A psychological state. If you believe something, then you take that
something to be true.
Biting-the-bullet: The argumentative strategy of simply accepting an
apparently awkward conclusion as a non-fatal implication of a theory.
“Boo/hurrah” theory: See Emotivism.
Categorical Imperative: Kant’s supreme principle of morality. Using this we
can work out how we ought to behave. It is a command (imperative) which
should be followed irrespective of the consequences (categorical).
“st
Categorical Imperative 1: Universalization: “...act only according to that
maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal
law”.!
Categorical Imperative 2: Means and ends: “So act that you use humanity, in
your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time
as an end, never merely as a means” .*
“sl
Categorical Imperative 3: Kingdom of ends: “...every rational being must
so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking member in the
universal kingdom of ends”.°
Cognitivism, Psychological: Not to be confused with Realism. It suggests
that when we make moral claims of the form “murder is wrong” or “helping
others is right” we are giving voice to our beliefs, rather than our non-belief
states such as emotions.
1 I. Kant, Moral Law, p. 15.
2 Ibid., p. 66.
3 Ibid., p. 21.
Cognitivism, Semantic: Not to be confused with Realism. It suggests that
when we make moral claims of the form “murder is wrong” or “helping others
is right” our claims can be true or false (what philosophers call truth-apt).
Conscience (Aquinas): For Aquinas conscience is morally neutral, it simply
“bears witness”, and it is a “sign-post” to what is right and wrong. It is not a
source of moral knowledge. This means that for Aquinas conscience is fallible.
He calls it the “application of knowledge to activity”.
Conscience (Freud): For Freud the conscience is the form that the super-
ego takes in addressing the ego. This understanding of “conscience” can be
thought of as synonymous with the “guilty conscience”.
Consequentialism: A normative moral theory that states that the moral value
of an action is determined wholly by the consequences of that action (e.g. Act
Utilitarianism).
Demandingness objection: A challenge to Utilitarianism. If it is not the
case that pleasure needs to be merely promoted but actually maximised at all
opportunities, then an extremely high bar is set.
Deontological: A normative moral theory that focuses on duty rather than
outcomes.
Direct Duties: Used in discussion of Kantian ethics. Direct Duties are those
duties arrived at via a formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
Dispositions: In respect of Virtue Ethics, dispositions are tendencies in our
psychology. For example, I may have the disposition to be angry if someone
steals from me, or the disposition to be forgiving if someone steals from me.
Divine Command Theory: The metaethical view that what is right/wrong is
what is commanded/forbidden by God.
Divine Law: Introduced by Aquinas as part of his Natural Law Theory. The
Divine Law is discovered through revelation. Divine laws are those that God
has, in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those “mysteries”, those rules
given by God which we find in scripture; for example, the ten commandments.
Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE): Introduced by Aquinas in Summa Theologica.
If an act fulfils four conditions then it is morally acceptable. If not, then it is not.
The first is that the act must be a good one; the second is that the act must come
about before the consequences; the third is that the intention must be good; the
fourth, it must be for serious reasons.
237
Glossary
238
Glossary
Ego: On of the three parts of the mind according to Freud. The “ego” polices
the id to allow a person’s social interaction in the world.
Electra omplex: In Jungian psychoanalysis, the name given to the unconscious
desire experienced by girls to have a sexual relationship with their fathers, and
consequently being in competition with their mothers.
Emotivism: A metaethical theory. A form of Psychological Non-Cognitivism
that holds that moral judgements are expressions of the speaker’s emotions
rather than a description of anything. This is not to be confused with
subjectivism or relativism (sometimes referred to as the “boo/hurrah” theory).
Empirical: A method for gaining knowledge that requires sense-experience
and interaction with the world as studied by science.
Epistemology: The philosophical study of knowledge. Questions might
include, “What is knowledge?”; “Can we know something a priori”? “What
can we know?”
Eternal Law: Introduced by Aquinas when discussing his Natural Law Theory.
God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. The Eternal Law is part of
God’s mind it has always, and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply
something that God decided at some point to write.
Eudaimonia: The Aristotelian idea of “the good life”; best translated as
“flourishing”.
