Lecture 1: Ethics? No thanks.
How can you live with Too subjective, too small and too sweet : denial that ethics is relevant
yourself? 3 reasons
First reason and responses Too subjective: who am I to judge what is good?
(2) Response 1: law and morality are not the same → there can be immoral laws
Response 2: ethics may not be completely subjective → still to be seen
Second reason and Too small: what difference do I make?
responses (3) Response 1: ethics is not only doing → realization can also be good
Response 2: sometimes small things can make a difference → Rosa Parks
Response 3: within companies, you may have the power to change things →
companies can definitely make changes
Third reason and responses Too sweet: why would you care about others?
(3) 2 varieties: pure egoism (i should pursue my interests only without caring about
the consequences) and egoism is good for everyone (external benefits for society)
Response to pure egoism: that is an ethical position as well
Response 1 to egoism is good for everyone: tragedy of the commons
Response 2 to egoism is good for everyone: externalities, particularly negative
What is the tragedy of the Only short-term profits matter. This will ruin everything for everyone in the long
commons? run. Shared land, put extra cows for your own personal benefit → faster
deterioration of land
What is the theory of The theory of well being is known as hedonism.
wellbeing and how many Welfare hedonism: welfare is pleasure and the absence of pain (Bentham)
variations are there? There are 2 variations within welfare hedonism: quantitative hedonism and
qualitative hedonism
What does the first variation The first variation of hedonism is known as quantitative hedonism. In order to
of the well being theory state determine how much wellbeing someone has, multiply (i) the intensity of the
and what are the objections? pleasures this person is experiencing with (ii) their duration
Objection: but is every pleasure the same?
Which form of hedonism Qualitative hedonism came from the objection of quantitative hedonism. In order to
came following the objection determine how much wellbeing someone has, multiply the (i) intensity of the
from quantitative hedonism pleasures this person is experiencing with (ii) their duration and (iii) their quality
and what were the (Mill)
objections?
Objections: who determines the quality of pleasures? And is this form of hedonism
actually hedonism?
What do mental state theories More than hedonism → experience
entail and what are the Mental state theories: in order to determine someone’s well being, look at the
objection(s)? mental states this person has (which can include pleasure)
Objection: is the illusion that your preferences are satisfied enough?
What does the preference The preference theory states that in order to determine someone’s well being, look
theory state? What are the at the extent to which their preferences are satisfied
objection(s)? Objections: some of your preferences may not be about your life. Preferences can
be based on wrong information and on careless thinking
What about the objective list To determine someone’s well being, look at the extent to which the person has
theories? What are the access to objectively valuable things
objection(s)? An example? Objections: how do we determine what should be on the list? And what if an item
on the list just leaves you completely unmoved?
Nussbaum’s capability theory
What does consequentialism Good outcomes are the only normative factor that determines the moral status of
imply? an act
,2 important questions Question 1: what is the measure of consequences? → pure welfarism
following consequentialism Question 2: what is the reach of the consequences? → distance? time?
What is pure welfarism? The position that wellbeing is the only thing that determines the goodness of
outcomes
What is the most well-known Utilitarianism → there are 3 ingredients: consequentialism, welfarism and
consequentialist theory? Its hedonism
components? What are some Attempts to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is not the
other consequentialist views? same as the opinion of the majority
If we use objective list theories instead, we would get a different theory → bye bye
hedonism
What if beauty is intrinsically valuable? → bye bye pure welfarism
What are the advantages of Flexibility → can tradeoff a lot of different advantages and disadvantages
consequentialism? Empirical nature → measure of consequences is measurable
Are there any objections to 4 objections: we do not know the future, eternally calculating what we should do is
consequentialism? immoral, consequentialism is too demanding and there are many other important
normative factors that the consequentialist ignores.
