Philosophy Moral Philosophy: Student Activities Higher and Intermediate 2 7899
.
Summer 2000 HIGHER STILL Philosophy Moral Philosophy: Student Activities Higher and Intermediate 2 Support Materials
CONTENTS Introduction to Moral Philosophy Utilitarianism; information and activities Kantian Ethics; information and activities War - introduction to topic Utilitarianism and War Kantian Ethics and War Punishment - introduction to topic Utilitarianism and Punishment Kantian Ethics and Punishment Euthanasia - introduction to topic Utilitarianism and Euthanasia Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 1
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 2
NOTE TO TUTORS These support materials have been designed to support the teaching of the Moral Philosophy Unit at Int 2 and Higher. The materials have already been used by one set of students and it is intended that the information sheets and tasks can be given directly to students. The materials deal with Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and their approach to three issues explored by the unit War, Punishment and Euthanasia. The materials should be used to supplement other resources or as a basis from which to start. Various authors are frequently cited, giving their views on the specified issues. This gives students a breadth of views without having to read all the texts mentioned. It might be useful to look at some of the supplementary texts and some of these texts are listed below. General texts Honderich, T Oxford Companion to Philosophy O U P (Oxford 1995) Morton, A Philosophy in Practice Blackwell (Oxford 1996) Osborne, R Philosophy for Beginners Writers and Readers Pub. (New York 1992) Palmer, M Moral Problems. The Lutterworth Press (Cambridge 1991) Thompson, M Philosophy: An Introduction Hodder and Stoughton (London 1995) Warburton, N Philosophy: The Basics (edition 2) Routledge & Kegan Paul (London 1995) Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 3
Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 4
Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK Moral philosophy is about making moral choices about how people decide what is moral / immoral. Morality is concerned with ideas of right and wrong. Making a moral choice is not like choosing something to wear; it involves choices about how we should behave and the intentions behind our behaviour. It involves what we and society see as the correct values to have. Think of some of the topics that might be covered under Moral Philosophy What is morally right is not the same as what is legally right (although what is legal is usually thought to be moral too). Think of something legal but, you could argue, is immoral Think of something illegal but, you could argue, is moral Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 5
Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK Moral philosophers look at the reasons behind decisions about what is right and wrong and debate whether these decisions are justified. This is important because if we don t have good reasons against murder, torture etc we don t have any real justification in condemning it. Some people say that deciding what is right is merely a matter of taste like deciding between tomato and brown sauce on your burger. This is something that is down to individuals to decide and you can t criticise their decision. Others say there is more to moral decision - making, that it makes sense to discuss and debate decisions of this nature in a way that it does not make sense to debate the taste of sauce (obviously tomato is best!!!). Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is a matter of taste. What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality like this? Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is more than personal taste. What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality like this? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 6
Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK Presuming that we can and should debate what is right and wrong, there are many answers to the question of how we should decide moral/immoral acts. Write down as many ways of deciding what is right as you can. Which of the ideas do you think you agree with most? Why? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 7
Why should we be moral? STUDENT TASK Before you came to this class, you have probably had to make at least one moral decision. Perhaps you could have taken a chocolate bar from the canteen without paying and not been caught, perhaps you promised to do something for a friend and they seem to have forgotten and you have to decide whether to remind them. Everyday you have to choose between what you want and the interests of others, between your desires and rules you feel you should obey. But why should other people matter, why shouldn t we just suit ourselves? Answers like because it is unfair to others don t always work. Some people don t care about others. The answer because the consequences will be bad for you might not apply if there is no way anyone will find out. So why should we be moral? Here is a story told by the famous philosopher Plato. It is known as the Myth of the Ring of Gyges Plato s friend, Glaucon tells the story of a magical ring, which allows the person wearing it to be invisible. Glaucon says that if we had such a ring and could get away with anything, we would do so. We would be selfish if we could get away with it. If you had the ring of Gyges what would you like to do? What immoral acts might you commit if you knew you would not be caught? Are there any things you still would not do even if you would get away with it? What are they? Why would you not do these things? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 8
