Module 4

Frameworks and Principles behind Moral Dispositions

Objectives
At the end of the Module, you are expected to:

1. demonstrate understanding of the overarching frameworks that dictates the way

one makes moral decisions; and
2. demonstrate an understanding of one’s framework in making decisions.

Discussion
Note. The different lessons in this Module have been taken from various sources available
online. Ideas from these sources have been chunked and presented with the aim of
facilitating easier understanding of the main concern of the Module. Details of the sources
can be found in the references section. You can access these sources if you are
interested to see them in their entirety.

Lesson 1: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

The Goal of Ethics

 Aristotle applied the same patient, careful, descriptive approach to his examination
of moral philosophy in the Εθικη Νικομαχοι (NICOMACHEAN ETHICS).

 He discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to

individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation,
and the methods of achieving happiness in human life. The central issue for
Aristotle is the question of character or personality- what does it take for an
individual human being to be a good person?

 Every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that
since there cannot be an infinite regress of merely extrinsic goods, there must be
a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. This end of human life
could be called happiness (or living well), of course, but what is it really? Neither
the ordinary notions of pleasure, wealth, and honor nor the philosophical theory of
forms provide an adequate account of this ultimate goal, since even individuals
who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be
happy.

 According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they
are properly used to perform. The good for human beings, then, must
 essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and this
must be an activity of the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence (Nic.
Ethics I 7).

 Human beings should aim at a life in full conformity with their rational natures; for
this, the satisfaction of desires and the acquisition of material goods are less
important than the achievement of virtue.

 A happy person will exhibit a personality appropriately balanced between reasons

and desires, with moderation characterizing all. In this sense, at least, “virtue is its
own reward.” True happiness can therefore be attained only through the cultivation
of the virtues that make a human life complete.

The Nature of Virtue

 Ethics is not merely a theoretical study for Aristotle. Unlike any intellectual capacity,
virtues of character are dispositions to act in certain ways in response to similar
situations, the habits of behaving in a certain way. Thus, good conduct arises from
habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action and correction, making
ethics an intensely practical discipline.

 Each of the virtues is a state of being that naturally seeks its mean {Gk. μεσος
[mesos]} relative to us. According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always
an intermediate state between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too
much and too little are always wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the
mean (Nic. Ethics II 6). Thus, for example:

with respect to acting in the face of danger,

courage {Gk. ανδρεια [andreia]} is a mean between
the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice;

with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures,

temperance {Gk. σωφρσυνη [sophrosúnê]} is a mean between
the excess of intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility;

with respect to spending money,

generosity is a mean between
the excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess;

with respect to relations with strangers,

being friendly is a mean between
the excess of being ingratiating and the deficiency of being surly; and

with respect to self-esteem,

magnanimity {Gk. μεγαλοψυχι&alpha [megalopsychia]} is a mean between
the excess of vanity and the deficiency of pusillanimity.
  Notice that the application of this theory of virtue requires a great deal of flexibility:
friendliness is closer to its excess than to its deficiency, while few human beings
are naturally inclined to undervalue pleasure, so it is not unusual to overlook or
ignore one of the extremes in each of these instances and simply to regard the
virtue as the opposite of the other vice. Although the analysis may be complicated
or awkward in some instances, the general plan of Aristotle’s ethical doctrine is
clear: avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all things. Not bad advice,
surely. Some version of this general approach dominated Western culture for many
centuries.

Voluntary Action

 Because ethics is a practical rather than a theoretical science, Aristotle also gave
careful consideration to the aspects of human nature involved in acting and
accepting moral responsibility.

 Moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of responsibility to a

human agent. But in certain circumstances, this attribution would not be
appropriate. Responsible action must be undertaken voluntarily, on Aristotle’s
view, and human actions are involuntary under two distinct conditions (Nic. Ethics
III 1):

a) First, actions that are produced by some external force (or, perhaps, under an
extreme duress from outside the agent) are taken involuntarily, and the agent is
not responsible for them. Thus, if someone grabs my arm and uses it to strike a
third person, I cannot reasonably be blamed (or praised) morally for what my arm
has done.

b) Second, actions performed out of ignorance are also involuntary. Thus, if I swing
my arm for exercise and strike the third party who (unbeknownst to me) is standing
nearby, then again I cannot be held responsible for having struck that person.
Notice that the sort of ignorance Aristotle is willing to regard as exculpatory is
always of lack of awareness of relevant particulars. Striking other people while
claiming to be ignorant of the moral rule under which it is wrong to do so would not
provide any excuse on his view.

