Ethics Intro
Domains of Ethics:
Normative Ethics: What should I do? WHat obligations do I have? What is
blame/praiseworthy? What is right/wrong? (Weeks ¼)
Applied Ethics: What should I do with regards to x? (AI, medicine, economics)
(Throughout)
Meta-Ethics: What does it mean to say something is right? Can we find true answers to
those questions? (Weeks ⅝)
Methodology:
Where do we start? Scientists collect data and conduct experiments. Philosophy mostly
deals with subjective, emotionally-laden things. However, if we rely on arguments, instead of
emotions, we can judge theories correctly:
Arguments
“An argument is simply any chain of thought in which reasons (premises) are offered in
support of a conclusion.”
In a valid argument, the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
1 - What are the premises?
2 - Imagine they are true
3 - Is it possible for the conclusion to be false?
If no, your argument is valid.
A sound argument is valid and its premises are actually true.
Is/ought problem:
A normative or evaluative statement can never validly be inferred from a set of premises only
containing descriptive statements.
We can bridge the is/ought gap, but only if we explicitly use normative premises. (One
should choose as a profession what one is good at)
“It’s totally ok to eat meat; people have always eaten meat!”
Thought experiments:
Our responses to thought experiments are often treated as data.
A thought experiment is “to consider what would be the case morally if the particular state of
affairs described in the imaginary scenario were actual. In effect we asked to determine the
moral status of that hypothetical state of affairs.
They can be used to clarify the implications of a view, provide counterexamples to a view, or
to measure what people’s intuitions are most often.
,Example of Thomson’s Violinist:
Clarifies that the example means that the life of a fetus is more important than the self-
determination of the host.
Thought experiments can distract from what is the issue, there can be important details left
out for the sake of story, and some thought experiments can be repulsive, inciting strange
responses. They are a common and powerful tool, but no be-all end-all.
Intuitions:
Intuitions are used to assess moral views as reactions to thought experiments or in general.
They are sometimes used as a standard for adequacy. Moral theories gain their plausibility
from capturing our intuitions. Counter-intuitive theories are seen as problematic.
However, powerful moral theories also challenge our intuitions.
To avoid this dilemma, a balance needs to be struck between intuitiveness and
unintuitiveness/ plausibility and absurdity.
Other problems can be framing effects, heuristics, cultural backgrounds, biases and more.
Appiah talks about ways of criticising and scrutinizing intuition.
The Case Against Intuition
Thomas Reid (founder of ‘common sense philosophy) said:
- We can take for granted things wherein we find universal agreement
- Attentive reflection is intuitive too.
William Whewell:
- Whether something is universal should be checked by a council of ‘true men’ who
have laboured and toiled.
Henry Sidgwick:
- Philosophers should be aided and controlled by their common sense in thinking
about what is right.
Sir David Ross:
- The moral convictions of thoughtful/well-educated people are the data of ethics, just
like sense-perception is that of a natural science
Frank Jackson:
- Moral functionalism should make a ‘coherent theory out of folk morality’, respecting
as much as possible the parts that make mature folk morality.
Reflective equilibrium:
According to John Rawls: “reflective equilibrium”: Adjust your principles to your intuitions,
and your intuitions to your principles until you achieve consonance
,This notion is so durable because it showed that the difficulties themselves are very durable.
This makes reflective equilibrium really another name for the intuition problem, rather than a
solution for it.
The more recent version of reflective equilibrium included a broadened list of things that
could be brought into equilibrium, but the procedure for reaching equilibrium is
undetermined.
For example:
If there is a theory T1, from which we can derive all our intuitions, except for intuition (int),
and there is another theory T2 that differs from T1 only so much that it accommodates (int),
we cannot now reject (int) because it fits in with T2. If one wanted to reject (int) because it
doesn’t fit in with T1, one would need a reason to prefer T1 to T2 in the first place.
(An utilitarian can say punishing an innocent can be the right thing to do if it were to
maximize utility. Even though we have the intuition that an innocent should never be
punished, the utilitarian may want us to reject that intuition, but why would we if we can take
the path of modified utilitarianism instead?)
Reasons to reject T1:
- T1 is simpler (Ethics is practical, so simplicity might be a genuine virtue here)
However, simplicity is hard to measure and often depends on which terms one would take as
basic.
- T1 is endorsed by others in our society (Which would further incline us towards
ethical conservatism)
If one has no reasons to prefer T1 over T2, or in reverse, one can only use reflective
equilibrium if we have independent ideas about the shape of ethical theory.
There are however, complaints about the method’s conservatism: By subjecting out
intuitions to an internal test of coherence, our old prejudices won’t change much at all, since
it will merely become modified to accommodate the other belief.
This would make it so the former intuition that slavery was part of the natural order would
need to be respected when considering other notions, just because it was common sense in
its time.
The intuition problem:
Moral theories have clashing ambitions:
- On one hand their plausibility comes from their ability to accommodate our intuitions
(A theory can be applauded for showing us where we are wrong)
Jeremy bentham challenged the prevailing intuitions about slavery, subjection of women and
homosexuality, and got praised for it
- On the other hand, this means their power comes from challenging other intuitions
(Another theory can be rejected precisely because it defies common sense)
William Godwin got scorned for his notion that if you had to save someone in a burning
building, you have to save someone with the most moral distinction, like an archbishop,
instead of a beloved family member.
Richard Brandt said we should step outside of our own tradition somehow and see it from
the outside.
, Prospect theory:
According to the experiment surrounding the asian flu, of
which the options are to the right, people’s choices often
depend on the way they are framed, even when the
descriptions are rationally equivalent. The test was done
by Kahneman and Tversky to test the explanation called
‘prospect theory’, which holds that:
1) People are risk-averse when
thinking about gains over what they
think of as the background status
quo, but
2) they’re willing to take risks when
they’re faced with possible losses
with respect to that status quo.
3) They are also more concerned to
avoid losses than they are
attracted by equivalent gains.
The Asian Flu experiment shows that our intuitive judgements are influenced by irrelevant
things, like the framing.
According to many philosophers, we should pick our options based on their expected costs
and benefits.
A&C: 1 x 200 = 200, B&D: ⅓ x 600 = 200
In the Asian Flu experiment, the judgement is then not based on intuition, but on an
argument, and it also seems like it can be influenced
by hypnosis.
The discovery that people can be influenced by
outside forces is somewhat comforting, as it relieves
us of the worry that people are being guided by some
undiscovered rational principle.
The trolley problem:
Problem 1: 5 people on a track are about to be run over. Flipping the switch will make the
trolley change lanes to a track with only one person. Most people say you shouldn’t flip the
switch.
Problem 2: 5 more people on a track are about to be run over by another trolley. You are on
a footbridge with a 300-pound man. Pushing him on the track would kill the heavy man, but
his body weight would stop the trolley from running over the 5 other people. Most people say
you shouldn’t push the man
When the relevant moral experiment was done, it was to explore the moral idea of ‘the
doctrine of double effect’, according to which there is a significant difference between doing
something that has a bad outcome as a foreseen but unintended consequence and
intentionally doing that bad thing, even if the outcome is the same.