Moral Theories STUDENT INFORMATION Why are they important? Moral theories try to give us some way of deciding why actions are right or wrong. Once we have underlying explanations about why things are right or wrong we can use these reasons to decide on particular cases. Generally, there are two different types of moral theories. Teleological theories: Where moral judgements are based on the effects of an act. You decide whether an act is good or bad by looking at its consequences. This appeals to common sense, usually before people act they think about what the outcome will be. There are different opinions about what counts as good/ bad consequences. Some people think the consequences are only good if they benefit the person acting. Others think the consequences have to benefit more people than they will harm. Deontological theories: Disagrees with the idea that consequences are important. In deontological theories whether an act is right does not depend on the consequences. There are certain acts that are right or wrong no matter what the consequences are.this appeals to the notion that there are certain acts which are wrong even if they have a good outcome. Some people think we can decide whether acts are right by looking at the motive behind them. Others think that acts have to conform to rules for them to be right. Teleological theories look forward and deontological theories look backward to decide what is right or wrong. Some people believe in only one type of theory but we quite often decide what is right and wrong using both types of theories. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 9
Moral Theories STUDENT TASK Decide whether these statements are teleological or deontological or could be both. (Note that you do not have to agree with the statements). 1. Drinking and driving is wrong. You only have to look at the deaths it causes to see that. 2. I knew studying was the right thing to do I ve passed all my exams! 3. 4. 5. Always obey your superiors 6. When I am older I must not take sweets from strangers Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 10
Moral Theories STUDENT TASK Here are some moral dilemmas. For each one decide What you would do Why you would do this Whether your reasons are teleological, deontological or both You come home one night to find your house on fire. Your dad and his friend, a famous doctor who is supposed to be close to curing AIDS, are inside. You only have time to save one person. Whom should you save? Your friend tells you she has stolen the papers for the Philosophy exam. You tell her that someone else has been blamed and is being expelled for it. Your friend refuses to own up. What should you do? A man from your town decides to open a video shop that will sell mild pornographic videos. As a moral philosopher, people are looking to you to say whether this is acceptable or not. Some feel that it will corrupt the young, others feel that people should free to choose what they watch. The shop will provide much-needed jobs for the town. What should you recommend? You are on a cruise liner that is hijacked. The hijackers discover that there is one passenger who has gone missing your son. You know that he has gone to try and alert the authorities on his mobile phone. The hijackers find him and then tell you that unless you kill him, they will kill him and 10 other people as well. Should you kill your son? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 11
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Utilitarianism states that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. What does this mean? What is the greatest good? This is explained by the 2 men who are the most famous advocates of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748 1832) An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. John Stuart Mill (1806 1873) Essay on Utilitarianism Utilitarianism holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. So for Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness for Utilitarianism is pleasure and the absence of pain. The idea that we ought to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number is called The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness principle. I m not very happy I don t really understand what this principle thing involves To fully understand we need more details so read on! Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 12
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Consequentialism involves deciding whether an action is good or bad by looking at the consequences of that action. If the consequences of the action are good then the action is a good one. If the consequences of the action are bad then the action is a bad one. Can we always tell what the consequences will be? Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the only inherently good thing and that pain is the only inherently bad thing. Acts which bring about pleasure are good acts. Acts which bring pain are bad acts. NOTE Utilitarianism is not exactly the same as Hedonism because hedonism is all about getting your own pleasure. It is important in Utilitarianism to get pleasure for as many people as possible (happiness for the greatest number). For Utilitarians the pleasure and pain of everyone is equally important. Every person counts for one and only one. If your happiness is increased by 10 by doing something but the happiness of others is increased by 100 if you do something else then you should do the something else. Should babies count equally with adults? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 13
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Think about what you want out of life Money? Fame? A happy marriage? These seem reasonable hopes but we could ask what we want things like these for? We wouldn t, HOWEVER, ask someone who said they wanted to be happy in life What do you want happiness for? We do not feel the need to justify happiness in the same way that we try to justify wanting money etc. Happiness is something, which is worth having for its own sake. JS Mill says that people think of happiness as a goal to aim for. When we look at what people think is important we find that the reason they find these things important is because they think they will lead to human happiness. If you go along with this the Utilitarian ideal of maximising the general happiness seems a good way to decide what is the right thing to do. What about aiming for a stable society or stable families? Why just aim for happiness? Even if we do assume people do aim for happiness - isn't it their own happiness they want? Utilitarianism doesn t always let you have it you might have to sacrifice your own happiness if it doesn t fit in with the happiness of the greatest number. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 14