Euthanasia: The act of seeking to provide a good death for a person who
otherwise might be faced with a much more unpleasant death (see also
voluntary/non-voluntary and passive/active euthanasia).
Euthyphro dilemma: A challenge to Divine Command Theory (DCT).
Introduced by Plato in his dialogue Euthyphro, it suggests there are two
questions you can ask about DCT, but each answer that can be given is
problematic. The questions: (i) is something good because God commands it.
Or (ii) does God command it because it is Good.
Felicific Calculus: See Hedonic Calculus.
Guilt: Freud uses this term to refer to the feeling that arises when our conscience
requires certain things from us which we fail to achieve.
Golden Mean: In Virtue Ethics, the morally virtuous middle way between the
vices of excess and deficiency.
Good will: The Kantian idea of our specific will which is good through its
willing alone rather than what it effects or accomplishes.
Harm principle: John Stuart Mill’s principle that: “The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant” .*
Hedonic Calculus: Jeremy Bentham’s way of calculating the pleasure/pain
associated with a possible future action.
Hedonism: A theory of well-being which hold that improves a person/s life
is entirely determined by the amount of pleasure that person experiences; no
other factors are relevant at all.
Higher and lower pleasures: Distinction made by Mill between the quality of
pleasure. Higher pleasures are those pleasures of the intellect brought about
via activities like poetry, reading or attending the theatre. Lower pleasures are
animalistic and base; pleasures associated with drinking beer, having sex or
lazing on a sun-lounger.
Humean Theory of Motivation: The view that motivation only arises when
a belief combines with an appropriately related desire — where desire takes
the lead role. Further it is the view that beliefs and desires are distinct mental
states such that a belief cannot entail a desire.
Hume’s fork: Hume divided knowledge into two camps — knowledge gained
from relations of ideas and knowledge gained from matters of fact.
Hypothetical Imperative: A command that applies to someone only because
of the desires/wants of the agent, e.g. you ought to go for a run if you want to
get fit.
Id: One of the three parts of the mind according to Freud. Id is the collection
of our primal drives, e.g. the basic desires for food, sex, drink and is the oldest
part of the mind. The id cannot be properly formalized or understood and
Freud likens it to chaos.
Indirect Duties: Discussed in relation to Kantian ethics. A duty we owe to X
(for example, animals, the environment) is in fact a duty we owe to humans.
E.g. we have an indirect duty towards animals because if we treat animals
badly then we will not uphold our duties towards humans.
4 J. S. Mill, On Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html
239
Glossary
240
Glossary
Intrinsic: Something is intrinsically good if it is essentially or necessarily good,
just in and of itself; it does not rely on anything else for it to be good.
Intuitionism: A view in moral Epistemology that holds that there is at least
one moral belief, and possibly many, that are self-evidently justifiable. This
does not rule out other ways of justifying moral claims, nor does it mean that
intuitionists believe judges to be infallible.
Invincible ignorance: From Aquinas. Ignorance that cannot be overcome
through the use of reason. Doing something wrong when they could not have
known better.
“Is/ought” gap: The supposed problem of deriving an “ought” (prescriptive)
claim from a (descriptive) claim.
Latency stage: The fourth stage in Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual
Development, roughly from six to the onset of puberty. At this stage sexual
desire is repressed. There are no new sexual desires formed. Girls plays with
girls in order to learn the role of a girl and boys play with boys in order to
learn about the role of boys.
Legalism: Term used by Fletcher to refer to a system of ethics such that someone
in that system “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the
situation.
Maxim: A general principle or rule upon which we act.
Mature genital stage: Fifth and final stage of Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual
Development.
Moral Error Theory: Combination of Semantic Non-Cognitivism, Anti-
Realism and the Truth-maker Theory of Truth. The conclusion is that all
moral claims that we make are systematically and uniformly false.
Natural Law: Introduced by Aquinas when discussing his Natural Law Theory.
When humans act in accordance with their purpose/function of reason then
they act according to the Natural Law (see primary precepts and secondary
precepts).
Naturalism, Realism: The view that moral properties exist and are as natural
as those properties discussed and examined in the sciences.
Naturalistic Fallacy: According to G. E. Moore, the idea that moral properties
can be reduced to natural properties. Moore believes that one commits the
naturalistic fallacy by claiming that goodness = pleasure/happiness/preference
satisfaction.