 Decisions to act voluntarily rely upon deliberation about the choice among
alternative actions that the individual could perform. During the deliberative
process, individual actions are evaluated in light of the good, and the best among
them is then chosen for implementation. Under these conditions, Aristotle
supposed, moral actions are within our power to perform or avoid; hence, we can
reasonably be held responsible for them and their consequences. Just as with
health of the body, virtue of the soul is a habit that can be acquired (at least in part)
as the result of our own choices.
Deliberate Choice

 Although the virtues are habits of acting or dispositions to act in certain ways,
Aristotle maintained that these habits are acquired by engaging in proper conduct
on specific occasions and that doing so requires thinking about what one does in
a specific way. Neither demonstrative knowledge of the sort employed in Science
nor aesthetic judgment of the sort applied in crafts are relevant to morality. The
understanding {Gk. διανοια [diánoia]} can only explore the nature of origins of
things, on Aristotle’s view, and wisdom {Gk. σοφια [sophía]} can only trace the
demonstratable connections among them.

 But there is a distinctive mode of thinking that does provide adequately for morality,
according to Aristotle: practical intelligence or prudence {Gk. φρνησις [phrónêsis]}.
This faculty alone comprehends the true character of individual and community
welfare and applies its results to the guidance of human action. Acting rightly, then,
involves coordinating our desires with correct thoughts about the correct goals or
ends.

 This is the function of deliberative reasoning: to consider each of the many actions
that are within one’s power to perform, considering the extent to which each of
them would contribute to the achievement of the appropriate goal or end, making
a deliberate choice to act in the way that best fits that end, and then voluntarily
engaging in the action itself (Nic. Ethics III 3). Although virtue is different from
intelligence, then, the acquisition of virtue relies heavily upon the exercise of that
intelligence.

Weakness of the Will

 But doing the right thing is not always so simple, even though few people
deliberately choose to develop vicious habits. Aristotle sharply disagreed with
Socrates’s belief that knowing what is right always results in doing it. The great
enemy of moral conduct, on Aristotle’s view, is precisely the failure to behave well
even on those occasions when one’s deliberation has resulted in clear knowledge
of what is right.

 Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will {Gk. ακρασια [akrásia]}
that prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity with what they have
reasoned (Nic. Ethics VII 1). This may appear to be a simple failure of intelligence,
Aristotle acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw the
appropriate connection between the general moral rule and the particular case to
which it applies. Somehow, the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure
seems to obscure one’s perception of what is truly good. But this difficulty, Aristotle
held, need not be fatal to the achievement of virtue.

 Although incontinence is not heroically moral, neither is it truly vicious. Consider

the difference between an incontinent person, who knows what is right and aims
 for it but is sometimes overcome by pleasure, and an intemperate person, who
purposefully seeks excessive pleasure. Aristotle argued that the vice of
intemperance is incurable because it destroys the principle of the related virtue,
while incontinence is curable because respect for virtue remains (Nic. Ethics VII
8). A clumsy archer may get better with practice, while a skilled archer who
chooses not to aim for the target will not.

Friendship

 In a particularly influential section of the Ethics, Aristotle considered the role of

human relationships in general and friendship {Gk. φιλια [philia]} in particular as a
vital element in the good life. For without friends no one would choose to live,
though he had all other goods.

 Differentiating between the aims or goals of each, he distinguished three kinds of

friendships that we commonly form (Nic. Ethics VIII 3). A friendship for pleasure
comes into being when two people discover that they have common interest in an
activity which they can pursue together. Their reciprocal participation in that activity
results in greater pleasure for each than either could achieve by acting alone. Thus,
for example, two people who enjoy playing tennis might derive pleasure from
playing with each other. Such a relationship lasts only so long as the pleasure
continues.

 A friendship grounded on utility, on the other hand, comes into being when two
people can benefit in some way by engaging in coordinated activity. In this case,
the focus is on what use the two can derive from each other, rather than on any
enjoyment they might have. Thus, for example, one person might teach another to
play tennis for a fee: the one benefits by learning and the other benefits financially;
their relationship is based solely on the mutual utility. A relationship of this sort
lasts only so long as its utility.