Response 1st objection We do not know the future, this objection goes for almost all ethical theories, we
can estimate
Response 2nd objection Eternally calculating is immoral, goes for almost all ethical theories, optimal
amount of calculations should be determined using consequentialist reasoning
Response 3rd objection Consequentialism is too demanding, it is less demanding that it seems → it is
what it is
Response 4th objection There are many other important normative factors that the consequentialist
ignores
What does the chop up chuck Consequentialism may be too simple:
example show? The theory permits too much
Some acts may simply be prohibited, even if they lead to the best outcomes
What does deontology state? There are normative factors beside the goodness of outcomes that determine the
moral status of acts. Deontologists give priority of the right over the good. What is
right cannot be reduced to what is good, for consequentialists it can
Comeback consequentialists In reality, it will probably be never optimal to chop up chuck. If we reflect on such
on chop up chuck cases, inutions will change. Intuitions should not play a role in evaluating moral
theories
What are the two variations of Absolutist deontology: other normative factors will always outweigh the good
deontology and what do they outcomes
entail? Moderate deontology: other normative factors will sometimes weigh heavier than
good outcomes
What becomes a problem for How high should the threshold be where the good outcome outweighs the effect of
moderate deontologists? the normative factor such as hurting someone. It is not easy to determine but that
problem is shared with any non-absolutist resort to pluralism
Summary There are many different theories which we can use to justify ethics. Them being;
welfare hedonism (quanti and quali), objective list theories, mental state theories,
preference theories.
Other than that, consequentialists (which falls under utilitarianism) say that only
the good outcome will determine morality. Deontologists will say that harm to
others should not be done (other normative factors) as what is right ≠ good.
All theories and views have their respective objections as well as the responses.
, Lecture 2: Moral limits to markets
What are the most common Consequentialist: free markets enable mutually beneficial trades, are efficient and
arguments for ‘free markets’? stimulate economic growth
Deontologist: free markets respect people’s freedom and avoid morally
problematic infringements on people’s rights and liberties
Are the consequentialist and Yes they are. The market respects freedom since it enables people to exchange
deontological arguments voluntarily (deontological), which people only do if it benefits them
connected? (consequentialist)
How do we define ‘real Real freedom is considered to be the actual opportunities people have in life.
freedom’? What role do Markets are commonly thought to enhance people’s real freedom through
markets play in this? economic growth. If people become richer, they have more options available in
consumer and labor markets
Why are markets not always They may not: maximize utility, provide win-win opportunities, be harmless and
great? exploit-less, respect the freedom that matters
They may: have undesirable consequences, raise moral worries
Why may government For the sake of desirable outcomes (consequentialist)
intervention be needed? For the sake of rights and liberties (deontologist)
Two consequentialist 1. Externalities → with negative externalities, the interests of one or more persons
arguments against free are negatively affected
markets 2. Collective action problems (prisoners dilemma) → private interests do not align
with public interest. Everyone would be better off cooperating but there are
conflicting interests → socially suboptimal situation
When do collective action Usually when a good is non-rival and non-excludable → public goods
problems arise? Markets are bad at incentivizing people to take good care of non-rival and
non-excludable goods → similar problem for goods that are rival but
non-excludable → commons
Solutions to collective action Public: fine people who litter → governments job
Private: restrict access → markets → links to marketization
What is the definition of More and more goods are treated as ‘commodities’ or ‘market goods’ – that is,
marketization produced, bought, sold, and consumed at market prices.
What did Sandel say about We live in an age of growing marketization. We have drifted from having a market
marketization? economy to benign a market society (Sandel, 2012)
Main moral question What role should markets play in our society? What goods can safely be
regarding marketization marketized/commodified and what is off limits?
What did Walzer argue Society consists of different spheres, such as the market, education, health care,
regarding markets? and the family. Each of these spheres distribute their own goods, such as market
goods, degrees, and care – on the basis of their own criteria, such as money,
desert and need
According to Walzer, when is When a criterion used in one sphere (such as money), starts to determine
commodification problematic distribution in other spheres (such as education)
What are Sandel’s main Coercion objection: injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under
objections? conditions of inequality or dire economic necessity. Their agreement may not
really be voluntary
Corruption objection: moral and civic goods are diminished or corrupted if bought
and sold. The argument cannot be met by establishing fair bargaining conditions.
It applies under conditions of equality and inequality alike
