Applied Ethics 25 Marker Essay Plans
Which ethical theory gives the most convincing response to the issue
of:
Stealing
Introduction
Define stealing
Could mention that will focus on normative ethical theories. Meta-ethics
does not give specific guidance on individual moral issues (e.g., stealing),
rather morality as a whole.
Thesis: AVE gives the most convincing response to the issue of stealing as
it has the sophistication to distinguish between unjust states of affairs and
unjust actions for which rectification is required, as well as the complexity
of moral decision-making reflected in Hursthouse’s ‘moral remainder’
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism:
Define utilitarianism: hedonistic; consequentialist.
Bentham (Act Utilitarianism): originates from psychological hedonism
moving into ethical hedonism.
The moral worth of the action is dependent on its net happiness caused,
which can be calculated through the felicific calculus.
Stealing doesn’t have any intrinsic moral worth (the only thing intrinsically
worthy is pleasure or pain), rather it is instrumentally worthy (based on
consequences), and here the fact that utilitarianism is democratic, and
egalitarian should be accounted for.
Strength: utilitarianism is flexible in when stealing could be morally
permissible: e.g. a Robin Hood scenario; solely justified in terms of utility,
not on a notion of rights (Bentham: ‘nonsense on stilts’)
Issue:
People’s judgment of when stealing creates more happiness is entirely
subjective and so in an act utilitarian society people would always be in
fear of being stolen from.
Especially because of the issues with the felicific calculus, it is
questionable as to how one is meant to know when stealing is morally
permissible.
Go into issue of calculation further: impossible to meaningfully calculate
morality of an action especially when there is inherent subjectivity.
Utilitarianism faces issues surrounding practicality.
Especially because you need to know the long-term consequences of an
action, but this is not possible to know – e.g., you could lie to save a life,
and then they turn out to be Hitler.
Response: Rule Utilitarianism
Mill could respond to this issue by saying rather than calculating the
morality of each individual stealing action, you could create a rule (RU).
, A society in which stealing was approved situationally is unlikely to lead to
greatest happiness in the long run, i.e. this is a weakness in the act
utilitarian response.
So likely true that people would constantly live in fear of being stolen
from. Could either be strong rule utilitarianism or weak rule utilitarianism.
Mill would encourage rules, supported by harm principle and his notion of
justice (perfect duties – an individual’s valid claim, i.e. a ‘right’, on the
society to protect them; Mill considers these rights to be ‘extraordinarily
important’).
So, there could be a strong rule approach (never steal).
Response to response:
Strong rule approach could lead to rule fetishism, which undermines long
term utility. Autonomy is restricted and people aren’t stealing because
they don’t want to, but because they feel they have to.
R to R to R:
Adopt a weak rule response: you ought not to steal except in certain
circumstances when stealing maximises utility.
R to R to R to R:
This collapses into act utilitarianism.
Issues of subjectivity surrounding calculation are retained so utilitarianism
fails as a theory so cannot give a convincing response to the issue of
stealing.
Kantian Deontology
Define Kantian Deontology: duty; good will is the only good thing without
qualification, reason (rational).
Categorical Imperative: First Formulation:
Universalisation of maxim “I want to steal” to “Everyone ought to steal”
leads to a contradiction in conception and thus a perfect duty not to steal.
Strength: clarity and consistency is its strength
Issue
Kant wouldn’t allow for exceptions, e.g. the perfect duty (justice) of don’t
steal outweighs the imperfect duties (virtue) to be compassionate to
others, in the form of saving their life.
So Kantian deontology often doesn’t give the correct answer when it
comes to universalizability determining morality.
For example, steal if your name is XYZ and pink hair can be universalised,
but this is still clearly immoral.
Response
Second Formulation: to steal would suggest that one is using another
person merely as a means to their own ends, which cannot be permitted
as it undermines the victim’s autonomy, i.e. their ability to pursue their
own ends.
, Strengths: Clear and consistent response.
Response to response:
Inflexible in cases where stealing may be justified, e.g. a Robin Hood
scenario.
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Explain the theory
The primary goal for humans according to AVE is eudaimonia (flourishing).
AVE is not concerned with the morality of individual actions, rather the
virtues (character traits and dispositions) of the agent who performs
actions.
AVE mentions the function argument, showing how the purpose of
humanity is to flourish. In order to reach this goal, we must fulfil our
function or distinctive characteristic ability (reason) well, this means living
a good life in accordance with reason. To do this we need to possess the
correct virtues.
AVE mentions how we use practical wisdom (phronesis) which is applying
rationality to different circumstances to know what the right action is and
being able to execute that action. The theory also relates this to the
golden mean, between vices of deficiency and excess.
To develop practical wisdom we require strong virtues, and AVE uses the
skill analogy to show how we develop virtues. We use habituation to
become a master in certain virtues (e.g., temperance)
People must accept moral responsibility for voluntary actions.
The virtue of justice in the wide sense is that which is in accordance with a
just law.
CAN BRING IN HERE ISSUE OF LACK OF CLEAR GUIDANCE AND APPLY IT TO THE
ISSUE – NO CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHETHER WE CAN STEAL.
Applied to the issue:
Aristotle’s notion of justice is primarily deontological, i.e. focussed on
actions which are right or wrong in their virtue not consequences - stealing
is always a matter of injustice, never in the mean.
Aristotle is unlikely to ever say that “stealing” is in the golden mean,
where it is a virtuous action between two vices of deficiency and excess.
He may have even argued that stealing is inherently selfish, and practical
wisdom allows you to understand stealing is mostly wrong.
Reciprocity of the virtues: one must take a holistic approach when
deciding which virtues to act on, so if there is a situation where stealing
satisfies the virtue of generosity, all other virtues must be considered
before deeming stealing to be morally correct.
Aristotle would also consider justice in the narrow sense – gaining
someone’s fair share in terms of distribution and rectification: if one is
poor due to an unjust state of affairs (not due to anyone’s action), then
doing an unjust act (stealing) is morally wrong because the unjust state of