 A friendship for the good, however, comes into being when two people engage in
common activities solely for the sake of developing the overall goodness of the
other. Here, neither pleasure nor utility are relevant, but the good is (Nic. Ethics
VIII 4). Thus, for example, two people with heart disease might play tennis with
each other for the sake of the exercise that contributes to the overall health of both.
Since the good is never wholly realized, a friendship of this sort should, in principle,
last forever.

 Rather conservatively representing his own culture, Aristotle expressed some

rather peculiar notions about the likelihood of forming friendships of these distinct
varieties among people of different ages and genders. But the general description
has some value nevertheless, especially in its focus on reciprocity. Mixed
friendships—those in which one party is seeking one payoff while the other seeks
a different one—are inherently unstable and prone to dissatisfaction.
Achieving Happiness

 Aristotle rounded off his discussion of ethical living with a more detailed description
of the achievement of true happiness. Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued,
since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated
with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our
natural preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant
ones.

 Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true
value and not just amusement. Thus, Aristotle held that contemplation is the
highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and
complete (Nic. Ethics X 8). In intellectual activity, human beings most nearly
approach divine blessedness, while realizing all of the genuine human virtues as
well.

Lesson 2: Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law

 Thomas's reading of Aristotle's argument for the ultimate end as a reductio and his
own claim that in one sense of it everyone pursues the ultimate end since one
chooses whatever he chooses sub ratione boni and as conducive to or a
constituent of his fulfillment and perfection, tell us something important about
Thomas's mode of procedure.
 Philosophy begins from pre-philosophical principles already had by everyone. In
the moral order, it is essential that one uncover the starting point, the latent
presupposition of any action, clarify it and proceed from there. This procedure is
equally manifest in Thomas's treatment of what he calls natural law.
 What is natural law? One description of it is: the peculiarly human participation in
the eternal law, in providence. All creatures are ordered to an end, have natures
whose fulfillment is what it is because of those natures.
 It is not peculiar to man that he is fashioned so as to find his good in the fulfillment
of his nature. That is true of anything. But other things are ordered to ends of which
they themselves are not conscious. It is peculiar to man that he becomes aware of
the good and freely directs himself to it. Of course man is not free to choose the
good—any choice is a choice under the aspect of the good. And as to what is really
as opposed to only apparently his good, he is not free to make that what it is. He
is, however, free to direct himself or not to his true end.
 A second description of natural law is: the first principles or starting points of
practical reasoning. To indicate what he means by this, Thomas invokes the
analogy of the starting points of reasoning as such. There is a distinction between
the knowledge of the simple and knowledge of the complex. The former is a
concept and is expressed in a definition or description. The latter is an affirmation
or negation of one thing of another. There is something which is first in each of
these orders. That is, Thomas holds that there is a conception which is
 prior to and presupposed by all other conceptions and a judgment that is prior to
and presupposed by all other judgments.
 Since knowledge is expressed by language, this seems to come down to the
assertion that there is a first word that everyone utters and a first statement that
would appear in everyone's baby book on the appropriate page. But surely that is
false. So what does Thomas mean?
He says that our first conception is of being, of that which is, and our first judgment is that
you cannot affirm and deny the same thing in the same sense simultaneously. Since few
if any humans first utter ‘being’ or its equivalent and no one fashions as his first
enunciation the principle of contradiction, facts as known to Thomas as ourselves, his
meaning must be more subtle. It is that whatever concept one first forms and expresses
verbally—Mama, hot, whatever, is a specification or an instance of that which is, being.
Aristotle had observed that children at first call all men father and all women mother. The
terms then function as generic for any male or female. Even more basically, each
presupposes that what is generically grasped is an instance of being. Being is prior not
because it is grasped absolutely, without reference to this being or that. It is some
particular being that is first of all grasped, and however it is named it will mean minimally
something that is.
 So too with regard to the first judgment. Children express their recognition of this
principle when they disagree over the location of some quite specific thing, say a
baseball mitt. One accuses the other of taking it. You did. I didn't. You did. I didn't.
A fundamental disagreement. But what they are agreed on is that if it were true
that one did it could not simultaneously and in the same sense be true that he did
not. The principle is latent in, implicit in, any concrete judgment just as being is
involved in any other conception.
 It is on an analogy with these starting points of thinking as such that Thomas
develops what he means by natural law. In the practical order there is a first
concept analogous to being in the theoretical order and it is the good. The good
means what is sought as fulfilling of the seeker. The first practical judgment is: the
good should be done and pursued and evil avoided. Any other practical judgment
is a specification of this one and thus includes it.
 Natural Law consists of this first judgment and other most general ones that are
beyond contest. These will be fashioned with reference to constituents of our
complete good—existence, food, drink, sex and family, society, desire to know.
We have natural inclinations to such goods. Natural law precepts concerning them
refer the objects of natural inclinations to our overall or integral good, which they
specify.
 Most moral judgments are true, if true, only by and large. They express means to
achieve our overall good. But because there is not a necessary connection
between the means and end, they can hold only for the most part. Thus there are
innumerable ways in which human beings lead their lives in keeping with the
ultimate end. Not all means are necessarily related to the end. Moral philosophy
reposes on natural law precepts as common presuppositions, but its advice will
 be true only in the main. So the lives of human beings will show a great deal of
variation in the ways they pursue the human end in accord with these general
principles. Thus the need for the virtues bearing upon the contingencies of life,
Prudence in particular.
 It might be noted that when Thomas, following Aristotle, says that man is by nature
a social or political animal, he does not mean that each of us has a tendency to
enter into social contracts or the like. The natural in this sense is what is not
chosen, but given, and what is given about human life is that we are in the first
place born into the community of the family, are dependent on it for years in order
to survive, and that we flourish as human beings within various larger social and
political communities. The moral consists in behaving well in these given settings.
Lesson 3: Kant’s Moral Philosophy

 Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a

standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI).

 Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional

principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we
may have to the contrary.

 All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle,
which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI.

 Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, had also argued that
moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these
standards were either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying one’s
desires, as in Hobbes, or external rational principles that are discoverable by
reason, as in Locke and Aquinas.

 Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason
reveals the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental
principles. Yet he also argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental
principle), and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be
shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking
doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense
of being the author of the law that binds it.

 The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an
autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of
reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Human ‘slave’
to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each
person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed
of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.
  Kant’s most influential positions in moral philosophy are found in The Groundwork
of the Metaphysics of Morals but he developed, enriched, and in some cases
modified those views in later works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The
Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Religion
within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well as his essays on history and related
topics. Kant’s Lectures on Ethics, which were lecture notes taken by three of his
students on the courses he gave in moral philosophy, also include relevant material
for understanding his views.

Aims and Methods of Moral Philosophy

 The most basic aim of moral philosophy, and so also of the Groundwork, is, in
Kant’s view, to “seek out” the foundational principle of a “metaphysics of morals,”
which Kant understands as a system of a priori moral principles that apply the CI
to human persons in all times and cultures. Kant pursues this project through the
first two chapters of the Groundwork. He proceeds by analyzing and elucidating
commonsense ideas about morality, including the ideas of a “good will” and “duty.”
The point of this first project is to come up with a precise statement of the principle
or principles on which all of our ordinary moral judgments are based. The
judgments in question are supposed to be those that any normal, sane, adult
human being would accept on due rational reflection.

 Nowadays, however, many would regard Kant as being overly optimistic about the
depth and extent of moral agreement. But perhaps he is best thought of as drawing
on a moral viewpoint that is very widely shared and which contains some general
judgments that are very deeply held.

 In any case, he does not appear to take himself to be primarily addressing a

genuine moral skeptic such as those who often populate the works of moral
philosophers, that is, someone who doubts that she has any reason to act morally
and whose moral behavior hinges on a rational proof that philosophers might try
to give. For instance, when, in the third and final chapter of the Groundwork,
Kant takes up his second fundamental aim, to “establish” this foundational moral
principle as a demand of each person’s own rational will, his conclusion apparently
falls short of answering those who want a proof that we really are bound by moral
requirements. He rests this second project on the position that we — or at least
creatures with rational wills — possess autonomy. The argument of this second
project does often appear to try to reach out to a metaphysical fact about our wills.
This has led some readers to the conclusion that he is, after all, trying to justify
moral requirements by appealing to a fact — our autonomy — that even a moral
skeptic would have to recognize.

