Section 5.2 The End Justifies the Means Good Makes Right © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved. McGraw-Hill

Consequentialism vs. Formalism Consequentialism (teleology): the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences Formalism (deontology): the rightness of an action is determined by its form (by the kind of action it is).

Intrinsic and Instrumental Value Consequentialist ethical theories usually define the right in terms of the good. Intrinsic value: good for it’s own sake. For example: happiness is intrinsically valuable. Extrinsic or instrumental value: good for the sake of something else. For example: money is extrinsically valuable.

Thought Probe: Moral Justification Is life intrinsically or extrinsically valuable? Father Richard McCormick claims that, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, life is extrinsically valuable—that it’s valuable only insofar as it allows the expression of justice, respect, concern, and compassion. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Questions Consequentialist Theories Must Answer What is intrinsically valuable? Who is supposed to receive this value?

Ethical Egoism What makes an action right is that it promotes one’s own best interest. In this view, one’s only moral obligation is to oneself.

Psychological Hedonism Psychological hedonism is a theory of human motivation. According to psychological hedonism, the only thing that individuals can desire is their own happiness.

Argument for Ethical Egoism We are morally obligated to perform an action only if we are able to perform it. We are able to perform an action only if we believe that it will maximize our happiness. Therefore, we are morally obligated to perform an action only if we believe that it will maximize our happiness.

Problems with Psychological Hedonism A good scientific theory should be informative—it should tell us something about the world. If a theory is consistent with all possible states of affairs—like the claim that either it’s raining or it’s not raining—it’s not informative. Because psychological hedonism is consistent with all possible states of affairs, it, too, is uninformative.

Thought Experiment: Feinberg’s Single-Minded Hedonist Imagine a person (Jones) who has no intellectual curiosity, who does not appreciate nature or art, who has no interest in athletics or politics, and who has no talent for crafts or commerce. But Jones does desire to be happy. Can Jones achieve happiness?

Consequences of Ethical Egoism It confuses the object of our desires with the result of satisfying them. Those who believe in the theory can’t advocate it. It discriminates against others.

Act-Utilitarianism What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness, everyone considered. To determine whether an action is right one must determine whether it produces more total happiness than any other action one could perform.

Problems with Measurement Happiness cannot be weighed on one scale because there are different types of happiness. Even if happiness could be weighed on one scale, it’s unclear whether future generations should be included in the measurement.

Thought Probe: Animal Rights Animals can suffer. Should animal suffering be taken into account when performing utilitarian calculations? If so, how much weight should animal suffering be given? As much as human suffering?

Problems with Rights According to act-utilitarianism, the end justifies the means—as long as one maximizes happiness, it doesn’t matter what means one uses to do so. This is inconsistent with the notion of rights—that certain things should not be done to others even if they produce good consequences.

Thought Experiment: McCloskey’s Utilitarian Informant Suppose a Negro rapes a white woman and that race riots occur as a result of the crime. Suppose further that a utilitarian knows that falsely accusing a Negro will stop the riots. Should he accuse the innocent Negro?

Thought Experiment: Brandt’s Utilitarian Heir Suppose that Mr. X and his family are destitute and that his father, who is ill and in a nursing home, is well-to-do. Suppose further that hastening his father’s death would produce more happiness than letting him waste away in the nursing home. Should Mr. X hasten his father’s death?

Problems with Duties We have a number of duties to others, including a duty not to break our promises. Act-utilitarianism maintains, on the contrary, that our only duty is to maximize happiness.

Thought Experiment: Ross’s Unhappy Promise Suppose that fulfilling a promise would produce 1000 units of happiness. Suppose that breaking the promise and doing something else would produce 1001 units of happiness. Should one break the promise?

Thought Probe: Singer’s “Preference Utilitarianism” Moral decisions should be based on the most intense preferences of a given individual or group. On this view, animals can be more deserving of life than certain humans, such as disabled babies or brain-damaged adults. Is Singer’s “preference utilitarianism” more plausible than conventional act utilitarianism?

Thought Experiment: Godwin’s Fire Rescue Suppose that an archbishop and your mother are caught in a fire and only one of them can be saved. Saving the Archbishop would produce more happiness than saving your brother. Should you save the Archbishop?

Problems with Justice Justice requires that equals be treated equally. According to act-utilitarianism, if treating equals unequally maximizes happiness, then we should act unjustly.

Thought Experiment: Ewing’s Utilitarian Torture “Suppose we could slightly increase the collective happiness of ten men by taking away all happiness from one of them.” Should we take away that man’s happiness?

Thought Experiment: Ewing’s Innocent Criminal Suppose that we can’t find the criminal who committed a crime. Suppose further that we have a suspect who would benefit from incarceration and whose incarceration would deter others from crime. Should we put the suspect in jail?

Thought Probe: The Utility Machine Suppose that an inventor has a device which, if marketed, would improve the happiness of its owners by 1000 percent. Suppose further that the inventor will market it only if he can kill 50,000 people at random every year. Should the device be put on the market?

Rule-Utilitarianism What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered. To decide whether an action is right, we must decide what rule it falls under and whether generally following that rule would maximize happiness.

Problems with Rule Utilitarianism A morally correct rule is one that, if followed, would maximize happiness. Rules that would maximize happiness, however, would have exceptions. Rules with enough exceptions, however, would sanction the same actions as act-utilitarianism.

Thought Experiment: Nozick’s Experience Machine Suppose a machine could give you any experience you desired. Would you plug in? For how long? Would there be anything wrong with spending your entire life in such a machine?

Thought Probe: Beneficial Drugs Suppose there were a legal drug that reduced irritability, increased productivity, and had no negative side effects. Would it be morally permissible for an employer to require employees to take it? Would it be morally permissible for an employer to put it in the company’s water supply? Does your answer support or undermine utilitarianism?

Thought Experiment: Williams’ South American Showdown Jim finds himself in a town square where 20 Indians are lined up to be killed by a firing squad. The captain in charge says he will let 19 of the Indians go free if Jim agrees to kill one himself. Is Jim morally obligated to kill one of the Indians? Why or why not?

Thomson’s Trolley Problem You are the driver of a runaway trolley whose brakes don’t work. You come to a fork in the tracks: on one fork is one worker and on the other is five workers. You can switch the trolley onto either fork. Which fork should you take?

Thomson’s Transplant Problem You are the world’s best transplant surgeon. You currently have five patients who need different organs. A man comes to the clinic for a checkup and you find that his organs match all of those waiting for organs. Would it be morally permissible for you to cut him up and transplant his organs? Why or why not?

Relevant Difference What’s the relevant difference between the Trolley case and the transplant case? In both cases, you would be sacrificing one to save five. Can we justifiably treat these cases differently? If so, how?