This Document Contains Chapters 1 to 4 Chapter 1 Religion and Morality CHAPTER SUMMARY Chapter 1 first examines whether actions are right because God commands them or whether God commands actions because they are right raising the question whether morality or ethics is independent of religion. The chapter then dives into the divine command theory: actions are right simply because God commands them, and the author explains how various divine command theorists were reluctant to rely on the normative structure of human nature and the circumstances of our lives as a source of morality, but they were then forced to do so because of the various problems facing their theory. Chapter 1 continues with the conflict of the requirements of the normative structure of our nature and circumstances when they clash with the requirements of special revelation, particularly in the public arena. The chapter goes on to describe the imposition of fairness to the equation, which requires that there be sufficient reasons accessible to the minority to justify requiring it to accept the will of the majority, but not that each and every member of that religious majority be willing and able to set forth such reasons. Finally, the chapter ends with the understanding that the enforceability of religion is limited to the part of it that can also be justified by the normative structure of our nature and the circumstances of our lives. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. In this chapter, the student will examine the role religion plays in morality focusing on an understanding of the divine command theory, the challenges inherent in such a theory, and how general and special revelations modify the divine command theory. 2. By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to explain and describe how religious morality can conflict in the public arena and the role fairness may play in this arena. 3. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand the effect that reason plays on religious moral teachings. 4. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand how Rawls and Wolterstorff’s views conflict and in what ways, if any, they are similar. 5. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand the requirements of fairness on the religious majority: fairness requires that the minority be provided with more reasons that must be made accessible to them in order for them to accept the will of the majority than only procedural reasons in order for the minority to accept the will of the majority. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Discuss how the story of Abraham’s obedience to God illustrates the ethical principle that actions are right because God commands them. How does this theory differ from the theory that God commands actions because they are right? Answer: In the story of Abraham's obedience, God's command to sacrifice his son demonstrates the Divine Command Theory, where actions are right solely because God commands them, regardless of human understanding. This theory contrasts with the idea that actions are right inherently, and God commands them because they align with a pre-existing standard of goodness. 2. Does religion conflict in the nonreligious public arena? Explain the sources of morality from a religious perspective and how, and under what circumstances, these sources may come into conflict in the public arena and how such conflicts can be resolved. Answer: Religion can indeed conflict in the nonreligious public arena when differing religious perspectives clash over moral issues. Sources of morality from a religious viewpoint often stem from sacred texts, traditions, and interpretations of divine will. Conflicts arise when these sources contradict secular laws or other religious beliefs, necessitating dialogue, compromise, and adherence to shared societal values for resolution. 3. Do you think religious moral teachings can act as a substitute for accessible substantive reasons? Explain your answer utilizing both Rawls’ and Wolterstorff’s philosophical views on the subject. Answer: Both Rawls and Wolterstorff provide insights on the role of religious moral teachings in public discourse. Rawls, in his political liberalism, emphasizes the need for public reasoning accessible to all, which may not always be facilitated solely by religious doctrines. On the other hand, Wolterstorff contends that religious moral teachings can offer substantive reasons accessible to all, enriching public discourse with diverse perspectives. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that religious reasoning is presented in a way that is comprehensible and open to rational debate within a pluralistic society. Multiple Choice Questions Choose the best possible answer for each of the following 1. Explain how Middle Age philosophers extended the divine theory analysis to other actions. A. Philosophers such as Aquinas and Ockham opined that some acts that could not be done still could not be done unless one prayed to God. B. Philosophers such as Aquinas and Ockham opined that morality is fundamentally independent of religion. C. Philosophers such as Aquinas and Ockham opined that the ends justified the means. D. Philosophers such as Aquinas and Ockham opined that acts that should not be done became acts that should be done because God commanded that they be done. Answer: D 2. Identify some of the problems for divine command theorists. A. Some of the problems divine command theorists face includes how people can identify and understand divine commands and whether or not creation can be used to justify the theory. B. Some of the problems divine command theorists face includes how to figure out what God is thinking, how to know what theory God would use, and how to identify God. C. Some of the problems divine command theorists face includes how to live morally, how to do business, and how to treat God. D. Some of the problems divine command theorists face includes how to let God into their lives, how to be kind to all, and how to see God through our own natures. Answer: A 3. Describe how the different special revelations have conflicting requirements. A. With special revelations made only to a select few or select group, all of the people in that group may obey the revelations. Further, different groups may all claim to have received similar revelations that contain similar moral requirements. B. With special revelations made only to a select few or select group, not all people are aware of them to obey them. Further, different groups claim to have received different revelations that contain conflicting moral requirements. C. Special revelations may be interpreted different ways by different people. D. Special revelations depend on each person’s definition of the moral requirement imposed. Answer: B 4. Describe Wolterstorff’s position on fairness to a religious minority. A. Wolterstorff believes that an agreement fairly promoted or executed by a religious majority is reason enough for the religious minority to accept it. B. Wolterstorff believes that an agreement fairly promoted or executed by a religious minority should be accepted by the religious majority. C. Wolterstorff believes that for true fairness, the religious majority and minority must engage in a majority vote. D. Wolterstorff believes that it violates the tenets of traditional notions of fairness that the religious majority may impose their will on the religious minority. Answer: A 5. Explain why procedural reasons accessible to the religious minority are insufficient to meet the notion of “fairness”? A. Because fairness always requires substantive reasons as well as procedural reasons as a matter of ethics. B. Because there must be substantive reasons as well as procedural reasons, joined together and that are accessible to the minority, so that the minority will still feel heard. C. Because there must be substantive reasons as well as procedural reasons, joined together and that are accessible to the minority, for accepting the will of the majority. D. Because there must be substantive reasons as well as procedural reasons, joined together and that are accessible to the minority, so that the majority does not withdraw funding. Answer: C 6. Does fairness require each member of the religious majority to propound substantive and procedural reasons to support their position or policy? A. Yes, a requirement that each majority member must set forth the publicly accessible reasons for the policy they espouse is inherently fair. B. Yes, a requirement that each majority member must set forth the publicly accessible reasons for the policy they espouse is consistent with Wolterstorff’s position. C. No, a requirement that each majority member must set forth the publicly accessible reasons for the policy they espouse would constitute an unfair burden. D. No, a requirement that each majority member must set forth the publicly accessible reasons for the