 Kant’s analysis of the common moral concepts of “duty” and “good will” led him to
believe that we are free and autonomous as long as morality, itself, is not an
illusion. Yet in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant also tried to show that every event
has a cause. Kant recognized that there seems to be a deep tension
 between these two claims: If causal determinism is true then, it seems, we cannot
have the kind of freedom that morality presupposes, which is “a kind of causality”
that “can be active, independently of alien causes determining it” (G 4:446).

 Kant thought that the only way to resolve this apparent conflict is to distinguish
between phenomena, which is what we know through experience, and noumena,
which we can consistently think but not know through experience.

 Our knowledge and understanding of the empirical world, Kant argued, can only
arise within the limits of our perceptual and cognitive powers. We should not
assume, however, that we know all that may be true about “things in themselves,”
although we lack the “intellectual intuition” that would be needed to learn about
such things.

 These distinctions, according to Kant, allow us to resolve the “antinomy” about free
will by interpreting the “thesis” that free will is possible as about noumena and the
“antithesis” that every event has a cause as about phenomena.

 Morality thus presupposes that agents, in an incomprehensible “intelligible world,”

are able to make things happen by their own free choices in a “sensible world” in
which causal determinism is true.

 Many of Kant’s commentators, who are skeptical about these apparently exorbitant
metaphysical claims, have attempted to make sense of his discussions of the
intelligible and sensible worlds in less metaphysically demanding ways. On one
interpretation, one and the same act can be described in wholly physical terms (as
an appearance) and also in irreducibly mental terms (as a thing in itself). On this
compatibilist picture, all acts are causally determined, but a free act is one that can
be described as determined by irreducibly mental causes, and in particular by the
causality of reason.

 A second interpretation holds that the intelligible and sensible worlds are used as
metaphors for two ways of conceiving of one and the same world. When we are
engaging in scientific or empirical investigations, we often take up a perspective in
which we think of things as subject to natural causation, but when we deliberate,
act, reason and judge, we often take up a different perspective, in which we think
of ourselves and others as agents who are not determined by natural causes.
When we take up this latter, practical, standpoint, we need not believe that we or
others really are free, in any deep metaphysical sense; we need only operate
“under the idea of freedom.” Controversy persists, however, about whether Kant’s
conception of freedom requires a “two worlds” or “two perspectives” account of the
sensible and intelligible worlds.

 Although the two most basic aims Kant saw for moral philosophy are to seek out
and establish the supreme principle of morality, they are not, in Kant’s view, its
 only aims. Moral philosophy, for Kant, is most fundamentally addressed to the first-
person, deliberative question, “What ought I to do?”, and an answer to that
question requires much more than delivering or justifying the fundamental principle
of morality. We also need some account, based on this principle, of the nature and
extent of the specific moral duties that apply to us.

 To this end, Kant employs his findings from the Groundwork in The Metaphysics
of Morals, and offers a categorization of our basic moral duties to ourselves and
others. In addition, Kant thought that moral philosophy should characterize and
explain the demands that morality makes on human psychology and forms of
human social interaction. These topics, among others, are addressed in central
chapters of the second Critique, the Religion and again in the Metaphysics of
Morals, and are perhaps given a sustained treatment in Anthropology from a
Pragmatic Point of View.

 Further, a satisfying answer to the question of what one ought to do would have to
take into account any political and religious requirements there are. Each of these
requirement turn out to be, indirectly at least, also moral obligations for Kant, and
are discussed in the Metaphysics of Morals and in Religion.

 Finally, moral philosophy should say something about the ultimate end of human
endeavor, the Highest Good, and its relationship to the moral life. In the Critique
of Practical Reason, Kant argued that this Highest Good for humanity is complete
moral virtue together with complete happiness, the former being the condition of
our deserving the latter. Unfortunately, Kant noted, virtue does not insure wellbeing
and may even conflict with it.

 Further, he thought that there is no real possibility of moral perfection in this life
and indeed few of us fully deserve the happiness we are lucky enough to enjoy.
Reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of Divine Providence, on Kant’s
view, nor the immortality of the soul, which seem necessary to rectify these things.
Nevertheless, Kant argued, an unlimited amount of time to perfect ourselves
(immortality) and a commensurate achievement of wellbeing (insured by God) are
“postulates” required by reason when employed in moral matters.