Nihilism: Associated with theories that try to eliminate values. For example,
Moral Error Theory can be labelled nihilistic because it denies the existence of
any moral values in the world.
Non-belief state: A psychological state that is not related to taking something
to be true. It is typically thought to be anon-descriptive or non-representational
state. For example, an emotional state such as joy, or anger.
Non-Cognitivism, Psychological: When we make moral claims of the form
“murder is wrong” or “helping others is right” we are not giving voice to our
beliefs, we are rather expressing our non-belief states such as emotions.
Non-Cognitivism, Semantic: When we make moral claims of the form
“murder is wrong” or “helping others is right” our claims are neither true nor
false. They are not truth-apt.
Non-Naturalism: The view that if moral properties exist they could not show
up on the scientific picture of what exists.
Non-voluntary euthanasia: Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a decision
regarding premature and merciful death is made for one person by another
person, because the person to be euthanised is unable to make a decision for
themselves.
Normative: A normative moral theory is a theory designed to provide guidance
for how to behave/live.
Neurosis: Term used by Freud to refer to when the super-ego fails to deal
correctly with the id. In particular, when the pleasure principle is repressed.
Objective List Theory: A theory of well-being which hold that what makes a
life go well is determined by a list of items (e.g. loving relationships, meaningful
knowledge, autonomy).
Oedipus complex: In psychoanalysis, the name given to the unconscious
desire of a child to have a sexual relationship with a parent of the opposite sex;
most likely this is expressed as a boy’s sexual attraction to his mother.
Open Question Argument: Put forward by G. E. Moore. It attacks naturalist
realist positions in Metaethics. It holds that if moral properties (e.g. goodness)
are natural properties (e.g. pleasure) then moral terms (e.g. “goodness”) must
be synonymous with natural terms (e.g. “pleasure”). However, it is always an
open question — the answer is not obvious to us — to ask whether a moral
term means the same as a natural term. This means that moral terms are not
synonymous with natural terms. This means that moral properties cannot be
identical with natural properties.
241
Glossary
242
Glossary
Oral stage: First stage in Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development, from
birth to about one and a half. This stage is where babies get pleasure through
putting things in their mouth, pleasure in biting, chewing and sucking.
Palliative care: “If you have an illness that can’t be cured, palliative care makes
you as comfortable as possible, by managing your pain and other distressing
symptoms. It also involves psychological, social and spiritual support for you
and your family or carers. This is called a holistic approach, because it deals
with you as a “whole” person”.”
Paradox of Tragedy: Also known as the paradox of negative emotions. Not a
genuine paradox. The oddity that in real life negative emotions are not desired
whereas in other contexts, such as horror films, roller-coasters, dramas they
are desired.
Passive euthanasia: Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to
die due to the deliberate withdrawal of treatment that might keep them alive.
Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): A state of being in which a person is
biologically alive, but shows no sign of psychological interaction with the
world. The state is labelled persistent when it is unlikely this condition will
alter through any treatment.
Phallic stage: Freud’s third stage in his Theory of Psychosexual Development;
roughly from three to six years. It is about discovering one’s genitals, and
importantly that they are different in men and women. This stage is where
Freud thinks we develop the Oedipus, and the Electra complex. A problem
moving through this stage will cause problems with intimacy in later life.
Phronesis: From Aristotelian ethics referring to “practical wisdom”. Arguably
the most important virtuous disposition or character trait.
Pleasure Principle: Idea put forward by Freud. This is the claim that what
identifies and unifies the drives of the id is the avoidance of pain and pursuit
of pleasure.
Preference Utilitarianism: A non-hedonistic version of Utilitarianism. The
greatest good for the greatest number cannot be reduced to pleasure in either
raw or higher forms. Instead, what makes a life go better for a person is entirely
determined by the satisfaction of their preferences (e.g. defended by Peter Singer).
5 NHS definition, http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/end-of-life-care/Pages/what-it-involves-and-when-it-
starts.aspx
Prescriptivism: A metaethical theory claiming that our moral utterances
express more than just emotional approval and disapproval. Instead, our moral
utterances express a subjective prescription for others to act in accordance
with our moral judgments (e.g. Hare).