policy they espouse would be too costly. Answer: C 7. Identify how the religious majority can ensure that sufficient procedural and substantive reasons for going along with them are accessible to the religious minority. A. The majority may ensure that its reasons are accessible to the minority by electing a president that holds the same views as the majority. B. The majority may ensure that its reasons are accessible to the minority by having institutions ensuring freedom of speech, quality public education, and open debate for people of all persuasions. C. The majority may ensure that its reasons are accessible to the minority by advocacy for all, whether or not one is in the majority or minority. D. The majority may ensure that its reasons are accessible to the minority by practicing freedom of speech only. Answer: B 8. Express how Wolterstorff solves the unfairness he identifies in Rawls’ interpretation of dealing with fundamental issues in the public arena. A. Wolterstorff takes the view that through voting, fairness has been achieved and the minority must then accede to the will of majority. B. Wolterstorff takes the view that through voting and debate and discussion aimed toward agreement, with all sides expressing their views, fairness has been achieved and the minority must then accede to the will of majority, which is constrained by the minority’s rights. C. Wolterstorff takes the view that religion has no place in dealing with fundamental issues in the public arena, and there should be a firm separation between Church and State in order for the minority’s rights to remain protected. D. Wolterstorff takes the view that all people in society should debate and discuss an issue until a consensus is reached. Answer: B 9. Identify some of the dangers that would exist if the religious majority was only constrained procedurally. A. A religious majority could always make more money than the minority and become an elite class. B. A religious majority could seek and win elections without consideration of minority views or rights. C. A religious majority would have to show good reasons to support its position. D. A religious majority could force a minority to financially support its religious activities, participate in its religious services, and/or could impose significant restrictions on minorities as demanded by its religious doctrines. Answer: D 10. Explain how religious moral teachings may be justified by reason. A. If a religious moral teaching is accessible to everyone, regardless of their own religious belief, it is justified and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to reject that teaching. B. If a religious moral teaching is accessible to everyone, regardless of their own religious belief, it is justified only if people can still reject that teaching. C. If a religious moral teaching is accessible to everyone, regardless of their own religious belief, people can be morally blamed for failing to abide by such teachings because they can come to understand that these requirements apply to them. D. If a religious moral teaching is accessible to everyone, regardless of their own religious belief, it is justified only if people can vote on the teaching. Answer: A Essay Questions 1. How do general revelations impact divine command theory? Explain your answer. Answer: General revelations, which are understandings of God derived from nature or human reason rather than from specific religious texts, can impact Divine Command Theory (DCT) in several ways. While DCT typically relies on specific divine commands as the basis for moral obligations, general revelations may provide additional support or context for understanding these commands. They can offer insights into moral truths that align with divine commands, reinforcing the idea that certain actions are right or wrong because they reflect God's inherent nature or intentions as revealed through the natural world or human reason. However, interpretations of general revelations can vary, and their relationship with divine commands may not always be straightforward, leading to complexities in applying DCT in ethical reasoning. 2. Explain Rawls and Wolterstorff’s positions about the role fairness plays in morality. Include in your response a comparison and contrast of both philosophers’ arguments Answer: Rawls and Wolterstorff both address the role of fairness in morality, although they approach it from different perspectives. Rawls, in his theory of justice as fairness, emphasizes the importance of fairness in the distribution of social goods and opportunities. He argues that principles of justice should be chosen behind a "veil of ignorance," where individuals are unaware of their own position in society. This ensures that principles of fairness are established without bias, leading to a more just and equitable society. Rawls prioritizes fairness as a foundational aspect of morality, essential for creating a just social order. Wolterstorff, on the other hand, focuses on the concept of justice within a Christian framework. While he acknowledges the importance of fairness in moral deliberation, he argues that justice is ultimately grounded in the inherent worth and dignity of individuals as bearers of God's image. Wolterstorff emphasizes the idea of shalom, or flourishing, which encompasses not only fairness but also the holistic well-being of individuals and communities. For Wolterstorff, justice is inseparable from love and care for others, going beyond mere fairness to encompass a deeper sense of relational and communal flourishing. In comparing their positions, both Rawls and Wolterstorff recognize the significance of fairness in morality, albeit within different philosophical and theological frameworks. Rawls' emphasis on fairness as a primary principle of justice aligns with his secular, liberal approach to morality, focusing on equality and impartiality. Wolterstorff, drawing from a Christian perspective, incorporates fairness into a broader understanding of justice rooted in the inherent worth of individuals and their relationships with God and others. However, their contrast lies in the foundations of their moral theories. Rawls' theory of justice as fairness is based on rational deliberation and the principles of social contract, while Wolterstorff grounds his understanding of justice in Christian theology and the concept of shalom. Despite these differences, both philosophers highlight the importance of fairness in shaping moral norms and social institutions, albeit within distinct philosophical frameworks. 3. Do you think fairness requires that the religious majority must ensure and, if it does, how the religious majority may ensure that sufficient substantive and procedural reasons for acceding to its position are accessible to the religious minority? Describe how your answer is the same or different from Wolterstorff’s theory on this matter. Answer: Fairness does indeed entail that the religious majority must ensure that sufficient substantive and procedural reasons for acceding to its position are accessible to the religious minority. This ensures that decisions and policies are made with due consideration for the diverse perspectives within a society, promoting inclusivity and justice. To achieve this, the religious majority can engage in open dialogue, provide clear explanations of their positions, and actively listen to the concerns and perspectives of the minority. They can also strive to create institutional mechanisms that safeguard the rights and interests of minority groups, ensuring their voices are heard and respected in decision-making processes. This perspective aligns with Wolterstorff's theory, which emphasizes the importance of justice and inclusivity within a Christian framework. Wolterstorff argues for the importance of respecting the rights and dignity of individuals, including those of religious minorities, and creating a society that promotes the flourishing of all its members. He advocates for a pluralistic public square where different religious and philosophical perspectives are given equal consideration and where decisions are made through fair and inclusive processes. Thus, both my perspective and Wolterstorff's theory emphasize the importance of fairness and inclusivity in ensuring that the voices and perspectives of religious minorities are respected and considered within society. Chapter 2 The Challenge of Moral Relativism CHAPTER SUMMARY Chapter 2 examines the theory of moral relativism—its definition, real-life past and present scenarios, and criticisms. Considering six specific examples, the chapter concludes with the failure of any case to support the thesis of moral relativism. The student will see that cases of moral conflict grounded in cultural conflict are needed to support this thesis. The text presents three of the six cases as ones that contain too much agreement to be cases of actual moral conflict. In the other three cases, significant disagreement was present, but it was not the kind of disagreement that could be characterized as moral conflict. This left the thesis of moral relativism unsupported but with the hint that the theory’s defense could come later in the text. