代写 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND DEONTOLOGY

100%原创包过,高质量代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：273427

—
代写 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND DEONTOLOGY

—Why we need rules

—Imagine driving to Monash this morning if there were no traffic rules

—Imagine flying into Sydney airport if there were no air traffic rules

—Imagine getting your lunch after this lecture if there were no conventions (rules) about queuing

—

—Why we need rules(cont)  

—Imagine working at or depositing your money at NAB if there were no rules about

— who does what
 accountants
 tellers

—where they do it
 when they do it
 how they do it

—Primitive societies

—Primitive peoples living in small groups in sparsely populated areas may get by with far fewer rules than we have governing our behaviour but even they have (and need) some rules

—distribution of food

—who  can breed with whom
 

—Civil Societies

—In complex civil societies like that in which we live we need many (and more complicated) rules.

—We have many and different kinds of rules that govern our behaviour. 

—Some we take on voluntarily. 

—Others are compulsory.  ( If we are born into a particular society we are required to obey those rules.)
 

—The Law  (and other rules)

—The Law is one set of (legal) rules that we are all required to obey if we live within its jurisdiction.

—Religious orders – Jesuits, Benedictines etc have rules (typically requiring poverty, chastity and obedience) that individuals freely choose to commit themselves to observing when they enter the order.

—AFL players are required to obey a set of rules if they are to continue playing in competitions.

—Ethical (moral) rules 

—Most importantly we also have ethical (or moral) rules governing our behaviour. 

—Where (most) individuals comply with the ethical rules of their community that community operates more effectively and the individuals in it are more content.
 

—Ethical rules(cont)  

—What are these ethical rules?

—Telling the truth

—Keeping promises

—Not harming others

—Not damaging their property

—Not damaging public property or facilities
 

— Law enforces some ethical rules

—Many of the ethical (moral) rules of our society are underpinned by the law, ie they are also legal rules

—Do not kill

—Do not steal

— Law and ethics not identical
 

—However there are other areas where I may do something that is ethically wrong without breaking the Law

—Break a promise to a friend

—Tell a lie
 

—Law and ethics

—What is the connection between law and ethics?

—It is generally agreed that ethics is the foundation of law – many core laws prohibit actions that are also serious ethical (moral) wrongs.

—Murder

—Rape

—Theft

—Law does not always enforce ethics 

—But the set of legal prohibitions is not identical with the set of moral prohibitions.

—The law does not generally enforce

—Truth-telling

—The keeping of promises

—Why law does not enforce all morality

—

—Difficulty and expense associated with enforcement

—Intrusiveness into the lives of individuals
 代写 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND DEONTOLOGY

—In summary  
 

—The Law is founded upon ethics. 

—Most serious crimes are also serious moral wrongs. 

—However for good reasons the Law is not the enforcer of all ethical (moral) rules. 

—Society functions far more effectively however when individuals obey the ethical (moral) rules.

—Why are certain actions wrong?

—What makes some actions ethically (morally) right and others ethically (morally) wrong?

—What makes all of murder, rape and theft morally wrong?
 

— The big question

—Philosophers seek general theoretical answers to questions such as these.

—Plato raised the question what do all white things have in common that makes them white?

—Similarly, what do all pious (good) actions have in common that makes them pious (good)?  (Euthryphro dialogue)
 

—Two approaches to ethics

—We are going to discuss two of the most philosophically important approaches to answering this question.

—Deontological (or rule based) ethics

—Consequentalist Ethics
 

—Deontological Ethics  

—ethics as rules 

—an action is ethically (morally) wrong because it is prohibited by the rules

—

—Consequentialist Ethics

—ethics determined by consequences

—ethical rightness and wrongness of actions determined by the consequences of those actions

—It is very plausible to argue that the ethical (moral) rightness and wrongness of actions is determined by their consequences.

— The importance of consequences

—What makes murder wrong?

—Someone dies, relatives and friends suffer

—What makes theft wrong?

—What makes rape wrong?

—Consequences!

—Which Consequences? 

—

—

—Who exactly are we to take into account when looking at consequences

— Ethical Egoism

—According to the Ethical Egoist the only consequences I need  take into account when assessing  the ethical suitability of an action are those affecting me. 

—An action is, according to Ethical Egoism, ethically justified if it generates more good (and less bad) consequences for me than its alternatives. 

— Debunking Ethical Egoism

—Debunking it is actually harder than you think but we can all intuitively see what is wrong with ethical egoism

—It does not lead us to behave in ways that contribute to the general good and that does seem to be what ethics is fundamentally about.

