NOTES EPP
WEEK 1 – Singer
Lecture 1
Normative questions (ought to be) vs Evaluative questions (is something good or bad)
->moral questions (& instrumental questions)
Empirical facts can be necessary, but never sufficient. An argument is good when your conclusion is
accepted based on the reasons you have given. You don’t have to falsify your hypothesis answering a
normative question, the theory is diagnostic or prescriptive.
Maurits: moral concerns are
- Overriding, come first
- Unconditional and independent from preferences
- Universal
Public policy as governmental or institutional decision affecting the public, evaluating this ethically is
different from political philosophy.
Singer
We have the capabilities to relieve poverty, but do not do it, which is unjustifiable, we need to look
at moral issues in a different way, change our way of life. assumptions:
- Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and health care are bad
- If it is in our power to prevent bad things from happening, without having to sacrifice
anything of comparable moral importance, we morally ought to do so. (Child in the pond)
(Counterargument: how did the child end up there? Did we push him?, analogy incorrect)
o No account of proximity or distance (no discrimination between familiar people)
>affected by globalisation
o Only one who could help or millions of people in the same position, helping
>other people doing nothing is not an excuse to do nothing yourself
>everyone doing the minimum can be justified, equal load, but also as much as
possible (could lead to unnecessary sacrifice) (Singer cannot be seen as a hypocrite)
o MAIN OBJECTIONS (according to Maurtis)
So everyone has an equal duty to help everyone. Duty and charity are currently confused, people are
not ashamed when buying things for themselves instead of helping relieve poverty, the alternative
does not occur. Giving to charity is not charitable or generous, but our duty.
Supererogatory – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do (not charity)
Counterarguments:
- Drastic revision of our moral scheme, no longer based on violation of moral norms. > Singers
conclusion remains intact as long as his assumptions and arguments remain intact.
- Sidgwick and Urmson: basic moral code should fall within the capacities of the ordinary man,
otherwise there will be a complete breakdown of compliance with it. Line between required
conduct and good but not required conduct -> where? Singer: S and U don’t consider enough
the effect moral standards can have on our decisions. Possibility is influenced by status quo,
expectations. Increasing aid will not cause a moral breakdown.
, - Singers argumentation would require people to work full time to be able to spend as much as
possible on poverty relief. Self-interest leading to people not doing everything they ought to
do is no evidence that we are not ought to do something.
Conclusion: Child in the Pond argument withholds, we ought to do everything we can without
sacrificing something of equal moral value to help improve the situation of others. (new morality)
However, applicability and desirability of giving away a great amount of money?
- Giving money to private charities is letting governments, non-participating citizens and
institutions neglect their duty to give aid. Singer sees no plausibility in this.
- No population control means aid is just postponing starvation. However, the future
possibilities do not affect current moral duty. But it is true that the earth cannot support
endless billions of people. Population control is another tool to reduce poverty and hunger.
So maybe invest in that instead of reducing poverty right now. (might doing nothing be
beneficial as well in population control?)
- How much do we give, until the level of marginal utility? Losing something of equal moral
value? This strong version is correct according to Singer. However, more moderate is losing
something with any moral value. Not reducing your family to the level of a Bengalese one.
Losing consumer society is great on its own, without slowing our economy down too much.
WEEK 2 – Utilitarianism
Mill
Utility is about pleasure and the absence of pain. Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle as
foundation of morals holds actions right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Bringing
happiness is being moral, bringing other things is immoral. Desirable things are desirable because
they bring pleasure or prevent pain. Quantitative.
- Only desiring pleasure degrades people to the level of swine’s, pleasure is not the highest or
only goal in life for most
o Epicurus: human beings are capable of more sophisticated and intricated pleasures
than swine’s, desiring pleasure is okay because it is good, intellectual pleasure.
- Which pleasure is more desirable can be determined by the opinion of those who have
experienced both and prefer one over the other, competent judges.
- No human being would consent to being an animal and experiencing their pleasures because
human pleasures are of a higher level and thus more desirable.
- Anything that conflicts with peoples dignity, such as being converted to a lower class, cannot
be something desirable. People will never go for a lower form of pleasure.
- Intelligent and unsatisfied will always be at a higher level than dumb and satisfied, because
low standards are more easily satisfied.
- How come people often go after simple pleasures?
o High, noble pleasures are not compatible for everyone, even before deciding to
pursue a lower one, you become incapable of pursuing the higher one.
o Society and your social position can destroy higher pleasures. Becoming addicted to
simple pleasures because of this.
However, Utility of Happiness is not concerned with one person, but what causes the Greatest
Happiness altogether. Striving for a pleasure as qualitative, quantitative and far from pain.
- Happiness cannot be the ultimate goal because it is unattainable, we should be virtuous.
, o Even if happiness cannot be felt by humans and thus not be moral, utility is more
than happiness, so utilitarianism holds. Happiness is just an exaggeration of realistic
goals.
o Tranquillity and excitement are the formula for happiness. Death is not as bad if you
have objects of personal affection, living on. Being happy that mankind exists even if
you don’t. Appreciate the wonders of the world.
o All sources of great human suffering can be conquered with knowledge and time.
It is possible to live without happiness, but this happiness is sacrificed for the greater good, so being
virtuous makes others happy, increasing the happiness in the world. Highest virtue according to Mill.
It makes someone invincible to know the worst can happen, but he will leave happiness. Egalitarian.
- It is too much to ask of people to always act in favour of the greatest happiness.
- People cannot make their own considerations regarding right and wrong, cannot differ from
the idea of happiness and pleasure. Ignore other good qualities.
o Moral standard is an ideal, just setting an ethical duty
o Utilitarian aware of the different forms of virtuousness.
o There are different forms of utilitarianism.
o Own ideas on right and wrong would mean no morality at all
o Every morality is rigid and lax in the application of their standard
o Different moral standards have always disagreed and contested each other
o Doesn’t have to favour the entire world
o Only like legislatures and such should think about entire population
o Motive has nothing to do with the action,
- however, this makes calculations very difficult because you can save someone from drowning
only to torture them, how do you see that as causing happiness, you can’t ignore motives!
Intention to save from drowning good, motive to torture further not!!!
- The utilitarian doctrine is godless
o God desires the happiness of his creatures
o Morality is a way to interpret and practice gods will.
- Utilitarianism is expedient, opposed to the right, self-interested
o Expediency can be useful (a white lie) or hurtful (sacrificing people)
o Trust is important and virtuous, hurtful expediency needs to be reduced
- If you want to act you don’t have time to calculate all the pleasure and pain deriving from it
o Religious people also don’t read the bible before every act, we learn from what
people have done in the past and is normal
o We have moral standards and these can easily be developed through experience
o We learn from trial and error, are on the road to the greatest happiness
o Extra guiding principles are possible
- People using Utilitarianism as an excuse for corruption
o It has always been in the human nature to disobey some rules in certain situations
o Leniency up to some extend is allowed for every law. A general standard is better
than no standard at all.
Happiness is the desirable end of the utilitarian doctrine and all other things are only desirable if they
contribute to this goal, are means.
- Empirical: People have always desired things and have had the end goal to achieve these
things