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. In this chapter, the student will examine the theory of moral relativism, examples, and the possible benefits of moral relativism. 2. By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to explain the considerations required for moral relativism to exist and where those considerations are absent, how the theory fails. 3. In this chapter, the student will learn about the criticisms of moral relativism and how the theory of moral relativism compares to divine command theory. 4. By the end of this chapter, the student should be able to form an opinion as to whether moral relativism is really present in the examples examined, and, if not, what is missing from each one. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Do you think the tolerance for different cultural groups that would abound if one accepted moral relativism is worth the negative effects of moral relativism? Explain your answer using examples and why your perspective is the right one. Answer: Yes, embracing moral relativism may foster tolerance, but it can also lead to ethical ambiguity and moral inertia. For instance, while it encourages acceptance of diverse practices, it may undermine efforts to address universal human rights violations. Balancing cultural sensitivity with moral clarity is essential for a just society. 2. Do you think moral relativism is simply the product of a particular culture? If so, explain your answer and use examples from the text to support it. If not, explain why the moral requirements in your answer are met differently. Answer: Yes, moral relativism often arises within specific cultural contexts, shaped by factors like history, religion, and societal norms. For instance, anthropological studies reveal how moral values vary across cultures, indicating the cultural construction of morality. However, the concept of moral relativism is also subject to philosophical inquiry beyond cultural boundaries, suggesting its universality as a human intellectual construct. 3. Discuss the practice of female circumcision, whether it provides support for the theory of moral relativism, and the justifications for the practice. Do you think any of these justifications support the practice of female circumcision? Do you think any consequences of failing to engage in such a practice provides a moral justification for the practice? Explain your answer. Answer: The practice of female circumcision is often cited as an example supporting moral relativism due to cultural acceptance in certain societies. However, justifications such as tradition or religious beliefs don't inherently validate the practice, as they can conflict with universal human rights principles. No consequences justify the violation of bodily integrity and autonomy, underscoring the need for ethical scrutiny beyond cultural boundaries. Multiple Choice Questions Choose the best possible answer for each of the following 1. Paraphrase the theory of “moral relativism.” A. Moral relativism simply means that what is “moral” depends on one’s perspective. B. Moral relativism simply means that what is “moral” depends on one’s background and past experiences. C. Moral relativism is the view that what morality requires is based on one’s culture and, as such, morality’s requirements are relative and apply only to that culture’s members. D. Moral relativism is the view that what morality requires is based on the combination of cultures and the collective view of the members of those cultures. Answer: C 2. Relate two negative consequences of moral relativism. A. Negative consequences of moral relativism are that despicable or wrongful acts would never be condemned as such, and people would struggle to determine what morality requires of them and what said requirements are relative to. B. Negative consequences of moral relativism include the likelihood of anarchy and the possibility of despotism. C. Negative consequences of moral relativism include nepotism at all levels of government and the possibility serious economic downturns. D. Negative consequences of moral relativism include the condemnation and vindication of all acts, and a cultural group’s difficulty in defining and qualifying those acts for punishment. Answer: A 3. Identify what is needed to get a particular cultural group to display action-tolerance. A. Getting a particular cultural group to display action-tolerance depends on whether the group has already exhibited judgmental tolerance. B. Getting a particular cultural group to display action-tolerance depends on whether its cultural norms are in the majority or minority. C. Getting a particular cultural group to display action-tolerance depends on whether its cultural norms favor actions that conflict with the interests of other cultural groups. D. Getting a particular cultural group to display action-tolerance depends on whether its cultural norms favor actions that are similar to the interests of other cultural groups. Answer: C 4. Using the theory of moral relativism, provide an explanation of Melodia’s likely thought process when he raped Viola in order to get her to marry him. A. By raping Viola after she rejected him as a suitor and in order to get her to marry him, Melodia veered outside the moral requirements of his cultural group and was duly punished. B. By raping Viola after she rejected him as a suitor and in order to get her to marry him, Melodia hoped to finally win Viola’s love. C. By raping Viola after she rejected him as a suitor and in order to get her to marry him, Melodia defied the authority of his cultural group. D. By raping Viola after she rejected him as a suitor and in order to get her to marry him, Melodia simply relied on the authority of his cultural group to justify his actions. Answer: D 5. Express why the case of the widow Kanwan’s act of suttee is not an example of moral relativism. A. Kanwan’s act presented no independent moral justification or conflicting moral perspectives as the main reason justifying her decision to kill herself; rather, her decision was based only on religion. B. The main reasons offered to justify Kanwan’s decision to kill herself are based only on moral justification; accordingly, there are no conflicting moral perspectives to justify Kanwan’s actions. C. Kanwan was not following the moral requirements of any specific cultural group, and, therefore, there was no justification for her actions. D. Kanwan’s actions were based on a fundamental inequality between genders. Answer: A 6. Identify three relevant considerations to determine whether female circumcision provides an example of moral relativism. A. The different types of female circumcision, the majority’s view on the subject of female circumcision, and the type of government in each culture are all considerations as to whether female circumcision supports the theory of moral relativism. B. The different types of female circumcision, the medical consequences of each practice, and the justification for circumcising girls and women are all considerations as to whether female circumcision supports the theory of moral relativism. C. A family’s past history and experience with female circumcision, a girl or woman’s opinion on the subject of female circumcision, and any suitor’s family’s opinion on the matter are all considerations as to whether female circumcision supports the theory of moral relativism. D. The different types of female circumcision, the way each type of circumcision is performed, and who performs each type of female circumcision are all considerations as to whether female circumcision supports the theory of moral relativism. Answer: B 7. Describe the main criticism of moral relativism. A. The main critique is that the requirements of morality are the product of a particular culture and, therefore, apply to just that culture’s members, which is a direct result of the thesis that people in different societies have divergent moral beliefs. B. The main critique is that the requirements of morality are the product of a particular culture and, therefore, apply to just that culture’s members, which does not follow naturally from the thesis that people in different societies have divergent moral beliefs. C. The main critique is that the requirements of morality are the product of a particular religion and, therefore, apply to just that religion’s members, which is a direct result of the thesis that people in different societies have divergent moral beliefs. D. The main critique is that the requirements of morality are the product of history and years of the same belief, and, therefore, it is very difficult to act morally. Answer: B 8. Explain how the