—If I can get away with killing Uncle Fred who has pots of money than it is ethically justified for me to do so (at least according to ethical egoism)

— An important aside 

—Two kinds of Egoism

—Psychological Egoism

—Ethical Egoism

—Psychological Egoism

 

—Problems and difficulties for utilitarianism

—What are we trying to maximise?

—Interpersonal comparisons of utility – can they be made?

—Difficulty of predicting the future

—Time taken to make calculations

—Allows horrendous acts

—Unlimited moral demands

—

—

—

—

—

—Utilitarianism allows for horrendous acts

—The case of the race murder in Alabama

◦A white man is murdered.  The white community believe that a black man did it.  They plan to go and kill five blacks in retaliation.The sheriff knows that this will happen.  So to prevent the death of five innocent people, he frames an innocent black man and hangs him for the killing.  One innocent person dies instead of five. 

—A serious difficulty 

—Critics of Utilitarianism argue that if Utilitarianism allows this there is something fundamentally wrong with Utilitarianism.

—This is certainly the central philosophical objection to Utilitarianism.

—Responses
 

—contrary to our intuitions this action is ethically (morally) justified

—the consequences of the alternate courses of action are not as laid out.

—What about the consequences flowing from the knowledge that an innocent person can be “punished” for a crime he did not commit?

—we can modify the utilitarian position so that this kind of action is not allowed

—Rule Utilitarianism (to be discussed)

—Unlimited Moral Demands – a problem?

—Utilitarianism makes virtually all our decisions moral decisions.

—The standard of behaviour required of us is very (indeed some argue impossibly) high

—buying a cappucino after this lecture becomes an ethical decision

—Why is it an ethical decision ?

—because I could give the money to the Salvation Army, or Community Aid Abroad.
 

— Unlimited moral demands (cont)

—Utilitarianism requires that we always  look at all the possible alternatives and there consequences and select the alternative with the best consequences.

—Do I buy a new car?

—Do I have another child?

—Do I buy Nike?

—Do I buy Nestle?

—Deontology

—The Deontologist differs from the Consequentialist in that he does not see consequences as of primary importance in deciding the ethical status of actions.  
 

—

—Features of deontology 

—There are two features peculiar to the deontological position.

—Actions are ethically/morally right or wrong in virtue of their intrinsic features/nature (not in virtue of the consequences they give rise to.)

—To act ethically/morally is to refrain from doing those things that are ethically/morally wrong.

—Connection between right and good 

—for the consequentialist  the good is defined independently of the ethically/morally right and the ethically/morally right is then defined as that which maximizes that (non-moral) good.

—The deontologist rejects this. 

—The deontologist does not accept the morally/ethically right action is the one that maximizes some non-moral good.

—Deontology (more features)

—deontological theories are not based on the impartial consideration of the interests of others

—maintaining ones own moral virtue takes precedence over all other considerations,
 

—Kant

—Kant was a German philosopher and a deontologist – probably the most famous of all deontologists

—In his view

—Lying is always morally and one should never tell a lie.

—People should always be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as a means for achieving some end.

—An example

—A train is travelling down a track. 

—It is on a collision course with a group of six children innocently playing on the tract.

—There is no way of warning the children or alerting the train-driver. 

—However we can change the points so that the train goes off in another direction where it will kill just one innocent child playing on that track.

—Let us assume that all seven children can be expected to live lives where the balance of pleasure over pain is much the same (and positive).
 

—
What is the ethically/morally correct course of action?
 

—For the Utilitarian it will be to change the points because that is the only way given the situation, of saving five lives.

—The deontological position requires that each individual refrain from doing what is ethically/morally wrong.

—Killing an innocent human being is morally wrong and therefore he should not change the points.

— An objection

—But isn’t he (the deontologist) allowing six innocent children to die?

—Yes, the deontologist will say but he is not killing them. 

—It is killing that is ethically/morally wrong and therefore prohibited (and so he cannot divert the train). If he diverted the train he would kill one child. 

—It is very sad that the six children die, but he is not responsible for those deaths.  That is just something bad that happens to them. 

—But his own hands are clean. 

—Varying the example 

—Opinions will differ about this case depending upon whether you have utilitarian or deontological leanings.

—let us vary the example:

—What if we have 100 children rather than 6

—What if the train will trigger a nuclear device that will blow up Melbourne?

—What if it will trigger a chain of nuclear devices that will erase man-kind from the planet?

—Are you really a deontologist?
 

—Does the magnitude of the bad effect make a difference to your thinking? 

—If it does then there is good reason to doubt whether you are really a deontologist

—The organ transplant case

—Suppose we have five individuals all desperately in need of transplant organs and all with AAA ratings in respect of a transplant being totally successful. 