Prima Facie: “On first impression/look” or “At first glance/appearance’”.
Primary Precepts: Introduced as part of Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory. They
are overarching general rules. They are absolute and binding on all rational
agents. His examples are: protect and preserve human life; reproduce and
educate one’s offspring; know and worship God; live in a society.
Principle of Charity: An argumentative strategy of granting one’s opponent
to be rational and giving the strongest interpretation of their argument.
Principle of Utility: The principle that an action is moral if and only if it leads
to the greatest good for the greatest number. Associated with Utilitarianism.
Problem of Parity: A challenge to Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism does not allow
you to give extra moral weight to the life of a loved one (see Agent-Neutrality).
Queer: The idea of J. L. Mackie, associated with Moral Error Theory. Something
is queer if it is utterly unlike any other existing property/entity.
Ratio: Aquinas’s term for the reason that helps discover the Natural Laws.
Realism: The view that moral properties exists independently of human
beings and can be located in the world.
Relativistic: A normative moral theory is relativistic, rather than absolutist,
when it allows that an action can be moral in one situation but immoral in
another situation. For example, the morality of stealing might be thought to be
relative to the situation in which stealing takes place.
Real Good: Introduced by Aquinas when discussing his Natural Law Theory.
A real good is when a secondary precept is accordance with the Natural Law
and consequently we are morally required to follow it.
Rule-Utilitarianism: The view that should create a set of rules that, if followed,
would produce the greatest amount of total happiness (e.g. defended by John
Stuart Mill). See also, Strong and Weak Rule Utilitarianism.
Sanctity of Life: The idea that life holds absolute value, very likely justified by
the idea that life is God-given.
243
Glossary
244
Glossary
Secondary Precepts: Introduced by Aquinas when discussing the Natural
Law Theory. Secondary precepts are not generated by our reason but rather they
are imposed by governments, groups, clubs, societies etc. Examples, might
include: do not drive above 70mph on a motorway; do not kidnap people;
always wear a helmet when riding a bike; do not hack into someone’s bank
account.
Semantic: Semantic concerns are concerns about words and their meanings; it
relates to a focus on language and meaning.
Speciesism: Term introduced by Peter Singer. The claim that treating non-
human animals differently from humans based purely on the arbitrary fact
that they are from one species rather than another is morally wrong. Singer
takes it to be morally equivalent to treating another person differently based
on a difference in gender (sexism) or in race (racism).
Straw-man: A straw-man argument is an argument phrased deliberately in its
weakest form, so that it is easy to defeat. Straw-men arguments allow a person
to avoid arguing with a difficult objection on “level ground”.
Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Guidance from the set of rules that, if followed,
would promote the greatest amount of total happiness must always be followed.
Super-ego: One of the three parts of the mind according to Freud. The super-
ego is the voice of authority issuing prohibitions, inhibitions and moral
constraints.
Synderesis: Term introduced by Aquinas. Synderesis is not the same as
conscience but is the innate ability of the mind (a habit of the mind) to apprehend
the eternal/Divine laws.
Teleological: A teleological normative theory is one concerned with
consequences (e.g. Utilitarianism).
Teleologist: Someone who holds that every object has a final cause/goal/end/
purpose.
Telos: For Aristotle, telos is the purpose of something.
Theory of Psychosexual Development: Developed by Freud. A theory of
sexual development from birth to death: includes the oral, anal, phallic, latency
and mature genital stage.
Thought-experiment: A hypothetical situation — often fantastical — used to
highlight and challenge the intuitions we have on various topic. E.g. Judith
Thomson’s “the transplant surgeon” (see Chapter 1).
Truth-apt: If a claim is truth-apt then it is capable of being true or false. N.B. the
claim may never be true but it could still be capable of being true or false. This
above explanation of the meaning of the phrase “truth-apt” is itself truth-apt,
for example.
Truth-maker Theory of Truth: A claim is true if and only if some feature of the
world, such as properties, makes it true.
Tyranny of the Majority: A challenge to Utilitarianism. It seems that
Utilitarianism is open to cases where the majority are morally required to
exploit the minority for the greater good of maximising total pleasure.
Utility: A term used by utilitarians to refer to the pleasure/pain/preference
satisfaction associated with of a particular action.
