AREA 1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES SECTION 3 Consequences (Utilitarian Ethics) Duty and Reason (Kantian Ethics)

Guiding Principles for Morality 1.Utilitarianism (consequential-Bentham/Mill) 2.Kantian Ethics (duty) pleasure pain

Moral decisions guided by… Consequential, i.e. Utilitarianism – a good moral decision is that which the consequences of the action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people OR Duty – morals based on what you should do not what you might ought to do.

Consequential Ethics Utilitarianism pleasure pain

Consequential Ethics E.g.Utilitarianism: actions are good or bad depending on the outcome. The moral consequences of the action is the promotion of human happiness/wellbeing and the minimising of unhappiness/pain. The aim is to achieve consequences that will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Distinction between act-utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Reference to Mill or Bentham’s position.

Utilitarianism Utility means an action is determined by its ‘utility’, or ‘usefulness’ Utilitarian ethics focus on consequences of actions rather than actions themselves Actions not good/bad in themselves- it is the consequence of the action which is considered

A moral theory which says that what is morally right is whatever produces the greatest overall amount of pleasure or happiness to the greatest number of people. The moral consequence of good actions promote the greatest happiness/well-being and the minimising of unhappiness/pain for the greatest number of people Based on the assumption/idea that happiness/pleasure is the desired end of all human activity Formulated by Jeremy Bentham and developed by John Stuart Mill

Act Utilitarianism Maintains that the good action is the one that leads to the greatest good in a particular situation Is flexible, being able to take into account individual situations at a given moment. Problems- has the potential to justify virtually any act Might be impractical to suggest that we should measure each moral choice every time we act.

Rule Utilitarianism Looks at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he/she looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally should be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation: specific to a case or generalized to rules. Problem- may permit unethical practices because minority interests are not protected, eg slavery.

Kantian Ethics The Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant ( ) KEY ISSUE An action is good or bad, right or wrong, by something within the action itself (does not consider the consequences. Use of reason to discover a rational basis for one’s sense of duty How to devise a principle (maxim) by which one could distinguish between right and wrong

What is morality? A.it is meant to guide our actions; maxim= principle of action B.It is universal, the same for everyone C.is a matter of following absolute rules D.rules that admit no exceptions and appeal not to religious considerations but to reason E.it is categorical, not optional

Reason and Duty Kant is best known for this Do right without any reference to rules or emotions- detached action Uses human reason Do good without any thought about the consequences- that is duty. Categorical Imperative= can my act be universalized? Don’t treat people as a means to an end and act as if you are a law-maker in a free society Anything we ought to do we must be able to do otherwise there is no point in having the duty.

The Categorical Imperative –If morality is based on universal reason, then it can’t mention what varies (relative) –Any moral law must hold for all rational beings; if it depends on something contingent and variable, it is not a law SO –“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Good -straightforward and based on reason, no emotions, we have responsibility, intrinsic worth of all people, unselfish, forbids immoral acts Bad- not immediate, too general, motives are impossible to remove, lack of emotion de-humanises decisions, duties change as society changes, duty does not self-create must be a duty-giver.