Module 2

Duty and the Good Live classroom notes: ● Food for thought ○ Is it ok to make a decision that solely benefits you? ● Egoism and Utilitarianism ○ Ethical egoism ■ is the theory that the right action is the one that advances one’s own best interests. One’s only moral duty is to promote the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself. ○ Act-egoism ■ says that to determine right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual acts. Act A is preferable to Act B because it promotes your self-interest better. ○ Rule-egoism ■ says that to determine right action, you must see if an act falls under a rule that if consistently followed would maximize your self- interest. ○ Review of Criticisms of Egoism ■ The theory is not consistent with considered moral judgments (those judgments that seem highly plausible and commonsensical. One can come up with examples where this theory promotes actions that seem contrary to commonsense moral considerations such as killing bedridden relative for life insurance money when no one else would find out. ■ Ethical egoism is not impartial. In fact, it is arbitrary treating oneself as more important than the interests of all others. ■ The theory is inconsistent and will potentially suggest different outcomes even in similar situations. ○ Utilitarianism ■ The greater good for the greater number of people. Not concerned about self as much as benefiting the most people possible. ■ What is the key difference between ethical egoism and utilitarianism? ■ Act- utilitarianism ● says that right actions are those that directly produce the greatest overall happiness, everyone considered. ■ Rule-utilitarianism ● says that the morally right action is the one covered by a rule that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. ■ Mill explains that the happiness of all concerned needs to be taken into account when determining the greatest good. ■ What are some ways you would determine who is

concerned/relevant in a given situation? ● Happiness, Pleasure and the Good ○ Pleasure is an important consideration in moral deliberation. ■ On a 1-5 scale: 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree., where do you fall? ○ Some food for thought ■ How does pleasure come into play when we discuss ethics? ■ Are all pleasures the same? ■ Why would some pleasures be better than others? ● Maxims and Imperatives ○ Maxims ■ Kant believes that every action implies a general rule, or maxim. ■ If you steal a car, then your action implies a maxim such as “In this situation, steal a car if you want one.” So the first version of the categorical imperative says that an action is right if you can will that the maxim of an action becomes a moral law applying to all persons. That is, an action is permissible if (1) its maxim can be universalized (if everyone can consistently act on the maxim in similar situations) and (2) you would be willing to let that happen. If you can so will the maxim, then the action is right (permissible). ○ Imperatives ■ are the rules that make up a moral law ■ hypothetical imperative ● An imperative that tells us what we should do if we have certain desires. ■ categorical imperative ● An imperative that we should follow regardless of our particular wants and needs; also, the principle that defines Kant’s ethical system. ■ means-ends principle ● The rule that we must always treat people (including ourselves) as ends in themselves, never merely as a means. As creatures of great intrinsic worth, never merely as things of instrumental value, never merely as tools to be used for someone else’s purpose. ● Ends vs Means: Which are more important? Does it depend on the situation? ● Live classroom ○ Code word 1 egoism ○ Code word 2 citations Reading Notes: ● Kant's Theory: Maxims and Imperatives ○ Maxims ■ Maxims are how someone formulates actions into principles. Joshua Glasgow describes them as, "an abstract description of the action one intends to perform" (2006, p.127). To properly

formulation can be understood as the following: if you are going to do something, then you grant that everyone else in that same situation will have the same right to perform that action as you do. So if you are going to lie under oath, then according to the first formulation, you are saying that everyone has the right to lie under oath. ■ The second formulation can be boiled down to the idea that you are not to use someone as a means, as a stepping stone, or to take advantage of him or her for some other final purpose. This formulation emphasizes the dignity of you at the same time as everyone else. If you lie to someone, it could be violating the first formulation, but at the same time, it is probably violating the second formulation since you are lying to the person for your own ends, not for the sake of the other person. ● Utilitarianism and Egoism: Rule versus Act ○ Utilitarianism and Egoism: Rule versus Act ■ Utilitarianism emphasizes seeking out to maximize happiness and minimize pain, but there are different ways to determine how to do this. Act utilitarianism focuses on the specific act or situation that one is in. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, looks at what would happen if a rule guided the decision in that situation and all other similar situations. ● Beware of the Fallacies ○ During your course of study of Ethics, it is not only important to understand the different theories, but also to be able to apply them so that you can make quality arguments and assertions. All too often, people assert positions or arguments without any substance to back them up. These arguments are hollow and baseless, making it hard to win or to have the other side see your position. There are some bad arguments that are so common that they have been named. These are known as fallacies. You will learn more about these common fallacies by completing the common fallacies exercise below. All definitions are from Anthony Weston's Rulebook for Arguments (2000, p.71-78) unless otherwise noted. (For a much more substantial list you can look at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on fallacies.) ○ Ad Hominem ■ This occurs when attacking the person rather than his/her qualifications, reliability, or the argument he/she makes. Ad Hominem means "to the man". ■ Example: Why should I believe Albert Einstein's theory of general

relativity? The guy couldn't even comb his hair. If he can't even do that, then how am I supposed to believe that he could know something as complicated as physics? ○ Appeal to Authority ■ This occurs when citing a source as an authority that is not actually an authority or citing a source that is an authority but not in the area under discussion. ■ Examples: ● Fred says that you ought to donate 5 percent of your income to charity. ● The Secretary General of the United Nations says that everyone should swim 3 miles a day. ○ Appeal to Ignorance ■ This is when arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false. ■ Example: Senator Joseph McCarthy, "I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections." ○ Begging the Question ■ This occurs when you use your conclusion as your premise. ■ Example: Begging the Question is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything. Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the first statement. Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true. Therefore, Begging the Question is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything. ○ Equivocation ■ This occurs when the meaning of a term is slid to a different meaning in the middle of an argument. ■ Example: Hot dogs are better than nothing. Nothing is better than steak. Therefore, hot dogs are better than steak ○ Overgeneralization ■ This occurs when making a generalization from too few examples. ■ Example: Claiming that all Muslims must be terrorists based on one group, whose members were Muslim, committing a terrorist act.