theory of moral relativism is like the divine command theory. A. Divine command theory considers morality based on God’s commands but considers personal nature and circumstances. Similarly, moral relativism considers morality to be a product of cultural norms regardless of the facts, personal nature and circumstances, or how the group’s norms affect others’ interests. B. Divine command theory considers morality based on God’s commands without considering personal nature and circumstances. Similarly, moral relativism considers morality to be a product of cultural norms but considers the facts, personal nature and circumstances, and how the group’s norms affect others’ interests. C. Divine command theory considers morality based on God’s commands but considers personal nature and circumstances. Similarly, moral relativism considers morality to be a product of cultural norms but considers personal nature and circumstances and how the group’s norms affect others’ interests. D. Divine command theory considers morality based on God’s commands without considering personal nature and circumstances. Similarly, moral relativism considers morality to be a product of cultural norms regardless of the facts, personal nature and circumstances, or how the group’s norms affect others’ interests. Answer: D 9. Describe why the different driving rules in the U.S. and the U.K. do not provide an example of moral relativism. A. The driving rules in the U.S. and U.K. are not an example of moral relativism because there is too much moral disagreement about whether driving on the left or right side of the road is safer. B. The driving rules in the U.S. and U.K. are not an example of moral relativism because the U.K. will not budge from their position that driving on the left side of the road is correct. C. The driving rules in the U.S. and the U.K. are not an example of moral relativism because there is little, if any, moral disagreement about the purpose and practice of the rules. D. The driving rules in the U.S. and U.K. are not an example of moral relativism because there is too much moral disagreement about the purpose and practice of the rules. Answer: C 10. Explain why female circumcision can be justified in countries where female circumcision is common. A. Female circumcision can be justified so that a woman will be eligible for marriage since people may have no alternative but to adhere to the practice because the consequence (ineligibility for marriage) for not engaging would be worse than the practice itself. B. Female circumcision can be justified so that a woman will have reduced sexual pleasure since people may have no alternative but to adhere to the practice because the consequence (sexual pleasure) for not engaging would be worse than the practice itself. C. Female circumcision can be justified so that a woman will be spiritually closer to God and better able to get into heaven. The consequence (not getting into heaven) for failure to perform this practice would be worse than engaging in it. D. Female circumcision can be justified so that a woman will be adequately prepared for the pain of childbirth. Answer: A Essay Questions 1. Provide 2-3 examples of possible moral relativism. Explain the meaning of moral relativism through these examples, and describe some of the problems inherent in this theory. Answer: 1. Cultural Practices: In some cultures, practices like polygamy or arranged marriages are considered morally acceptable, while in others, they're deemed unethical. Moral relativism suggests that the morality of these practices depends on the cultural context in which they occur. However, this viewpoint faces criticism as it may lead to moral passivity in the face of practices that violate human rights. 2. Religious Beliefs: Different religions have varying moral codes and ethical principles. For instance, dietary restrictions or dress codes may differ widely between religious communities. Moral relativism argues that what is considered right or wrong is relative to the beliefs of each religion. Yet, this stance can be problematic when religious practices conflict with broader ethical standards, such as gender equality or freedom of expression. 3. Legal Systems: Laws and legal systems vary across countries, reflecting diverse societal values and norms. Practices like capital punishment or corporal punishment may be legal and culturally accepted in some regions but condemned in others. Moral relativism suggests that the morality of these practices is contingent upon the laws and cultural norms of each society. However, this approach can overlook fundamental human rights and principles of justice that transcend cultural boundaries. 2. When are the entitlements and requirements recognized by a social group appropriately determined to be moral ones. Explain your answer considering the conflicting interests that may exist and how the legal system may impact your response. Answer: Entitlements and requirements are recognized as moral ones when they align with fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and human rights that transcend individual or group interests. Conflicting interests may arise due to differing values, beliefs, or needs within a society. The legal system plays a crucial role in mediating these conflicts by establishing a framework of laws and regulations that aim to uphold moral principles while balancing competing interests. However, legal systems are not infallible and may sometimes fail to fully reflect moral consensus or adequately protect vulnerable groups, highlighting the complexity of determining moral entitlements within a social context. 3. How does moral relativism compare to the divine command theory. In your answer, provide the similarities and differences present in each theory and examples of both. Answer: Moral relativism and the divine command theory offer contrasting perspectives on the nature of morality: Similarities: 1. Subjectivity: Both theories acknowledge the subjective nature of morality. Moral relativism posits that moral judgments are relative to cultural or individual perspectives, while the divine command theory suggests that moral standards are grounded in the commands or will of a divine authority. Differences: 1. Basis of Morality: Moral relativism asserts that morality is contingent upon cultural norms, societal values, or individual beliefs, whereas the divine command theory posits that morality is rooted in the commands or decrees of a divine being. For example, in moral relativism, the acceptance of polygamy varies across cultures, while the divine command theory might argue that polygamy is morally wrong because it contradicts divine commands against it. 2. Objective vs. Subjective Morality: While moral relativism suggests that morality is subjective and varies between cultures or individuals, the divine command theory implies an objective source of morality external to human perspectives, namely, the divine will. For instance, moral relativism may justify cultural practices like female circumcision based on cultural norms, whereas the divine command theory might condemn it if it contradicts divine commands against harming others. In essence, moral relativism emphasizes cultural or individual subjectivity in determining morality, while the divine command theory posits an objective foundation based on divine authority. Chapter 3 The Challenge of Egoism CHAPTER SUMMARY Egoism presents a fundamental challenge to acting morally. This chapter discusses the various forms of egoism that challenge morality: Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism. Then, the chapter thoroughly explains the two main forms that Ethical Egoism takes: Individual Ethical Egoism and Universal Ethical Egoism and the validity (or failure) of each. Next, the chapter explains three ways we can meet the challenge that Universal Ethical Egoism presents to morality. Finally, the chapter offers a way that morality may be rationally required and, accordingly, may meet the challenge of Universal Ethical Egoism to show that morality is rationally preferable to egoism and can serve as a compromise between self-interested and altruistic reasons. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. In this chapter, the student will examine psychological egoism and the flaws inherent in that theory by not accounting for divergent motivations. 2. By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to explain and describe both individual and universal ethical egoism and the challenges of each theory. 3. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand three theories to meet the challenge that Universal Ethical Egoism presents to morality. 4. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand how morality may be a rationally required compromise to self-interested and altruistic reasons. