Introduction to Ethical Theories
Consider these questions:
1. Is it right for a woman to have an abortion for any reason?
2. Should children with serious birth defects be put to death?
3. Do people have a right to die?
4. Does everyone have a right to medical care?
5. Should physicians ever lie to their patients?
6. Should people suffering from a genetic disease be allowed to have children?
7. Can parents agree to allow their children to be used as experimental subjects?
· Our attitudes changes, however, when we find ourselves in a position in which we are the decision makers. It changes, too, when we are in a position in which we must advise those who make the decision. Or when we are on the receiving end of the decision.
· Are there any rules, standards, or principles that we can use as guides when we are faced with moral decisions?
· We must turn to general ethical theories and to a consideration of moral principles that have been proposed to hold in all contexts of human action.
· Ethical theories attempt to articulate and justify principles that can be employed as guides for making moral decisions and as standards for the evaluation of actions and policies.
· Ethical theories also offer a means to explain and justify actions. If our actions are guided by a particular theory, then we can explain them by demonstrating that the principles of the theory required us to act as we did.
· Their general aim is to show that the theory is one that any reasonable individual would find persuasive or would endorse as correct. Accordingly, appeals to religion, faith, or nonnatural factors are not considered to be either necessary or legitimate to justify the theory. Rational persuasion alone is regarded as the basis of justification.
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITARIANISM
· John Stuart Mill calls it the “principle of utility” and states is this way: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
· The principle focuses attention on the consequence of actions, rather than upon some feature of the actions themselves. The “utility” or “usefulness” of an action is determined by the extent to which it produces happiness. Thus, no action is in itself right or wrong. Nor is an action, right or wrong by virtue of the actor’s hopes, intentions, or past actions. Consequences alone are important.
· Using the principle, we are supposed to consider the possible results of each of the actions. Then we are to choose the one that produces the most benefit (happiness) at the least cost (unhappiness). The action we take may produce some unhappiness, but it is a balance of happiness over unhappiness that the principle tells us to seek.
· Example:
- Suppose, for example, that a woman in a large hospital is near death; she is in a coma, an EEG shows only minimal brain function, and a respirator is required to keep her breathing. Another patient has just been brought to the hospital from the scene of an automobile accident. His kidneys have been severely damaged, and he is in need of an immediate transplant. There is a good tissue match with the woman’s kidneys. Is it right to hasten her death by removing a kidney?
· The principle of utility would probably consider the removal justified. The woman is virtually dead, while the man has a good chance of surviving.
· The principle of utility is also called the “greatest happiness principle” by Bentham and Mill. Those actions are right that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This alternative formulation makes it obvious that in deciding how to act it is not just my happiness or the happiness of a particularly person or group that must be considered.
· According to utilitarianism, every person is to count just as much as any other person. That is, when we are considering how we should act, everyone’s interest must be considered.
· In making a moral decision we must look at the situation in an objective way. We must, he says, be a “benevolent spectator” and then act in a way that will bring about the best results for all concerned.
· Utilitarianism is considered to be teleological ethical theory. (“Teleological” comes from the Greek word “telos” which means “end” or “goal.”) A teleological ethical theory judges the rightness of an action in terms of an external goal or purpose – “general happiness” or utility for utilitarianism. However, utilitarianism is also a consequentialist theory, for the outcomes or consequences of actions are the only considerations relevant to determining their moral rightness.
ACT UTILITARIANISM AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
· Act utilitarianism holds that the principle should be applied to particular acts in a particular circumstances. Rule utilitarianism maintains that the principle should be used to test rules, which can in turn be used to decide the rightness of particular acts.
· Act utilitarianism holds that an act is right if, and only if, no other act could have been performed that would produce a higher utility.
· The great strength of act utilitarianism is that it invites us to deal with each case as unique. When the circumstances of another case are different, we might, without being inconsistent, choose another of the possible actions.
· Rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it conforms to a rule of conduct that has been validated by the principle of utility as one that will produce at least as much utility as any other rule applicable to the situation.
· The rule utilitarianism is not concerned with assessing the utility of individual actions, but of particular rules. All that we have to establish is that following a certain rule will, in general, result in a situation in which utility is maximized.
· The basic idea behind rule utilitarianism is that having a set of rules that are always observed produces the greatest social utility.
· Thus, for act utilitarianism it is perfectly legitimate to violate a rule if doing so will maximize utility in that instance. By contrast, the rule utilitarian holds that rules must generally be followed, even though following them may produce less net utility ( more unhappiness that happiness) in a particular case.
· Critique:
- Clearly what is missing from utilitarianism is the concept of justice. It cannot be right to increase the general happiness at the expense of one person or group. There must be some way of distributing happiness and unhappiness and avoiding exploitation.
KANT’S ETHICS
· For Kant, the consequences of an action are morally irrelevant. Rather, an action is right when it is in accordance with a rule that satisfies a principle he calls the “categorical imperative.”
· Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a universal law. Kant calls the principle “categorical” to distinguish it from “hypothetical” imperatives. These tell us what to do if we want to bring about certain consequences – such as happiness. A categorical imperative prescribes what we ought to do without reference to any consequences. The principle is an “imperative” because it is a command.
· The test imposed on maxims by the categorical imperative is one of generalization or “universalizability.” The central idea of the test is that a moral maxim is one that can be generalized to apply to all cases of the same kind. That is, you must be willing to see you rule adopted as a maxim by everyone who is in a situation similar to yours. You must be willing to see your maxim universalized, even though it may turn out on some other occasion to work to your disadvantage.
· Example:
- Suppose for example, that I am a physician and I tell a patient that he has a serious illness, although I know that he doesn’t. This may be to my immediate advantage, for the treatment and the supposed cure will increase my income and reputation. The maxim of my action might be phrased as “Whenever I have a healthy patient, I shall lie to him and say that he has an illness.”
· Another formulation of the categorical imperative, “Always act so as to treat humanity, either yourself or others, always as an end and never as only means.
· Every rational creature has a worth in itself. This worth is not conferred by being born into a society with a certain political structure , nor even by belonging to a certain biological species. The worth is inherent in the sheer possession of rationality. Rational creatures possess what Kant calls an “autonomous, self-legislating will.” Rationality confers upon everyone an intrinsic worth and dignity.
· Moral rules are not mere arbitrary conventions or subjective standards. They are objective truths that have their source in the rational nature of human beings.
· For Kant, happiness is at best a conditional or qualified good. In his view, there is only one thing that can be said to be good in itself: a good will.
· Will is what directs our actions and guides our conduct. But what makes a will a “good will”? Kant’s answer is that a will becomes good when it acts purely for the sake of duty.
· Morality for Kant, does not rest on results, such as the production of happiness- but neither does it rest on our feelings, impulses, or inclinations. An action is right, only when it is done for the sake of duty.
· Two types of duties: Perfect duty is one we must always observe. Imperfect duty is one that we must that we must observe only on some occasions. I have a perfect duty not to injure another person, but I have only an imperfect duty to show love and compassion.