Utilitarianism: See Consequentialism.
Verification principle: The principle that states that if a sentence is not analytic
or potentially empirically verifiable then it is meaningless.
V-rules: Introduced by Rosalind Hursthouse. She suggests that Virtue Ethics
provides guidance in the form of “v-rules”. These are guiding rules of the
form “do what is honest” or “avoid what is envious”.
Vincible ignorance: From Aquinas. Ignorance that can be overcome through
the use of reason. Doing something wrong when one ought to have known
better.
Virtue: A morally correct character disposition or trait, as opposed to a
character disposition or trait that represents a moral vice.
Voluntary euthanasia: Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person chooses
someone to terminate their life in order to avoid future suffering.
Weak Rule Utilitarianism: Guidance from the set of rules that, if followed,
would promote the greatest amount of total happiness can be ignored in
circumstances where more happiness would be produced by breaking the rule.
Well-being: The measure of how well a life is going, for the person whose life
it is.
>
a
Ly}
7)
D
°
cane
)
This book need not end here...
At Open Book Publishers, we are changing the nature of the traditional academic book. The
title you have just read will not be left on a library shelf, but will be accessed online by
hundreds of readers each month across the globe. OBP publishes only the best academic
work: each title passes through a rigorous peer-review process. We make all our books free to
read online so that students, researchers and members of the public who can’t afford a printed
edition will have access to the same ideas.
This book and additional content is available at:
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/pr oduct/639
Customize
Personalize your copy of this book or design new books using OBP and third-party material.
Take chapters or whole books from our published list and make a special edition, a new
anthology or an illuminating coursepack. Each customized edition will be produced as a
paperback and a downloadable PDF. Find out more at:
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/59/1
Donate
If you enjoyed this book, and feel that research like this should be available to all readers,
regardless of their income, please think about donating to us. We do not operate for profit
and all donations, as with all other revenue we generate, will be used to finance new Open
Access publications.
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/13/1/support-us
Fi Like Open Book Publishers
W Follow @OpenBookPublish
BLOG Read more at the OBP Blog
You may also be interested in:
Foundations for Moral Relativism
Second Expanded Edition
By J. David Velleman
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/416
Metaethics from a First Person Standpoint
An Introduction to Moral Philosophy
By Catherine Wilson
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/417
Beyond Price
Essays on Birth and Death
By J. David Velleman
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/349
J. David Velleman
Foundations for
Moral Relativism
Beyond Price
Essays on Birth and Death
Ethics for A-Level
i and ee x Fishes
fH
What does pleasure have to do with morality? What role, if any, should intuition
have in the formation of moral theory? If something is ‘simulated’, can it be immoral?
This accessible and wide-ranging textbook explores these questions and many more.
Key ideasin the fields of normative ethics, metaethics and applied ethics are explained
rigorously and systematically, with a vivid writing style that enlivens the topics with
energy and wit. Individual theories are discussed in detail in the first part of the
book, before these positions are applied to a wide range of contemporary situations
including business ethics, sexual ethics, and the acceptability of eating animals. A
wealth of real-life examples, set out with depth and care, illuminate the complexities
of different ethical approaches while conveying their modern-day relevance.
This concise and highly engaging resource is tailored to the Ethics components of
AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies, with a clear and practical layout that
includes end-of-chapter summaries, key terms, and common mistakes to avoid.
It should also be of practical use for those teaching Philosophy as part of the
International Baccalaureate.
Ethics for A-Level is of particular value to students and teachers, but Fisher and
Dimmock’s precise and scholarly approach will appeal to anyone seeking a rigorous
and lively introduction to the challenging subject of ethics.
This edition includes:
e End-of-chapter summaries e Issues to consider
e Key terminology e Study questions
e Mistakes to avoid e Glossary of terms
As with all Open Book publications, this entire book is available to read for free on the
publisher’s website. Printed and digital editions, together with supplementary digital
material, can also be found here http://www.openbookpublishers.com
Cover image: Malaysia from the Sky, photo by Ishan @seefromthesky on Unsplash
Cover design: Anna Gatti
€ book
ebook and OA editions
: a available Op enB re) ok
pit Publishers
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11