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Discuss the use of “oughts” in competitive games. In your discussion, explain how “ought” relates to Universal Ethical Egoism and whether it shows that Universal Ethical Egoism is an inconsistent view. Answer: In competitive games, "oughts" typically refer to what players should do to maximize their own success within the game. Universal Ethical Egoism asserts that individuals ought to act in their own self-interest at all times. However, in competitive games, players often face situations where cooperation or altruism may lead to greater success, challenging the consistency of Universal Ethical Egoism. 2. Discuss whether and why morality is rationally preferable to the theory of Universal Ethical Egoism. What kinds of cases must be considered to determine whether egoism or morality is rationally preferable? Answer: Morality is rationally preferable to Universal Ethical Egoism because it considers the well-being of all individuals rather than solely prioritizing self-interest. Cases involving moral dilemmas, societal harmony, and long-term consequences must be considered to determine whether egoism or morality is rationally preferable. 3. Does morality as a compromise offer an answer to the egoism exhibited by Gyges in the myth described in the beginning of this chapter and the real-life actions of Bernard Madoff? Explain your answer and, if you think morality is a compromise, discuss how you think the compromise could be implemented. Answer: Morality as a compromise can offer an answer to the egoism exhibited by Gyges in the myth and the actions of Bernard Madoff. It entails balancing self-interest with ethical considerations for the well-being of others and societal norms. Implementing this compromise involves fostering empathy, promoting transparency and accountability, and establishing ethical guidelines and regulations to discourage unethical behavior. By integrating individual interests with moral principles, society can mitigate the negative impacts of egoism and promote a more equitable and sustainable environment for all. Multiple Choice Questions Choose the best possible answer for each of the following 1. Express the view of Psychological Egoism. A. Psychological egoism is the view that while some are motivated by their own self-interest, this should not be assumed. B. Psychological egoism is the view that everything happens for a reason. C. Psychological egoism is the view that despite appearances to the contrary, some people are largely motivated by their own self-interest. D. Psychological egoism is the view that everyone is ultimately motivated by their own self-interest. Answer: D 2. Describe the difference between Individual Ethical Egoism and Universal Ethical Egoism. A. Individual Ethical Egoism maintains that people should do what is in their own general self-interest, while the Universal Ethical Egoism view is that people should do what’s in the general self-interest of one specific person. B. Universal Ethical Egoism maintains that people should do what is in their own general self-interest, while the Individual Ethical Egoism view is that people should do what’s in the general self-interest of one specific person. C. Universal Ethical Egoism maintains that people should do what is best for everyone in society as a whole, while the Individual Ethical Egoism view is that people should do what’s in the general self-interest of one specific person. D. Universal Ethical Egoism maintains that people should do what is best for everyone in society as a whole, while the Individual Ethical Egoism view is that people should do what’s in the general self-interest of themselves. Answer: B 3. Explain why philosopher Rachels’ argument that racism is similar to egoism fails against Universal Ethical Egoism. A. Universal Ethical Egoism focuses on placing only one person in a special category, and, in that way, it is similar to Rachels’ argument that neither racism nor egoism provide a good reason why all should support the egoist’s own interests, or the racist’s preferred group, over all others. B. Universal Ethical Egoism treats everyone the same—promoting everyone to look after his/her own self-interest, but, by contrast, Rachels argues that neither racism nor egoism provide a good reason why everyone should support the egoist’s own interests, or the racist’s preferred group, over all others. C. Universal Ethical Egoism treats everyone the same—promoting everyone to look after his/her own self-interest, but, Rachels argues that both racism and egoism support the majority in the racist’s preferred group while weighing the consequences of the egoist’s decisions. D. Universal Ethical Egoism focuses on placing only one person in a special category, but Rachels’ theory that egoism is similar to racism contradicts this theory. Answer: B 4. Identify what contemporary moral philosophers aim to establish other than that both morality and egoism are rationally permissible. A. Contemporary philosophers aim to establish that morality is rationally required not just rationally permissible. B. Contemporary philosophers aim to establish that morality is ethically required not just rationally permissible. C. Contemporary philosophers aim to establish that morality is emotionally required not just rationally permissible. D. Contemporary philosophers aim to establish that morality is rationally required not just emotionally permissible. Answer: B 5. Restate how one should assess the relevant reasons in cases in which there is a conflict between the self-interested reasons and the moral reasons. A. When considering the reasons in cases where there is a conflict between both types of reasons, it is preferable to consider the conflict as one between self-interested reasons and well thought out, not moral, reasons. B. When considering the reasons in cases where there is a conflict between both types of reasons, it is preferable to consider the conflict as one between self-interested reasons and religious, not moral, reasons. C. When considering the reasons in cases where there is a conflict between both types of reasons, it is preferable to consider the conflict as one between self-interested reasons and altruistic, not moral, reasons. D. When considering the reasons in cases where there is a conflict between both types of reasons, it is preferable to consider the conflict as one between self-interested reasons and moral, not altruistic, reasons. Answer: C 6. Explain how a “lifeboat case” can require one to avoid doing what is in their own highest-ranking reasons only by requiring another person to act contrary to his/her highest-ranking reasons. A. In a “lifeboat case,” the survival of one depends on the survival of the other, requiring both parties to cooperate, which is unlike the typical conflict between the self-interested and altruistic reasons, where one of these reasons usually ranks higher and allows for a clear resolution. B. In a “lifeboat case,” the survival of one depends on the demise of the other, which is a difficult matter to resolve in any way other than by a chance method; such a case is similar to the typical conflict between the self-interested and altruistic reasons, where neither set reasons usually ranks higher and allows for a clear resolution. C. In a “lifeboat case,” the survival of one depends on the demise of the other, which is easily resolved by logical methods, and it is similar to the typical conflict between the self-interested and altruistic reasons, where one of these reasons usually ranks higher and allows for a clear resolution. D. In a “lifeboat case,” the survival of one depends on the demise of the other, which is a difficult matter to resolve in any way other than by a chance method; such a case is unlike the typical conflict between the self-interested and altruistic reasons, where one of these reasons usually ranks higher and allows for a clear resolution. Answer: D 7. Identify two ways that we can see that morality is a good compromise between self-interested and altruistic reasons. A. First, it is morally acceptable to have some self-regard thereby granting priority to certain self-interested reasons over less important altruistic ones. Second, morality limits how much people prioritize their own self-interests thereby ranking certain altruistic reasons over less important self-interested ones. B. First, it is morally acceptable to consider yourself all of the time regardless of the reasons. Second, morality does not limit the prioritization people place on their own self-interests thereby ranking self-interested reasons over less important altruistic ones. C. First, it is only morally acceptable to have limited self-regard thereby denying priority to certain self-interested reasons over less important altruistic ones. Second, morality limits how much people prioritize their own self-interests thereby prioritizing certain altruistic reasons in almost all scenarios. D. First, it is never morally acceptable for one’s self-regard to trump