Introduction  Based on something other than the consequences of a person’s actions  Unlike Egoism  People should act in their own self-interest  Unlike utilitarianism  People should act in the interests of all those concerned  Goodness of an action measured by how well it serves interests or creates good consequences  Nonconsequentialists  Consequences should not be considered  Depends on whether they are right, people are good  i.e. Divine Command Theory  Must accept the consequences whatever they are

Act Nonconsequentialist Theories  Reminder: Different than act and rule utilitarianism  No general theories at all, must approach each situation individually  Decisions are made intuitively, without rules  If it feels good – do it. Do your own thing.  Not based on reason  Emotive Theory  Ethical words do two things  Express people’s feelings, Evoke certain feelings

Intuitionism  Support of moral intuitionism  Well-meaning people have immediate sense of right and wrong  Human beings had moral ideas before philosophers existed  Our reasoning upon moral matters is used to confirm perceptions  Reasoning can go wrong, unlike intuition  Criticism of moral intuitionism  Hunches are difficult to hold to  No proof we have innate ability to be moral  Intuition immune to objective criticism  Some humans do not possess moral intuitions

Criticisms of Act Nonconsequentialism  How can conflicts between opposing intuitions be resolved?  How do we know what we intuit will be morally correct?  How can we know when we have sufficient facts?  How can we be sure we are doing the right thing for anyone else involved?  Can we really rely on nothing more that momentary intuitions?  Can actions be justified in this way?

Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories  Believe there are or can be rules that are the only basis for morality and that consequences fo not matter  Various methods of establishing the rules  Divine Command Theory  Based on something higher, an all-good being who is supernatural and can communicate with humans  Criticisms  Inherent lack of rational foundation, are they trustworthy

Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories  Various methods of establishing the rules  Kant’s Duty Ethics  Several Ethical Principles  Good Will  Ability to act in accordance with moral rules  Establishing Morality By Reasoning Alone  Possible to set up valid absolute moral rules on  Logical, universal truths  Universalizability the important part  The Categorical Imperative  Act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all humans  Practical Imperative  No human should be thought of or used for another’s end  Duty Rather Than Inclination  Must act on sense of duty

Criticism’s of Kant’s Duty Ethics  Does not tell us which rules are morally valid  Never tells us how to choose between conflicting duties  Many rules of questionable moral value can be universalized without inconsistency  Kant answered this by criterion of reversibility  Golden Rule concept, if an action were reversed would a person want it to be done to him  But this shows inconsistency, which Kant would not have approved of  “Do not kill except in self-defense” and “Do not kill” are both universalizable  What happens when duty and inclinations are the same?

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties  Sir William David Ross agreed with Kant that morality should not rest on consequences  Disagreed with unyielding absolutism  We have certain duties we must always adhere to unless serious circumstances or reasons tell us to do otherwise  Actual duty may be different than prima facie, “at first glance”

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties  Examples of prima face duties  Fidelity  Reparation  Gratitude  Justice  Beneficence  Self-improvement  Nonmaleficence  Two principles  Always do that act in accord with the stronger prima facie duty  Always do that act that has the greatest degree of prima facis rightness over prima facie wrongness

Criticisms of Ross’ Theory  How are we to decide on these prima facie duties  Claimed we know them to be true  Basing them on intuition  Which duty takes precedence?  Example?

Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories  Can we, and indeed should we, avoid consequences when we are trying to set up a moral system?  Is it entirely possible to exclude consequences from a moral system?  What is the point of a moral system if not to do good for oneself, others, or to create a moral society?  How do we resolve conflicts among moral rules that are equally absolute?  Any system that operates on a basis of such rigid absolutes closes the door on further discussion.