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Bentham s hedonic calculus For Utilitarianism to work we have to be able to calculate and measure pain and pleasure. If we can t measure these then we can never know whether we have brought about the greatest good for the greatest number (the aim of Utilitarianism). This seems like a difficult task the experiences of pleasure and pain are very complex. Many pleasurable experiences have some pain mixed in so how do we calculate the value of our experiences? To help us out Bentham brings in his hedonic calculus. He says there are certain things to think about which will help us calculate how much pleasure/pain an experience gives us. We have to consider things like: How intense the experience is How long it lasts Whether it will lead to similar types of experiences How many people will be affected Can these types of calculation work? Can we compare the pleasure of winning at cards and the pleasure of saving a life? If it were found that a mind altering drug would make everyone feel pleasure all the time wouldn t it be OK to secretly add this to the water supply? Doesn t it allow for pleasure that most people would see as wrong 10 sadistic guards getting pleasure torturing 1 man? Their pleasure would be allowed because it is greater than his pain. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 15
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Mill s higher and lower pleasures Mill s Utilitarianism is different to Bentham s because Mill says it is not just quantity of pleasure which matters quality matters too. Mill believed that some pleasures counted for more than others. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. Mill is trying to solve the problem of having to allow what most people would see as unacceptable pleasures - the kinds of pleasures the sadistic guards were experiencing. Mill could now say that the pleasure of torturing someone has a much lower value than the pain felt by the victim, so it would not fit in with Utilitarianism to allow the guards to torture the man. Which pleasures are higher and which ones are lower? Higher - Intellectual pleasures such as reading, debating, learning Lower Physical pleasures such as eating,drinking and sex. How does Mill justify this distinction? 1. Both animals and humans experience physical pleasures but the pleasures of the intellect are what make us different to animals. 2. People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer the intellectual ones. Is 2 always true? Don t some people seem to choose the physical pleasures over the intellectual ones? How do we decide exactly, which are Higher/ Lower Pleasures? Mill says we have to appeal to the views of what he calls competent judges. These are people who have tried both types of pleasure. If they keep opting for a certain type of pleasure then it must be a higher pleasure. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 16
Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK Look at the list below. Which do you think are Higher pleasures? Which do you think are Lower pleasures? List them under the headings Higher and Lower Possible pleasures Having friends Eating meat Listening to Mozart Playing a sport Taking a walk Drinking water Giving love Making love Having money Playing chess Going to a pop concert Drinking champagne Reading a novel Having power Receiving love Taking revenge Compare your list with others in your group. Are they the same? Try and list them according to what you think Mill would say. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 17
Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK INFORMATION So far, the Utilitarianism we have looked at has been Utilitarianism which focuses on individual acts. It is often known as Act Utilitarianism. There is, however, another kind of Utilitarianism. RULE UTILITARIANISM Instead of looking at every act to see whether it will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number, Rule Utilitarians try to find rules which will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number and then just follow these rules. There are two forms of Rule Utilitarianism - Strong and Weak. Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Once the rules have been decided it is not right to break them even when it might be better in an individual case. Weak Utilitarianism: There are special cases when breaking the rules may be allowed. See how much you can find out about rule utilitarianism. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 18
Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks very weak. Should John drink the water or give it to his friend? Jerry is a kind person, always making time to discuss other people s problems with them. He is studying for his Highers and his results are very important to allow him to get into University. It is his dream to go and study the Media and hopefully get into TV. The evening before his Philosophy Higher (his favourite subject) his friend Derek phones. He is upset because he has just discovered that his girlfriend has been two timing him with another friend and he needs someone to talk to. Jerry knows if he lets Derek talk, it will take up most of the evening when he could be studying. But if he tells Derek to phone back tomorrow then Derek will spend the evening being upset. Should Jerry a) Tell Derek to phone back tomorrow? b) Let Derek talk? Her Granny has left Joanne a fortune. She has a well-paid job and lives comfortably. Joanne has a cousin who is a single parent trying to raise two children while working a badly paid job. Granny did not leave any money to her because they had a disagreement about her boyfriend twenty years ago. Should Joanne a)keep the money? b)give the money to her cousin? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 19
Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK Look at these cases. Think about what you would do. 1.You work as a doctor. Two babies are brought in one night but you only have one intensive care bed. Baby A is very ill and will almost certainly die if he is not admitted to intensive care. Baby B is less desperately ill. You also know that Baby A has a rare genetic disorder which means that if he survives he is likely to grow up to be an aggressive psychopath. Most people with his condition murder or rape. You know nothing about the genetic makeup of Baby B. Which baby should you admit to intensive care? 2. You are in prison with an incurable disease and you will die soon. You share a cell with a prisoner who will be in prison for the rest of his life. He has no friends and no family. He is also miserable and this will only get worse. He is too frightened to kill himself although he has talked about his wish to die many times. You have a poison which you could put in his food to kill him painlessly and without being detected. The doctors would think he died of natural causes. Should you kill the prisoner? Think about what a Utilitarian might recommend What reasons would they give? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 20
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION So what do you think of Utilitarianism? Is it a good way to decide what is right and wrong? Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the arguments on one side outweigh the others? Strengths Natural Pleasure and pain are real. They play a huge part in our lives. Utilitarianism gives them a central role. Everyone matters It is not just concerned with how we feel. It takes into account how others feel. This seems right and only practical when talking about morality. Balanced The consequences of an action depend on the circumstances of each case. Utilitarians don t have to deal with having moral rules which sometimes conflict, e.g. What if you believe in the rules don t kill and protect your family yet someone is attacking your family? What do you do? Utilitarianism avoids such conflicts. Simple Few ideas are actually involved only the consequences of an action matter and we only need to look at whether these bring about pleasure/pain. It is much less complicated than having to deal with the motives of actions and peoples rights etc. These are things which other moral theories focus on. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 21
Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION Weaknesses Can we calculate pain/pleasure? Can we really work out how to get the most happiness for the greatest number? e.g. do we need lots of people with a little happiness or slightly less people who have more happiness? Does everyone really matter? What makes you happy might not go along with what makes the majority happy. You might end up being miserable all the time. Also Utilitarianism seems to ignore an idea that most people accept that we have special responsibilities to particular people like our families. Problem of Justice Linked with the idea that some people seem to matter less than others. An innocent person could be punished for a crime if it would contribute to the greater happiness e.g.by deterring others. Difficulties of Calculation It is hard to predict the consequences of some actions. It is also hard to tell when the consequences stop. If you save a baby who then grows up to be a murderer is this a consequence of your action? Should we ignore rights/motives? Do we want to say that no one has the right to things like justice? Doesn t the motive behind an act count for anything? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 22
Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK Think about what you know about Utilitarianism and write down what you think a Utilitarian world would be like. Would you like to live in a Utilitarian world? Why/ Why not? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 23
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION Kant was a German philosopher (1724 1804) and he looked at deciding what is right and wrong in a different way from Utilitarianism. Kant was a non-consequentialist. He did not believe that looking at the consequences of an action was how to decide whether it was right or wrong. KANT WROTE Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals Let s look at what this means.. How do we decide what is right? For Kant, you had to look at the intentions behind any act to see whether it was right or wrong. Only the reason behind your actions would determine if it was right. Only if your intentions were the right ones would you be acting morally. The consequences did not matter for morality, what matters was the reason for acting. Why do consequences not count? Kant believed that the consequences of actions couldn t be used to decide what was right because consequences were not totally within our control. Kant believed that being moral was something we did as rational human beings and was something which applied equally to all such rational beings. If morality was the choice of rational beings it hardly seemed fair to decide whether someone was acting in the right way by looking at things they couldn t control. Think about a man who saves another from drowning and the man he saves then goes and kills his family. If we were just looking at the consequences the first man could be said to have done something wrong, not right. Even I can t predict the consequences of every action! Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 24