 Throughout his moral works, Kant returns time and again to the question of the
method moral philosophy should employ when pursuing these aims. A basic theme
of these discussions is that the fundamental philosophical issues of morality must
be addressed a priori, that is, without drawing on observations of human beings
and their behavior.

 Kant’s insistence on an a priori method to seek out and establish fundamental

moral principles, however, does not always appear to be matched by his own
practice. The Metaphysics of Morals, for instance, is meant to be based on a priori
rational principles, but many of the specific duties that Kant describes, along with
some of the arguments he gives in support of them, rely on general
 facts about human beings and our circumstances that are known from
experience.

 In one sense, it might seem obvious why Kant insists on an a priori method. A
“metaphysics of morals” would be, more or less, an account of the nature and
structure of moral requirements — in effect, a categorization of duties and values.
Such a project would address such questions as, What is a duty? What kinds
of duties are there? What is the good? What kinds of goods are there?, and so on.
These appear to be metaphysical questions.

 Any principle used to provide such categorizations appears to be a principle of

metaphysics, in a sense, but Kant did not see them as external moral truths that
exist independently of rational agents. Moral requirements, instead, are rational
principles that tell us what we have overriding reason to do. Metaphysical principles
of this sort are always sought out and established by a priori methods.

 Perhaps something like this was behind Kant’s thinking. However, the
considerations he offers for an a priori method do not all obviously draw on this
sort of rationale. The following are three considerations favoring a priori methods
that he emphasizes repeatedly.

 The first is that, as Kant and others have conceived of it, ethics initially requires an
analysis of our moral concepts. We must understand the concepts of a “good will”,
“obligation”, “duty” and so on, as well as their logical relationships to one another,
before we can determine whether our use of these concepts is justified. Given that
the analysis of concepts is an a priori matter, to the degree that ethics consists of
such an analysis, ethics is a priori as a well.

 Of course, even were we to agree with Kant that ethics should begin with analysis,
and that analysis is or should be an entirely a priori undertaking, this would not
explain why all of the fundamental questions of moral philosophy must be pursued
a priori. Indeed, one of the most important projects of moral philosophy, for Kant,
is to show that we, as rational agents, are bound by moral requirements and that
fully rational agents would necessarily comply with them.

 Kant admits that his analytical arguments for the CI are inadequate on their own
because the most they can show is that the CI is the supreme principle of morality
if there is such a principle. Kant must therefore address the possibility that morality
itself is an illusion by showing that the CI really is an unconditional requirement of
reason that applies to us.

 Even though Kant thought that this project of “establishing” the CI must also be
carried out a priori, he did not think we could pursue this project simply by analyzing
our moral concepts or examining the actual behavior of others. What is needed,
instead, is a “synthetic”, but still a priori, kind of argument that starts
 from ideas of freedom and rational agency and critically examines the nature and
limits of these capacities.

 This is the second reason Kant held that fundamental issues in ethics must be
addressed with an a priori method: The ultimate subject matter of ethics is the
nature and content of the principles that necessarily determine a rational will.

 Fundamental issues in moral philosophy must also be settled a priori because of

the nature of moral requirements themselves, or so Kant thought. This is a third
reason he gives for an a priori method, and it appears to have been of great
importance to Kant: Moral requirements present themselves as being
unconditionally necessary. But an a posteriori method seems ill-suited to
discovering and establishing what we must do whether we feel like doing it or not;
surely such a method could only tell us what we actually do.

 So an a posteriori method of seeking out and establishing the principle that

generates such requirements will not support the presentation of moral “oughts”
as unconditional necessities. Kant argued that empirical observations could only
deliver conclusions about, for instance, the relative advantages of moral behavior
in various circumstances or how pleasing it might be in our own eyes or the eyes
of others. Such findings clearly would not support the unconditional necessity of
moral requirements.

 To appeal to a posteriori considerations would thus result in a tainted conception

of moral requirements. It would view them as demands for which compliance is not
unconditionally necessary, but rather necessary only if additional considerations
show it to be advantageous, optimific or in some other way felicitous. Thus, Kant
argued that if moral philosophy is to guard against undermining the unconditional
necessity of obligation in its analysis and defense of moral thought, it must be
carried out entirely a priori.

Lesson 4: Utilitarianism

 Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. For consequentialism, the moral

rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences it produces.

