Ethics: Theory and Practice Jacques P. Thiroux Keith W. Krasemann

Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Morality Chapter Three Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Morality

Nonconsequentialist Theories Consequences do not, and should not, enter into our judging of whether actions or people are moral or immoral What is moral or immoral is decided upon the basis of some standard or standards of morality other than consequences

Act Nonconsequentialist Theories Major assumption: There are no general moral rules or theories, but only particular actions, situations, and people about which we cannot generalize

Act Nonconsequentialist Theories One must approach each situation individually to decide the right action to take Decisions are “intuitionistic,” which means a person decides on a particular situation based on his or her intuition about what is right

Intuitionism Reasons in support of moral intuitionism: Any well-meaning person seems to have an immediate sense of right and wrong Human beings had moral ideas and convictions long before a system of ethics was created

Intuitionism Our reasoning upon moral matters usually is used to confirm our intuitions Our reasoning can go wrong in relation to moral issues as well as others, and then we must fall back on our moral insights and intuitions

Intuitionism Arguments against Intuitionism Intuition lacks scientific or philosophical respectability There is no proof that we have an inborn, innate sense of morality

Intuitionism Arguments against Intuitionism Intuition is immune to objective criticism, because it applies only to the possessor Human beings without moral intuition have no others or establish them on other grounds

Criticism of Act Nonconsequentialism How can we know, with no other guides, that what we feel will be morally correct? How will we know when we have acquired sufficient facts to make a moral decision? With morality so highly individualized, how can we know we are doing the best thing for everyone else involved in a particular situation?

Criticism of Act Nonconsequentialism Can we really rely upon nothing more than our momentary feelings to help us make our moral decisions? How will we be able to justify our actions except by saying that it felt like the right thing to do?

Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories There are or can be rules that are the only basis for morality and consequences do not matter The following of the rules is, itself, moral Morality cannot be applied to consequences that ensue from following the rules

Divine Command Theory The Divine Command Theory states that morality is based on something higher that mundane human events Morality is based on the existence of an all-good being or beings who are supernatural

Divine Command Theory They have communicated to human beings what they should and should not do morally Morality requires humans to follow those commands

Criticisms of the Divine Command Theory The theory does not provide a rational foundation for the existence of a supernatural being and therefore not for morality either Even if we could prove conclusively the existence of a supernatural being, how could we prove that this being was morally trustworthy?

Criticisms of the Divine Command Theory How are we to interpret these commands even if we accept the existence of a supernatural? Rules founded upon the Divine Command Theory may be valid, but they need to be justified on some other, more rational basis

Kant’s Duty Ethics Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except as a good will Will is the unique human ability to act in accordance with moral rules, laws, or principles regardless of interests or consequences

Establishing Morality by Reasoning Alone Kant argued that it is possible by reasoning alone to set up valid absolute moral rules that have the same force as indisputable mathematical truths Such truths must be logically consistent, not self-contradictory They must also be universalizable

Imperatives The Categorical Imperative: An act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all human beings to follow The Practical Imperative: No human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s ends; each human being is a unique end

Duty Rather Than Inclination Once moral rules have been discovered to be absolutes, human beings must obey them out of a sense of duty rather than follow their inclinations

Criticism of Kant’s Duty Ethics Although Kant showed that some rules would become inconsistent when universalized, this does not tell us which rules are morally valid Kant never showed us how to resolve conflicts between equally absolute rules Kant did not distinguish between making an exception to a rule and qualifying a rule

Criticism of Kant’s Duty Ethics Some rules can be universalized without inconsistency yet still have questionable moral value Kant answered this criticism by means of the reversibility criterion, that is, the would-you-want-this-done-to-you idea (Golden Rule) But the reversibility criterion suggests a reliance upon consequences, which goes against Kant’s system

Criticism of Kant’s Duty Ethics Kant seems to have emphasized duties over inclinations, in stating that we must act from a sense of duty rather than from our inclinations But he gave us no rule for what we should do when our inclinations and duties are the same

Ross’s Prima Facie Duties Ross agreed with Kant as to the establishing of morality on a basis other than consequences but disagreed with Kant’s overly absolute rules He established Prima Facie duties that all human beings must adhere to, unless there are serious reasons why they should not

Ross’s Prima Facie Duties Some Prima Facie duties: Fidelity Reparation Gratitude Justice Beneficence Self-improvement Nonmaleficence

Principles to Resolve Conflicting Duties Always act in accord with the stronger prima facie duty Always act in such a way as to achieve the greatest amount of prima facie rightness over wrongness

Criticisms of Ross’s Theory How are we to decided which duties are prima facie? On what basis are we to decide which take precedence over the rest? How can we determine when there is sufficient reason to override one prima facie duty with another?

Difficulty with Consequentialist Theories in General Consequentialist theories demand that we discover and determine all of the consequences of our actions or rules That is virtually impossible Do consequences or ends constitute all of morality?

General Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories Can we avoid consequences when we are trying to set up a moral system? Is it entirely possible to exclude consequences from an ethical system?

General Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories What is the real point of any moral system if not to do good for oneself, others, or both and if not to create a moral society in which people can create and grow peacefully with a minimum of unnecessary conflict?

General Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories How do we resolve conflicts among moral rules that are equally absolute? Any system that operates on a basis of such rigid absolutes as does rule nonconsequentialism closes the door on further discussion of moral quandaries