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION If consequences don t count what does? We have already established that for Kant, the only way to decide what is right is to look at why you are doing it. Kant says that the only reason which counts as a moral one is to act out of duty. What does this mean? What is it to act out of duty? Acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the right thing to do, not from any other motive. What about acting out of courage, or out of kindness, do these have nothing to do with morality? Why Duty? If you were thinking about the right reasons for people doing something, duty is probably the last thing you would come up with. You might suggest that it was morally right to do something out of kindness or compassion but Kant doesn t agree. We need to find out why. Think about the different natures people have. Some people are kind by nature; they enjoy helping people and get pleasure from it. Other people find it harder to be kind. It follows then that if what was right and wrong was decided by looking at whether people acted out of kindness, some people would find it much easier than others would. They would be more inclined to be kind. This means that being moral would be a lot easier for some. I love helping people. I m lucky Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 25
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION Duty versus Inclination Kant thinks that duty is all-important because acting out of duty is totally under our control. The nature that we have is out of our control. It is luck whether or not we are naturally kind. Like the consequences of an act being out of our control, it hardly seems fair to decide whether someone is acting in the right way by looking at things they can t control. Won t some acts fit in with being kind and acting out of duty? Yes - it will sometimes be hard to tell just from looking at what people do to tell what their true motive is. Kant also points out that some acts fit with duty and self-interest too it certainly accords with duty that a grocer should not overcharge his inexperienced customer.. but this is not nearly enough to justify us in believing that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty.. his interests required him to do so. There is more that we need to find out about our duty. Remember we said acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the right thing to do, not from any other motive. But what is the right thing to do? Kant believes that there are underlying principles which make us act in certain ways. These general rules are called maxims and there are maxims for morality. We can tell what are moral laws (maxims) by looking at something Kant calls The Categorical Imperative Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 26
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION What is a Categorical Imperative? A categorical imperative is a command, like Go to your class or Keep your promises. This command applies unconditionally. There are commands, which are hypothetical imperatives. These have conditions attached to them like Go to your class if you want to learn or Keep your promises if you want people to respect you. For morality, Kant says there is one Categorical Imperative. There are 2 main ways in which the categorical imperative is stated. Act in such a way that you always treat Act only on that maxim humanity never which you can at the same simply as a means, but time will that it should always at the same become a universal law. time as an end." Universal Moral law The idea here is that you should only do things, which it would make, sense to apply to everyone. You should only do things that you would make a moral law for everyone. Kant uses the example of making promises. If you make promises you don t intend to keep this might be convenient for you sometimes but it would not make sense to make this a universal moral law. It would not be good if everyone broke their promises when it suited them. If everyone broke their promises when it suited them then people would stop trusting each other when they made promises. The idea that the universal law has got to make sense is very important. Kant does not use the word want in the quote above; he uses the word will. This means that you rationally intend that it happen. It means that you have thought it through and it makes sense. If you think back to Kant s reasons for duty as the only proper motive - he wanted to make sure that everyone had the choice to be moral that they were in control of what they did. What kinds of things would it make sense to have as universal laws? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 27
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION Treating People as ends not means The idea here is that you should not use people to suit your own purposes. You should make sure that you are treating them as individuals who have their own lives to lead and deserve respect. Again Kant s idea about people all having the chance to choose to be moral, to be in control, comes in here. If people are being used then you are not giving them the chance to be in control. You are not giving them the chance to act like rational beings. Think about the little white lies we tell people so we don t hurt their feelings No your bum doesn t look big in that. Kant thinks this is wrong because it is not treating people as valuable individuals, but is it? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 28
Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK D7DNHZKDW\RXZDQW E%HSROLWH F'HIHQG\RXUVHOIEXWQHYHU VWDUWWKHILJKW G/LHZKHQLWVXLWV\RX H*LYHDOO\RXKDYHWRWKHSRRU I1HYHUOLH J$OZD\VNHHS\RXUSURPLVHV Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 29
Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK Think about what Kant believed about what doing your duty involved. Where would Kant say your duty lies in the following cases? John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks very weak. Should John drink the water or give it to his friend? A plane has crashed in the mountains with 26 survivors and 14 dead. The rescue attempt will take days. Food is running out. Do the survivors have a duty to eat the flesh of the dead so that they stay alive? A group of 50 cancer patients are in a 6 month long drugs experiment. 25 are given a new drug and 25 are given vitamins. The patients don t know which they are being given. After 3 months there is a dramatic improvement in those taking the new drugs but the doctor has to keep the experiment going for 6 months for any drugs company to accept the new drug. Does the doctor have a duty to give the 25 patients on vitamins the new drugs or should he keep the experiment going? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 30
Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK Look at these cases. Think about what you would do. 1. You are a teacher who has taken a group of children to the theatre. You sit upstairs. In the middle of the show, you smell smoke and someone shouts Fire. When you and the children get to the fire exit, you discover it is made of glass and can only be opened from the outside. There is a man standing in front of it, frozen in panic. It flashes into your mind that you could use the man to smash the glass and get out. This would save all the children. Should you use the man as a sort of battering ram? 2. You are part of the government of a country at war. You have managed to strike a deal that will end the war but it involves all prisoners of war being killed. If you do not agree to this, the war will continue. Should you sign the deal? Think about what a Kantian might recommend What reasons would they give? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 31
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what is right and wrong? Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the arguments on one side outweigh the others? Strengths No problem of consequences You do not have to worry about how to predict the consequences of actions, about consequences, which you can t foresee. Motives matter Think about the difference between the person who makes promises because they are convenient and the person who promises because the person wants to keep them. We prefer the latter person. We should act out of duty not just do what we want Making duty the important thing stops people assuming that what they want is the best thing to do. Justice matters We cannot treat people badly in order to bring about better consequences. There are things you can t do no matter what. Everyone has rights and has to be treated with respect. This theory is universal and impartial. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 32
Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what is right and wrong? Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the arguments on one side outweigh the others? Weaknesses Are consequences totally irrelevant? Is obeying the rule Never Kill what we should do even if we know killing one person will save millions of people? How can we tell what people s motives are? People can act in the same way for many different reasons. One shopkeeper might be honest to help his business, another might do it because he wants to help people, and another might do it for both these reasons. Is duty the only correct motive? People save lives because they are brave or because they are compassionate. Kant says that these motives don t matter for morality but in real life people find these emotions very important. You can t totally ignore human emotions or it will make morality inhuman. What happens when duties conflict? - How do we decide between 2 acts which count as moral or when we only have a choice between 2 immoral acts? What happens if we act to do our duty but this will break another duty that we have e.g. if it is always wrong to break promises and always wrong to lie, what happens if I have to lie to keep a promise? Some immoral acts are OK under Kant s theory Telling a contract killer where his victim was would fit with the universal law always to tell the truth. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 33
STUDENT INFORMATION If you are a soldier, you have to control your fear. You have to try not to think about the deaths. You just think about doing your job. The twentieth century has seen the largest and bloodiest wars in history. Since 1945 there have been hundreds of wars all over the world. It is estimated that nearly 30 million people have been killed using conventional (non-nuclear) weapons. The average death toll from armed conflict is put at between 33,000 and 41,000 a month from 1945. Is killing in war any different to other types of killing? Some people think that it is less morally wrong to kill in war because you might be fighting for your country, or you might be fighting an aggressor. Some people think it is more morally wrong to kill in war because of the sheer number of deaths involved. Questions to think about. Do you think war can be justified? If so when? Would you be prepared to fight for your country? What questions (if any) would you ask before you would fight? In what circumstances (if any) would you be prepared to die for your beliefs in a war against another country, in a war within your own country, in a revolution? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 34
STUDENT INFORMATION War can be defined as: Armed conflict between 2 or more groups or countries This definition covers many different types of war. There are world wars and local wars, conventional wars and nuclear wars; there are civil wars and religious wars, to name but a few. When talking about war you must note that there are these different types of war. You must be clear about what kind of war you are discussing. Even if you concentrate on a simple case of conventional war between 2 countries, there are different moral issues to think about.e.g. i) Is the government justified in committing the country to war? ii) iii) Once the war has started should you participate? Questions about the possible use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. How would you feel if you were called up to fight in a war a) You thought was just b) You thought was unjust Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 35