certain self-interested reasons over less important altruistic reasons. Second, morality should have little to nothing to do with self-interests. Answer: A 8. Name three possible approaches as to how morality can be a compromise to egoism. A. Three approaches to implementing morality as a compromise include: the Kantian approach, the Platoelian approach, and the Logical approach. B. Three approaches to implementing morality as a compromise include: the Kantian approach, the Aristotelian approach, and the Sensory approach. C. Three approaches to implementing morality as a compromise include: the Kantian approach, the Aristotelian approach, and the Utilitarian approach. D. Three approaches to implementing morality as a compromise include: the Smith approach, the Aristotelian approach, and the Nagelian approach. B. Answer: C 9. Explain why Individual Ethical Egoism fails. A. There is no justification to support the claim that everyone ought to do what serves the interests of just one person because Universal Ethical Egoism is rationally required over Individual Ethical Egoism. B. There is no justification to support the claim that everyone ought to do what serves the interests of just one person because fairness requires that everyone act in their own self-interest. C. There is no justification to support the claim that everyone ought to do what serves the interests of just one person because each person has a relatable characteristic to the one to be served, which defies granting the one person special status over one’s own self-interest. D. There is no justification to support the claim that everyone ought to do what serves the interests of just one person because no one has relatable characteristics, which defies granting the one person special status over one’s own self-interest. Answer: C 10. Express what publicity has to do with Universal Ethical Egoism. A. Supporters of Universal Ethical Egoism publicize their commitment to egoism so that others are alert to the egoist’s success and can further assist him/her in the pursuit of their own general self-interests at others’ expense. B. Supporters of Universal Ethical Egoism do not publicize their commitment to egoism so that others won’t guard themselves against being harmed by the egoist, which assures the egoist’s success in furthering their own general self-interests at others’ expense. C. Supporters of Universal Ethical Egoism do not publicize their commitment to egoism so that others won’t guard themselves against being harmed by the egoist, which challenges the egoist’s ability to succeed. D. Supporters of Universal Ethical Egoism seek publicity, which does not impact the egoist’s success in furthering his/her own general self-interests at others’ expense. Answer: B Essay Questions 1. Describe the fundamental challenge of egoism to morality as well as the various forms this challenge takes. Explain the role motivation plays in your answer. Answer: The fundamental challenge of egoism to morality lies in prioritizing self-interest over ethical considerations for others. Egoism posits that individuals should act in their own self-interest, potentially disregarding moral principles that promote the well-being of others. This challenge takes various forms, such as psychological egoism, which suggests that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest, and ethical egoism, which advocates for the ethical obligation to pursue one's self-interest above all else. Motivation plays a central role in this challenge, as it influences individuals' decisions and actions, shaping whether they prioritize their own interests or consider broader moral principles. 2. Do you think the three attempts described in this chapter to meet the challenge that Universal Ethical Egoism poses to morality in general succeeds? Explain the three attempts to Universal Ethical Egoism presents to morality in your answer and why you think each succeeds or why each fails in this regard. Answer: The three attempts described in this chapter to address the challenge posed by Universal Ethical Egoism are consequentialism, contractualism, and virtue ethics. 1. Consequentialism: This ethical theory evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize overall well-being. While consequentialism seeks to promote the greater good, it can sometimes prioritize individual self-interests over moral principles, especially in situations where the outcome benefits the majority but harms a minority. Whether consequentialism succeeds in addressing Universal Ethical Egoism depends on how effectively it balances individual interests with the overall welfare of society. 2. Contractualism: Contractualism proposes that moral principles are based on agreements or social contracts among rational individuals. By emphasizing mutual respect and cooperation, contractualism seeks to address egoistic tendencies by promoting moral rules that individuals would agree to follow in a fair and just society. However, its success depends on the willingness of individuals to adhere to these hypothetical agreements and the extent to which such agreements can effectively counteract egoistic behavior. 3. Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics focuses on the development of virtuous character traits and moral dispositions. By cultivating virtues such as empathy, compassion, and integrity, virtue ethics aims to temper egoistic inclinations and promote moral behavior. While virtue ethics encourages individuals to transcend narrow self-interests and consider the well-being of others, its success depends on the cultivation of virtuous habits and the influence of social and cultural factors on moral development. Whether these attempts succeed in addressing the challenge posed by Universal Ethical Egoism varies depending on their practical implementation, cultural context, and individual motivations. While each approach offers valuable insights into moral decision-making, none provides a definitive solution to the tension between egoism and morality, highlighting the complexity of ethical theory and human behavior. 3. Identify and analyze possible solutions in a conflict between acting based on Universal Ethical Egoism rather than altruistic reasons. Explain how any (or all) of these solutions provide a non-question-begging argument favoring morality over egoism, and use an example in your response. Answer: One possible solution in a conflict between acting based on Universal Ethical Egoism and altruistic reasons is to appeal to the long-term self-interest of the egoist. By demonstrating how acting altruistically can ultimately benefit the egoist in the long run, this approach provides a non-question-begging argument favoring morality over egoism. For example, consider a scenario where an individual is tempted to exploit their coworkers for personal gain, adhering to Universal Ethical Egoism. Instead, they choose to act altruistically by collaborating and sharing credit with their team members. While this may seem contrary to their immediate self-interest, in the long term, fostering positive relationships and a cooperative work environment can lead to increased trust, productivity, and opportunities for advancement. By prioritizing the well-being of others, the individual ultimately benefits themselves, demonstrating how morality can align with self-interest without resorting to egoism. Chapter 4 Utilitarian Ethics CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter first examined utilitarianism as it could be used by Cheney to defend torturing suspected terrorists and Bin Laden to justify 9/11. However, we learned that there are other ways of achieving overall good that do not require irreparable harm to innocent people. Many moral philosophers have rejected utilitarian ethics because they thought that it easily justifies imposing irreparable harm on innocents to achieve a greater good overall. In this chapter, we see that once such impositions of irreparable harm on innocents to achieve a greater good are evaluated against the alternatives, they often turn out, as matter of fact, not to be the way to maximize the good overall. Neither act nor rule utilitarianism served as such alternatives to not impose irreparable harm on innocent people that was independent of maximizing the overall good. However, once utilitarian ethics is internally constrained by an expanded “ought” implies “can” principle, still additional grounds present themselves for ruling out such impositions on innocent people to maximize good overall. As a result, upon this expanded analysis, utilitarian ethics turns out to be a fairly attractive moral view. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. In this chapter, the student will examine the concept of utilitarian ethics and the implications of this principle. 2. By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to explain and describe how both America and Osama Bin Laden can justify their actions (terrorism and torture) by subscribing to utilitarianism. 