 On consequentialist grounds, actions and inactions whose negative consequences

outweigh the positive consequences will be deemed morally wrong while actions
and inactions whose positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences
will be deemed morally right.

 On utilitarian grounds, actions and inactions which benefit few people and harm
more people will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions which harm
fewer people and benefit more people will be deemed morally right.
 Benefit and harm can be characterized in more than one way; for classical
utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873), they are defined in terms of happiness/unhappiness and pleasure/pain. On
this view, actions and inactions that cause less pain or unhappiness and more
pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions will be
deemed morally right, while actions and inactions that cause more pain or
unhappiness and less pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and
inactions will be deemed morally wrong. Although pleasure and happiness can
have different meanings, in the context of this chapter they will be treated as
synonymous.

 Utilitarians’ concern is how to increase net utility. Their moral theory is based on
the principle of utility which states that “the morally right action is the action that
produces the most good.” The morally wrong action is the one that leads to the
reduction of the maximum good.

 A utilitarian may argue that although some armed robbers robbed a bank in a heist,
as long as there are more people who benefit from the robbery (say, in a Robin
Hood-like manner the robbers generously shared the money with many people)
than there are people who suffer from the robbery (say, only the billionaire who
owns the bank will bear the cost of the loss), the heist will be morally right rather
than morally wrong. And on this utilitarian premise, if more people suffer from the
heist while fewer people benefit from it, the heist will be morally wrong.

 It is noticeable that utilitarianism is opposed to deontology, which is a moral theory

that says that as moral agents we have certain duties or obligations, and these
duties or obligations are formalized in terms of rules.

 There is a variant of utilitarianism, namely rule utilitarianism, that provides rules for
evaluating the utility of actions and inactions. The difference between a utilitarian
rule and a deontological rule is that according to rule utilitarians, acting according
to the rule is correct because the rule is one that, if widely accepted and followed,
will produce the most good.

 According to deontologists, whether the consequences of our actions are positive

or negative does not determine their moral rightness or moral wrongness. What
determines their moral rightness or moral wrongness is whether we act or fail to
act in accordance with our duty or duties (where our duty is based on rules that are
not themselves justified by the consequences of their being widely accepted and
followed).
Some Varieties (or Types) of Utilitarianism

 Actual Consequence Utilitarians versus Foreseeable Consequence Utilitarians.

The former base the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of
actions on the actual consequences of actions; while the latter base the evaluation
of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions on the foreseeable
consequences of actions.

 J. J. C. Smart (1920-2012) explains the rationale for this distinction with reference
to the following example:

o Imagine that you rescued someone from drowning. You were acting in good
faith to save a drowning person, but it just so happens that the person later
became a mass murderer. Since the person became a mass murderer,
actual consequence utilitarians would argue that in hindsight the act of
rescuing the person was morally wrong. However, foreseeable
consequence utilitarians would argue that—looking forward (i.e., in
foresight)—it could not be foreseen that the person was going to be a mass
murderer, hence the act of rescuing them was morally right (Smart 1973,
49). Moreover, they could have turned out to be a “saint” or Nelson Mandela
or Martin Luther King Jr., in which case the action would be considered to
be morally right by actual consequence utilitarians.

 Act Utilitarianism versus Rule Utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual

actions and says that we should apply the principle of utility in order to evaluate
them. Therefore, act utilitarians argue that among possible actions, the action that
produces the most utility would the morally right action. But this may seem
impossible to do in practice since, for everything that we might do that has a
potential effect on other people, we would thus be morally required to examine its
consequences and pick the one with the best outcome. Rule utilitarianism
responds to this problem by focusing on general types of actions and determining
whether they typically lead to good or bad results. This, for them is the meaning of
commonly held moral rules: they are generalizations of the typical consequences
of our actions.