STUDENT INFORMATION For a Utilitarian to decide whether war is right or wrong, they have to look at whether it will fit in with the Greatest Happiness Principle. Utilitarians will only be for war if it will increase the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The greatest happiness principle and the issue of war Look back at your notes on the ideas that underlie Utilitarianism. Utilitarians will look at both short and long term effects of a war. They will consider things like the pain and deaths, loss of relatives, the misery of being invaded, future freedom and peace. Everything depends on whether the benefit will outweigh the pain of those killed, injured and bereaved. Underlying Idea = Consequentialism Utilitarians will look at the pain, which will be brought about by a war. They will try to calculate whether the actions of war will bring about more of an absence of pain than not going to war would. Underlying idea = Hedonism Utiltarians will not see the killing of innocent men, women and children as any worse than the killing of soldiers. The term innocent in war is usually applied to civilians. It would only be worse in Utilitarian terms if the consequences were worse. This might well happen because the killing of children etc might decrease the morale of the soldiers fighting. Underlying Idea = Equity Could Rule Utilitarians think a rule against war was justified? Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 36
STUDENT INFORMATION Nuclear War Although a Utilitarian has to consider the effects of war before condemning war, we can say that they would be against nuclear war. Why? - The use of nuclear weapons would inflict pain out of all proportion to the military, political, social advantages to be gained by its use. We now have enough weapons to destroy all life on earth and obviously this would not fit with the greatest happiness principle. Even if, however, the nuclear war was not on such a global scale, the terrible effects of even one nuclear bomb will always far outweigh the benefits. Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent What does this mean? - This is the idea that if one country has the same number or more weapons than another country, this will frighten the other country enough to stop them attacking first. The MAD system - We have a system where we can detect a nuclear attack but cannot stop it. All we can do is attack back and achieve Mutually Assured Destruction. Utilitarians would be against having a nuclear deterrent. Michael Palmer says that Utilitarians would condemn using nuclear weapons as a threat for other countries because in order for the threat to work, there has to be a real possibility of using them. Utilitarians, as pointed out above, would not agree with their use. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 37
STUDENT INFORMATION BENEFITS Common feeling. Looks to the short and long term consequences of going to war and will only agree with war if the consequences will create greater happiness. People usually only go war to create better circumstances. Rules. Once committed to war, Utilitarianism allows for rules of war having to be obeyed. Although Utilitarianism involves looking at cases on their merits, its concern with consequences will not allow killing that is disproportionate to the benefits it will bring. The rules that Utilitarians will allow are also rules that will make sense to a lot of people. This is what RB Brandt says in Utilitarianism and the Rules of War. He says that people both impartial and rational would choose rules of war that would maximise expectable utility. PROBLEMS Calculating Consequences. it is very difficult to tell exactly what the consequences of war will be. Did they foresee the atomic bomb being used in World War 2? Would not going to war really be worse? Often the true results are not known till years later. It is also very demanding in the sense that consequences have to be continually monitored in what is an ever changing situation with new decisions having to be made all the time should ground troops go in? Should we use one nuclear bomb? Will this lead to retaliation? What should the rules of war be? It is easy to have humanitarian rules which don t stop your military campaign e.g. don t bomb hospitals, but it is harder for Utilitarians to make rules which do stop some military actions. Again weighing up the possible consequences is the difficulty here. J Glover point this out in Causing Death and Saving Lives Breaking the Rules. There will be some cases however rare, where breaking the rules would suit Utilitarian principles better than not breaking them and this might allow acts people see as immoral e.g. killing children. Rule Utilitarians could avoid this criticism with the idea that it will always be better overall to keep rules of war even if in individual cases they should sometimes be broken. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 38
STUDENT INFORMATION For Kantians to decide whether war is right or wrong, they have to look at whether it will fit in with the Categorical Imperative. On the whole, war does not seem to fit in with the 2 different forms of the Categorical Imperative, so the Kantian will probably be against it. The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of war Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Why might war contradict the Imperative? Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone. Going to war cannot be a universal moral law because thousands, if not millions of innocent people would die. Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which are moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They have to be respected and valued. Going to war does not treat people as ends because their country could be using soldiers as a means to win the war. Nuclear War As Michael Palmer points out in Moral Problems, the possible non-combatant casualties of a nuclear war could run into millions. This involves the death of innocent people and the Kantian principles above are against that. The Kantian would therefore be against nuclear war. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 39
