Ethics.
What is ethics?
It is an unavoidable element of philosophy. It permeates every moment of our lives, challenging us and raising questions about the choices we make. What is the meaning of good and bad? What is right and wrong? Why do we treat one another the way we do and why is this important?
Ethics focuses on the kinds of lives we lead, why we choose to live them, the societies we live in and the actions of the world around us. Ethics is everywhere.
Deontological theories of ethics.
Deontological theories of ethics is often referred to as duty based theories of ethics, which means that they primarily deal with a moral code that regards ethical action as the duty of the individual.
Right action is a process that comes to us through rational understanding of our moral obligations of species.
Given specific situations, there are definitive actions which we ought or ought not do based on deontological theories of ethics.
Certain things are always considered right or always wrong regardless of the consequences.
Christian Ethics.
Christian ethics are considered to be deontological as they are based on a series of duties outlined by God. Therefore, there is no dilemma for the Christian about what is right and wrong. Right means what God wills, and wrong the opposite.
Immanuel Kant. 1724 ~ 1804.
Kantian Ethics.
He held up a deontological theory of ethics. His main contention was based around the concept of why we perform specific actions.
Kant’s problem was not necessarily with the actions we’re performing, but with the reasons and motives behind these actions.
Self Interest vs Compassion vs Duty.
Kant held the belief that duty was more important than all other motives. For example, it is not enough to know that the Good Samaritan helped the man in need, as his intentions may have been unethical. He may have only done so expecting a reward, or because he felt compassion or sympathy.
Everyone can be moral!
Acting from a sense of duty, Kant believes that by trying to save a drowning child, I am being moral regardless of the outcome.
The Categorical Imperative.
A categorical imperative is a command to act in a certain way, the word categorical, meaning absolute and unconditional and the word imperative, meaning necessary or compelled action.
Although Kant believed in several categorical imperatives, the one that is of most importance to us is
“Act only on a maxim you would rationally want to apply to everyone.”
A maxim = statement to live by.
Universalizability. [Yes, it’s a word]
A universalizable action is one which can be applied to everyone evenly and acceptably. For example, no one should torture a baby.
IF this is upheld it can be seen as a moral act and anyone who ignores it is immoral.
Means and Ends.
People should be treated as ends in themselves, never as a means to an end. Never use people, always recognise their humanity. They are individuals with wills and desires of their own.
Egoism vs. Altruism.
Egoism is where ethical decisions are made with self preservation and self interest solely in mind while altruism is where the good of others is considered more important than that of the individual.
Consequentialism. [Also another word.]
Consequentialism is exactly what it sounds like: an ethical theory developed with regard to the outcome of the choices rather than the intentions.
Act Utilitarianism.
A utilitarian defines “good” as “whatever brings about the greatest total happiness”. The main criticism of this theory relates to the calculation of the desired outcome. How can we be sure that the result we’re planning for, the one upon which we’ve based our decision, is going to happen? How can we accurately measure happiness?
John Stuart Mill & Jeremy Bentham.
Mill and Bentham were two major advocates of utilitarianism. Bentham’s main study was the creation of a list of pleasure and pain “weights”. In which he included those of animals. He believed happiness is simply a blissful state of mind. On the other hand, Mill believed in higher or lower pleasures. Mill saw higher pleasures as “intellectual pleasures” while lower pleasures were more base and instinctual. His pleasure judgement was based on the “quality” of the pleasure as much as the “quantity.”
Schopenhauer.
“A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the pleasure of an animal engaged in eating another with the pain of the animal being eaten.”
Negative Utilitarianism.
Isn’t it better to limit sadness against maximizing happiness? Would you rather a world where some are happy while others are suicidal, ora place where no one is particularly happy but no one suffers?
A problem.
Wouldn’t the best way to minimize suffering be to destroy all life? As no one would have to suffer again?
Rule Utilitarianism.
This form of utilitarianism is a combination of both Act utilitarianism and deontological ethics. The basic outline is that the greatest amount of happiness is calculated as a series of general rules that are tempered by act utilitarianism depending on the situation.
Applied Ethics.
Human Rights.
As a species, we are deeply concerned with the concept of rights. With different Governments, religions, laws, all around the world, telling us how to treat each other, how can we know what is right?
In Australia, we have the right to speak freely, to earn money, to own land, vote for our Government, even to choose where to work. But what does any of this mean? Who decides which rights mean more than others?
Animal Rights.
Our lives consist of interactions between people and for many; it has been a long time since we have considered ourselves animals. We are above and beyond the common house pet, or the ranging wildlife of the world. Does this really make us different, or better? Do animals deserve rights?
Descartes on Animals.
Rene Descartes firmly believed that animals did not think or, more importantly, feel pain. Descartes believed that the ability to rationalise and form complex thoughts provided justification for an eternal soul and that animals were unable to do this. He also believed that animals could not feel because they lacked the mental capacity to understand pain/anguish and love/happiness.
He suggested they merely mimic these emotions to the rest of their capabilities.
Animals.
• Anima -> The enlivening thing.
• Animus -> The rational mind/soul.
Peter Singer on animals.
Peter Singer strongly believes that animals deserver more respect than they receive. Singer adopts a utilitarian perspective and believes that the treatment of things should be based on the ability to feel. Singer holds that acts against animal autonomy should be considered speciesist and immoral. Killing animals should only be sanctioned when it is done in a humane way.
Singer’s Argument.
1. If a dog is kicked.
2. Then it shows distress or anger.
3. If a dog shows distress or anger.
4. It is displaying an interest in its own safety.
5. If a dog displays an interest in its own safety
6. It is showing a desire to preserve its life.
Therefore: Dogs have a desire to live.
Home
Help
Search
Login
