final exam ( 14-21)

• Ethical Pluralism


  The view that there are multiple, irreducible moral values or principles
• Absolute Moral Rules (AMRs)

  Moral rules that it is never morally permissible to break
• Central Question


  Are there any absolute moral rules (AMRs)– moral rules that it is never morally permissible to break?
• Proposed AMRs

  • "Keep your promises."
  • "Never commit an act of terrorism against innocent civilians"
  • "Never torture anyone."
  • "Never kill an innocent person"
• The Argument from Contradiction

  1. If a moral theory allows for several AMRs, they are bound to conflict.

  2. If they conflict, the theory contains a contradiction.

  3. The correct moral theory will not contain a contradiction.

  4. C) The correct moral theory will not allow for several AMRs.
• Conflicting AMRs


  • "Don't kill innocent people."
  • "Save people from death"
• Trolley Car Case (Large Man Version)


  • "I shouldn't push"
  • "I should push."
• Perhaps just one AMR?
• Perhaps all AMRs are prohibitions? (If so, you can comply with all by simply doing nothing.)
• The purpose of the rule isn't to protect the underlying value to the greatest extent possible.
• Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA)

  It's always morally worse to do harm than to allow that same harm to happen
• Possible counterexamples to DDA

  • Bathtub case
  • Trolley Case (Evil intentions, switch already flipped)
• Prima Facie Duty


  A permanent, excellent (but not absolute) reason to do something
• Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

  Provided that your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain harms, though you must never intend to cause those harms
• In Push, you intend a harm. But in Flip, you merely foresee that a harm will result.
• Example of Prima Facie Duties


  • I promise to meet a friend for lunch, but a stranger is drowning in a lake
• If intending harm means you wanted the harm to occur, then neither case involves intended harm.
• If intending harm means your plan involves causing the harm, then both cases involve intended harm.
• Prima Facie Duties


  • Duty of fidelity
  • Duty of reparation
  • Duty of gratitude
  • Duty of justice
  • Duty of beneficence
  • Duty of self-improvement
  • Duty of non-maleficence
• Final Duty


  What one ought to do in a particular case, taking into account all the relevant Prima Facie Duties
• If you have a Prima Facie Duty to X and no Prima Facie Duty not to X, then your final duty is to X
• Pluralism


  There's more than one fundamental moral rule
• Monism


  There is just one fundamental moral rule
• Advantage of Ross's View: It explains moral regret
• Self-evident


  Evident without any need of proof, or of evidence beyond itself
• Find moral role model(s)

  1. Ask: "What would those moral role models do in this situation?"

  2. That's the right action to do
• Virtue Ethics (VE)


  An act is morally right just because it is one that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation
• Objection to Ross: His theory offers no guidance (no rule or procedure) for what to do when Prima Facie Duties conflict
• Virtue


  Lies in a mean between two extremes
• Reply: We shouldn't expect there to be any such rule or procedure
• Virtue of courage


  • Afraid of everything = cowardice (excess of fear)
  • Fearful to the right degree, towards the right things = courage (mean)
  • Not afraid of anything = rashness (deficiency of fear)
• Virtue of "proper pride"

  • Excessive pride = arrogance
  • Pride to the right degree, towards the right things = "proper pride"
  • Not enough pride = undue humility
• Particularism


  There are no moral rules – neither absolute moral rules, nor prima facie moral rules
• How do people come to have these virtues?

  Habitual behavior
• How do I know when I've acquired the virtuous character trait?

  You feel pleasure when performing virtuous actions
• What about moral rules and principles?

  You can't come up with a precise set of moral rules and principles, but a person with "practical wisdom" will see what the right thing to do is
• Objection to Particularism


  • You prima facie shouldn't intentionally kill someone who wants to live
  • You prima facie shouldn't torture someone for fun
  • You prima facie shouldn't act unjustly
• Objections to Virtue Ethics

  • VE is too demanding
  • Sometimes if we ask "WWVPD?" we get the wrong answer
  • How do we pick the moral role models?
  • The problem of conflict (if there's more than one moral role model)
  • VE faces an objection similar to the 'Euthyphro' objection to DCT
• If the VP helps for no reason at all, that's not really virtuous
• If the VP helps for a reason, then those reasons for helping, and not the fact that a VP would help, explain why it's right to help