—One needs a heart, two need a kidney, one needs a liver and one needs a lung.  

—If they do not get their transplants they will die and there are no donors available. 

—How do you feel about the suggestion that a healthy individual be kidnapped, anaesthetized, and his organs distributed to those in need of them?. 

—As a consequence he dies, but then five others are able to live.

—Similarities and differences 

—Is this case interestingly different from that of the train?

—If so, how?

—Why do we believe it is different?

—Killing and letting die

—The deontologist believes there is an important moral difference between

—killing and letting die

—harming and failing to help

—lying and failing to tell the truth.

—The utilitarian believes that where the consequences are the same there may be no important moral difference.

—If the consequences of lying and failing to tell the truth are the same then lying and failing to tell the truth are equally good/bad. 

—Similarly in the case of harming and failing to help

—Most dramatically killing and letting die.

—The run-away train again 

—The consequences of allowing the six children to die are the same as if one killed them directly (since one could easily prevent their death).

—For the consequentialist,  if one does not divert the train one is ethically/morally responsible for the death of those six.

—What does the deontologist say?

—There is an important moral difference between killing and letting die.

—Killing is morally wrong and prohibited

—If you change the points then you are responsible for killing an innocent human being. 

—If you do not change the points then six innocent people die.

—But letting die is not prohibited.

—So you are not morally responsible for those six persons’ deaths.

—Therefore, the ethically/morally correct course of action is to do nothing.

—Contrasting the two views 
 

—According to the deontologist one has a serious moral obligation not to change the points and divert the train.

—In contrast the Utilitarian position claims there exists an equally strong moral obligation to divert the train and save the lives of the six.

—Two kinds of consequences?

◦The deontologist believes that we can distinguish between consequences that are intended and consequences that are foreseeable but unintended. 

◦Many philosophers, and especially utilitarians, believe that this distinction is not well founded.

◦It is no defence to argue that the death of the victim of a drink-driving accident was an unintended consequence of the drink-driver’s decision to drink and drive. The drink-driver is held legally responsible on the ground that the death of the victim is foreseeable consequence of the decision to drink and drive.
 
.
 
 

—An Example 

◦You are a resident of Germany in 1943.  Some Jews are hidden in the barn across the road.  A member of the gestapo knocks on your door and asks you do you know where any Jews are hiding.  You are opposed to the Nazi ideology, but you are also a devout deontologist. Failing to tell the truth is permitted but lying is prohibited.  So you tell him the Jews are in the barn across the road.

◦Once again the utilitarian and (this time I suspect all of us) would argue that in such circumstances there is a moral obligation not to tell the truth. 

◦Not telling the truth in such circumstances is ethically/morally permissible, and so too is lying in such circumstances.
 

—More on the Nazi example

—Here telling the truth results in the death of the Jews hiding in the barn across the road.  Here telling the truth is a partial cause of the death of the Jews.

— But according to the deontologist this is a permissible causing of bad consequences. 

—To lie (and so save their lives) is on the other hand the impermissible performance of a wrong act. 

—We did not intend the death of those Jews  (after all we are anti-Nazi). 

—Their deaths are an unintended consequence of our morally correct decision to tell the truth.
 

—

—The utilitarian response 

—The utilitarian (and indeed most of us) would not see the situation the way the deontologist does.

— Surely I intend the obvious consequences of my actions.  How could I not? 

—But if this is so then there is no sustainable distinction between an action which I intend and the predictable consequences of that action which I foresee (but according to the deontologist) do not intend. 

—If I choose to tell the truth to the Nazi’s then I must intend that they find and kill the Jews.

—Rule Utilitarianism  

—The kind of Utilitarianism we have been discussing up till now is the most fundamental kind of utilitarianism where we look at particular or individual actions and their consequences. 

—It is referred to by philosophers as Act Utilitarianism.

—look at kinds  (or types) of actions rather than individual actions. 

—This kind of utilitarianism is called Rule Utilitarianism.

—Rule Utilitarianism again 

◦The Rule Utilitarian is all for rules so long as those rules have the right kind of foundation.

◦The Rule Utilitarian would argue that our rules should be those that overall and in the long run generate the best consequences (ie the best balance of good consequences over bad.) 

◦But these rules would be determined by consequences and so the position would be a fundamentally consequentialist one.
 

 

—A practical alternative?

—Rule Utilitarianism  provides a way around problems of time required for calculation and the horrendous acts difficulty.

—It means that Utilitarianism is useful as a practical ethic to guide our actions.

—Rule Utilitarianism is still fundamentally a consequentialist position because the rules are determined according to consequences.
 代写 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND DEONTOLOGY

—