 If stealing typically leads to bad consequences, stealing in general would be

considered by a rule utilitarian to be wrong. Hence rule utilitarians claim to be able
to reinterpret talk of rights, justice, and fair treatment in terms of the principle of
utility by claiming that the rationale behind any such rules is really that these rules
generally lead to greater welfare for all concerned. We may wonder whether
utilitarianism in general is capable of even addressing the notion that people have
rights and deserve to be treated justly and fairly, because in critical situations the
rights and wellbeing of persons can be sacrificed as long as this seems to lead to
an increase overall utility.
  In a version of the famous “trolley problem,” imagine that you and an overweight
stranger are standing next to each other on a footbridge above a rail track. You
discover that there is a runaway trolley rolling down the track and the trolley is
about to kill five people who cannot get off of the track quickly enough to avoid the
accident. Being willing to sacrifice yourself to save the five persons, you consider
jumping off the bridge, in front of the trolley…but you realize that you are far too
light to stop the trolley….The only way you can stop the trolley killing five people is
by pushing this large stranger off the footbridge, in front of the trolley. If you push
the stranger off, he will be killed, but you will save the other five.

 Utilitarianism, especially act utilitarianism, seems to suggest that the life of the
overweight stranger should be sacrificed regardless of any purported right to life
he may have. A rule utilitarian, however, may respond that since in general killing
innocent people to save others is not what typically leads to the best outcomes, we
should be very wary of making a decision to do so in this case. This is especially
true in this scenario since everything rests on our calculation of what might possibly
stop the trolley, while in fact there is really far too much uncertainty in the outcome
to warrant such a serious decision. If nothing else, the emphasis placed on general
principles by rule utilitarians can serve as a warning not to take too lightly the notion
that the ends might justify the means. Whether or not this response is adequate is
something that has been extensively debated with reference to this famous
example as well as countless variations. This brings us to our final question here
about utilitarianism—whether it is ultimately a persuasive and reasonable
approach to morality.

Is Utilitarianism Persuasive and Reasonable?

 First of all, let us start by asking about the principle of utility as the foundational
principle of morality, that is, about the claim that what is morally right is just what
leads to the better outcome. John Stuart Mill’s argument that it is based on his
claim that “each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own
happiness.” Mill derives the principle of utility from this claim based on three
considerations, namely desirability, exhaustiveness, and impartiality. That is,
happiness is desirable as an end in itself; it is the only thing that is so desirable
(exhaustiveness); and no one person’s happiness is really any more desirable or
less desirable than that of any other person (impartiality).

 In defending desirability, Mill argues that the only proof capable of being given that
an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is
audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like
manner…the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is
that people do actually desire it.

 In defending exhaustiveness, Mill does not argue that other things, apart from
happiness, are not desired as such; but while other things appear to be
 desired, happiness is the only thing that is really desired since whatever else we
may desire, we do so because attaining that thing would make us happy.

 In defending impartiality, Mill argues that equal amounts of happiness are equally
desirable, whether the happiness is felt by the same person or by different persons.
In Mill’s words, “each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general
happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.”

Lesson 5: Justice and Fairness

 Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In

fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and
morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek
philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher
John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central
core of morality.

Justice

 Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional
terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related
terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been
more distinct understandings of the two terms.

 While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness,
fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to
one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to
make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a
particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial
to both justice and fairness.

 When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions
have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a
group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise.

 Most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about
justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when
goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When
such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all
accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

Principles of Justice

 The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted
since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the
principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."
  In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows:
"Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant
to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do
the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work
they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is
paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we
have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not
relevant to normal work situations.
 There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for
treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent
gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives
the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a
theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the
government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent
citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments
that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is
fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a
project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria—need,
desert, contribution, and effort—we acknowledge as justifying differential
treatment, then, are numerous.

 There are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people
different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is
unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their
religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for
armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the
same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar
contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from
other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person
is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't
compensated for a harm he or she suffered.

Different Kinds of Justice

 Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that
benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are
fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in
unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be
changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South
was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people
differently on the basis of race.

 Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In
general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account
relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the
 criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously
unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose
the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured
another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites,
they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder
whites or blacks murder blacks.

 Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated
for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional
to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that is at stake
in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines. Some argue that mine
owners should compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others
argue that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose employment in the
mines.

The Foundations of Justice

 The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability,

interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out,
the stability of a society—or any group, for that matter—depends upon the extent
to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly.

 When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal
treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and
strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they
will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just.

 As the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are
all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity
they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally
on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental
human dignity is violated.

 Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in
our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions
treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in
treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand?

 But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions.
Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds
of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an
expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an
acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community
we must treat each other as equals.

74 | G M C A L A G U A S / E t h i c s