STUDENT INFORMATION BENEFITS Common feeling. The Kantian idea that we should never kill innocents fits well with the common idea that no matter what there are certain people who have to be protected and certain things we should never resort to. T. Nagel in War and Massacre prefers the idea of never killing innocents because it is always morally wrong rather than because it has bad consequences, as a Utilitarian might say. Rules. Once committed to war Kantian ethics Provides clear and unbreakable rules.they fit in with the traditional rules of war: that killing should be for military objectives and not disproportionate to the aim. Intentional killing of innocents is not allowed either. These rules are not subject to consequences like Utilitarian rules might be. PROBLEMS What counts as innocence? In war it is often said to mean currently harmless but in modern warfare it is hard to decide whom this includes. What about the mechanics who service the technological weapons? What about the factory workers who produce them? What about the people who support the government who declared war - are they truly innocent? What about child soldiers? Breaking the Rules. Never breaking the rules might allow atrocities which are far worse than breaking them. T. Nagel points this out in War and Massacre. Conflict of Duties. The CI gives no guidance about what to do when we have to choose between 2 immoral acts and this might be a common scenario in war e.g. killing an enemy soldier who is about to find a group of hiding children. This is a conflict between the duty of not killing and protecting the innocent. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 40
STUDENT INFORMATION Why Punish? Reasons from the Past. Primitive Society: Crime was an insult to the Gods and the Gods had to see that it was being dealt with. Social solidarity: Some people think that punishing crime brought society together. To keep the poor down: Some people thought punishment was imposed by the ruling classes to make sure they kept their privileges. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 41
STUDENT TASK COMMON PUNISHMENTS CRIMES Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 42
STUDENT INFORMATION The Aims of Punishment Read the 5 main aims below and then look back at the punishments you recommended for different crimes. Which aims are covered by each punishment? PROTECTION: To protect society from someone s anti social behaviour. RETRIBUTION: If someone does something wrong then they should receive a punishment which fits the crime. DETERRENCE: Seeing that people are punished from crimes will put other people off committing a similar crime. It will also (hopefully) stop the criminal doing it again. REFORM: The punishments should be of a kind that will make the criminals become responsible citizens. VINDICATION: Punishment must be given when people break the law so that the law will be respected. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 43
STUDENT INFORMATION The Ultimate Punishment Is it morally right for me to sentence someone to A just society is recognised by most people as one that gives its citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It has also been accepted for centuries that those individuals who violate this right must pay the ultimate penalty. Arguments for Capital Punishment Society must protect civilians and those who fight crime, from people who can t control their violent impulses. Anyone who has taken a life deserves to have his or her life taken. This is justice. The death penalty is the only sort of deterrent that some criminals will understand. Some criminals much prefer to be executed than to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Arguments against Capital Punishment There have been miscarriages of justice. Innocent people have been hanged. The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Murders are still committed in places with the death penalty. It is a violation of the sanctity of life, which the state is supposed to protect. It could make convicted terrorists into martyrs. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 44
STUDENT TASK Read the following quotes about crime and punishment. What do you think? Why? Have your say but be prepared to justify your answers! How can the law be fair? How do you fine a person who can earn more in a week than the average guy earns in a whole year? Prisons are academies where the apprentice criminals can learn their trade (Former Home Secretary. Douglas Hurd.) The Dalai Lama. (Punishment) the methods used only create more problems, more suffering, more distrust, more resentment, more division. The result is not good for anyone. Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 45
STUDENT INFORMATION The Utilitarian theory of punishment favours the idea of deterrence. This is the idea that punishing the criminal will send a message to those who are thinking about committing a crime, a message that committing the crime would be a bad idea. Punishing a criminal will hopefully deter criminals from committing crimes. This theory has two parts to it: 1. SPECIFIC - To prevent the actual criminal who is being punished from committing crimes again. 2. GENERAL - As a warning to potential criminals. In An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation Bentham talks about punishment. He says. If it ought at all to be admitted, it ought to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil. Hopefully this punishment will prevent others from trying it The idea of deterrence is not the only aim of punishment which fits in with Utilitarianism. Joseph Grcic points out that Utilitarians believe that punishments like prison sentences should be an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate the criminal so that he/she can contribute to society (Reform)..James P. Sterba says that Utilitarianism also fits in with the idea that we have to protect society from anti social behaviour (Protection) and that we have to use punishment as a way to make sure that the law will be respected (Vindication). Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy Student Activities (H and Int 2) 46