3. In this chapter, the student will learn about the precise objections to utilitarian ethics and how those objections can be justified and defended. 4. By the end of this chapter, the student should be able to identify and understand the various defenses of utilitarianism including act versus rule utilitarianism, the “ought” implies “can” principle, and the expanded “ought” implies “can” principle. 5. By the end of this chapter, the student should understand whether utilitarianism is a justifiable ethical concept and why. DISCUSION QUESTIONS 1. Discuss what you think of Dick Cheney’s speech given the Sunday after 9/11, which included the statement that America would basically do what it had to do to fight the way on terror. Do you think this is justification for any actions, or might a different approach have been more optimal? How does the concept of utilitarian ethics relate to the new American outlook post-9/11 of the treatment of suspects? Answer: Dick Cheney's statement reflects a strong stance on national security post-9/11, but it raises concerns about the potential justification for extreme actions in the name of fighting terrorism. A more optimal approach might have balanced security concerns with respect for human rights and international law. Utilitarian ethics could have influenced the decision-making process, potentially justifying controversial measures like enhanced interrogation techniques based on the perceived greater good of preventing future attacks. 2. Do you think the “ought” implies “can” principle is a valid defense for utilitarianism? What parts do you think reasonableness and impossibility plays in this analysis? In your answer, describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principle and if you think it succeeds in limiting irreparable harm on innocent people to maximize benefits overall. Answer: The "ought" implies "can" principle is a valid defense for utilitarianism, as it acknowledges the importance of feasibility in moral obligations. Reasonableness determines the practicality of achieving certain outcomes, while acknowledging impossibility recognizes constraints on action. While this principle helps ensure realistic moral expectations, it may not fully address situations where achieving the greatest good is challenging or where irreparable harm on innocent people occurs despite efforts to maximize benefits. 3. Discuss whether utilitarianism provides any independent reason for claiming that imposing irreparable harm on some to achieve benefits to others is possible. Explain whether the cases of the spelunkers stuck in the cave or the transplant surgeon trying to harvest organs out of a healthy person support your answer or contradict it. Answer: Utilitarianism may justify imposing irreparable harm on some to achieve benefits for others if it maximizes overall utility. In the case of the spelunkers stuck in the cave, sacrificing one to save the rest aligns with utilitarian principles by maximizing the survival of the group. Similarly, the transplant surgeon's dilemma involves weighing the potential benefits to multiple patients against the harm to the healthy donor. Both cases illustrate utilitarianism's rationale for sacrificing individuals to optimize collective well-being. Multiple Choice Questions Choose the best possible answer for each of the following 1. Describe the utilitarian theory and how it relates to acts of torture. A. Utilitarians believe that the greater good or happiness of many or overall should prevail over the good or happiness of a few. Accordingly, torturing a few suspected terrorists is justified if it saves lives and benefits the overall good. B. Utilitarians believe that the greater good or happiness of a few should prevail over the good or happiness of many or overall. Accordingly, torturing suspected terrorists is never justified even if it saves lives and benefits the overall good. C. Utilitarians believe that the greater good or happiness of many or overall is based on and defined by one’s culture. Accordingly, torturing suspected terrorists depends upon which country is doing the torturing. D. Utilitarians believe that the greater good or happiness of many or overall can be achieved by daily prayer. Accordingly, the torture of suspected terrorists is justified if God commands it. Answer: A 2. Explain the similarity and differences between Bentham and Mill’s idea of happiness as it relates to utilitarianism. A. While both philosophers equated happiness with pleasure, Bentham did not distinguish between the quality of pleasures while Mill maintained that pleasures could vary in quality and according to who experienced the pleasure. B. While both philosophers deemed happiness to be derivative of pleasure, Bentham rated pleasures in accordance with which served the good overall while Mill did not distinguish between the quality of pleasures. C. While both philosophers equated happiness with pleasure, Bentham maintained that pleasures could vary in quality and according to who experienced the pleasure while Mill did not distinguish between the quality of pleasures. D. While both philosophers believed in sacrificing to promote the greater good, Bentham did not believe in such issues like the separation of church and state while Mill maintained that pleasures could not be rated. Answer: A 3. Describe the theory that harming one or few innocent person(s) is not morally justified to gain a benefit for others. A. Harming another is always morally justified when benefits can be obtained for others in a way that would result in less harm to the one or few innocent person(s). B. Harming another is never morally justified. C. Harming another is not morally justified when benefits can be obtained for others in a way that would result in less harm to the one or few innocent person(s). D. Harming another is morally justified even when benefits can be obtained for others in a way that would result in less harm to the one or few innocent person(s). Answer: C 4. Explain whether utilitarianism supports imposing irreparable harm on some to benefit others without identifying the actual benefits and harms. A. Yes, utilitarianism justifies imposing irreparable harm on some to gain an overall benefit to the larger group if the harms and benefits are specified and there is a plan to avoid irreparable harm. B. Yes, utilitarianism justifies imposing irreparable harm on some to gain an overall benefit to the larger group even if the harms and benefits are not specified. C. No, utilitarianism does not justify imposing irreparable harm on some to gain an overall benefit to the larger group if the harms and benefits are not specified as it is nearly impossible to avoid irreparable harm. D. No, utilitarianism does not justify imposing irreparable harm on some to gain an overall benefit to the larger group if the harms and benefits are not specified as benefits can often be gained while avoiding irreparable harm. Answer: D 5. Identify the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. A. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is correct if it’s required by a rule that maximizes the overall good more than another while rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is the right one if it maximizes the overall good more than any other act. B. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is correct if it maximizes the overall good more than another act while rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is the right one if it’s required by a rule that maximizes the overall good more than another rule. C. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is correct if it is consistent with the majority rule while rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is the right one if it’s required by a rule that has been the subject of debate and put to a vote. D. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is correct if it is in the best interests of a specific individual while rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is the right one if it’s required by a rule that is in the best interests of all. Answer: B 6. Describe the expanded “ought” implies “can” principle as it applies to the text’s example of the surgeon harvesting a healthy person’s organs to save five other people. A. Imposing irreparable harm on innocent people is limited because morality does not require a person to give away his organs and sacrifice his life when that is not in that person’s self-interests. B. Imposing irreparable harm on innocent people is limited because morality does require a person to do whatever (s)he can to save others if it is the right thing to do. C. Imposing irreparable harm on innocent people is limited because morality doesn’t require one to do what one cannot or make an unreasonable sacrifice, i.e., a healthy person giving his life, to maximize the good overall even by saving several others who need the organs. D. Imposing irreparable harm on innocent people is still a factor because one ought to do what one can do even if the person must make an unreasonable sacrifice, i.e., giving his life, to maximize the good overall by saving several others who need the organs. Answer: C 7. Explain whether 9/11 was justified on utilitarian grounds from Bin Laden’s perspective because of the benefits that Bin Laden and al Qaeda derived from it. A. No, utilitarianism does not justify 9/11 because a utilitarian standard requires that the irreparable harm inflicted on some is outweighed by the overall benefit to others. B. No, utilitarianism does not justify 9/11 because a utilitarian standard requires that all consequences be taken into account when assessing the justification for the action, and there were several unaccounted for consequences of 9/11. C. No, utilitarianism does not justify 9/11 because a utilitarian standard requires that only some consequences be taken into account when assessing the justification for the action, and Bin Laden and al Quaeda only considered one consequence. D. Yes, utilitarianism justifies 9/11 to Bin Laden in serving the overall good despite the sacrifice of some. Answer: B 8. Express whether the phrase “never do evil that good may come of it” is the antithesis of a utilitarian sentiment. A. No, this phrase does not describe what is morally problematic about utilitarianism because any moral theory will justify imposing some harm on innocent people if the harm is insignificant or curable to secure the overall good for others. B. No, this phrase does not describe what is morally problematic about utilitarianism because any moral theory will justify imposing some harm on innocent people even if the harm is irreparable if it secures the overall good for others. C. Yes, this phrase describes what is morally problematic about utilitarianism because no moral theory justifies imposing harm on innocent people to secure the overall good for others. D. Yes, this phrase describes what is morally problematic about utilitarianism because no moral theory will justify imposing some harm on innocent people even if the harm is insignificant or curable to secure the overall good for others. Answer: A 9. Identify one advantage of using the expanded “ought” implies “can” principle. A. An advantage is that the expanded principle repudiates the original principle and only recognizes that morality cannot impose unreasonable sacrifices upon people. B. An advantage is that the expanded principle combines the act and rule utilitarianism with morality and thereby recognizes that morality cannot impose unreasonable sacrifices upon people outside of a set rule. C. An advantage is that the expanded principle combines the original principle with a link between reason and morality that recognizes that morality cannot impose unreasonable sacrifices upon people. D. An advantage is that the expanded principle combines the original principle with a link between religion and morality that recognizes that morality cannot impose unreasonable sacrifices upon people unless such sacrifices are demanded by God. Answer: C 10. Explain what benefits and consequences have to do with utilitarian ethics. A. Consequences may not need to be considered in every situation under the principle of utilitarian ethics if there is great benefit leading to good overall. B. The sacrifice of some for the overall good can be justified if the benefits are significant and are voted upon in advance. C. The sacrifice of some for the overall good cannot be justified or dismissed without an examination of some of the consequences of the action; the benefits derived from such actions are tangential to utilitarian ethics. D. The sacrifice of some for the overall good cannot be justified or dismissed without an examination of all of the consequences and benefits of the action and whether the significant harms inflicted on some are outweighed by greater benefits to others. Answer: D Essay Questions 1. Do you think Osama Bin Laden and his supporters can use the utilitarian theory to justify 9/11? Why or why not? How is this different, and is it different, from America’s use of “torture” on detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Answer: While individuals like Osama Bin Laden may attempt to justify their actions using utilitarian reasoning, such as claiming to pursue a greater good for their cause, their actions typically involve significant harm to innocent people, making it difficult to align with utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism emphasizes maximizing overall happiness or well-being, but targeting civilians in terrorist attacks causes immense suffering and violates fundamental ethical principles. In contrast, the use of torture by the United States at Guantanamo Bay presents a different ethical dilemma. While proponents may argue that torture was used to extract information believed to prevent future terrorist attacks, its effectiveness in producing reliable intelligence is questionable, and it raises serious ethical concerns about human rights violations and the dignity of detainees. This highlights a distinction between the purported utilitarian goals of preventing harm and the actual consequences and ethical implications of employing torture methods. 2. Describe some defenses of utilitarianism. Evaluate which ones effectively defend against the view of imposing irreparable harm on innocent people to maximize benefits to others, and explain which defenses fail and why you think they fail. Answer: Defenses of utilitarianism include: 1. Maximizing overall well-being: Utilitarianism aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being, prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number. This defense argues that while individual rights are important, they may need to be sacrificed to achieve the greatest benefit for society as a whole. 2. Consequentialist reasoning: Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences rather than intentions, focusing on outcomes rather than the intrinsic nature of actions. This defense contends that actions that result in the greatest overall good are morally justified, even if they involve imposing harm on innocent individuals. While these defenses provide theoretical justifications for utilitarianism, they face criticism when applied to situations involving irreparable harm on innocent people: 1. Ignoring individual rights: Critics argue that utilitarianism's emphasis on maximizing overall utility may lead to the violation of individual rights and dignity, undermining fundamental moral principles. Sacrificing innocent individuals for the greater good may be perceived as unjust and ethically problematic. 2. Difficulty in predicting consequences: Utilitarian calculations rely on predicting the consequences of actions, which can be challenging and uncertain. In situations involving irreparable harm, such as sacrificing innocent lives, the long-term consequences may be unpredictable and may not necessarily lead to the intended benefits. While utilitarianism offers a systematic approach to ethical decision-making, its defenses struggle to adequately address the ethical complexities and moral dilemmas inherent in situations involving irreparable harm on innocent people. Critics argue that alternative ethical theories, such as deontology or virtue ethics, may offer more nuanced approaches to balancing competing moral considerations and safeguarding individual rights and dignity. 3. Explain some objections to utilitarianism. Do you think these objections are ever explained or varied upon so as to justify the theory of utilitarianism? What factors need to be identified to surmount these objections, if any? Answer: Objections to utilitarianism include: 1. Ignoring individual rights: Critics argue that utilitarianism may justify violating individual rights and liberties if doing so maximizes overall utility. 2. Consequentialist calculus: Utilitarian calculations can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, leading to uncertainty and potential errors in evaluating consequences. 3. Treatment of minorities: Utilitarianism's focus on maximizing overall happiness may neglect the interests of minorities or marginalized groups if their suffering can be justified for the greater good. 4. Potential for exploitation: Utilitarianism may justify unethical actions, such as sacrificing individuals or manipulating outcomes, if they lead to greater utility. While these objections challenge the validity of utilitarianism, proponents may offer responses to address or mitigate them: 1. Rule utilitarianism: Some argue that adopting general rules or principles that promote the greatest good overall can address concerns about violating individual rights or treating minorities unfairly. 2. Utilitarianism with constraints: Utilitarianism can be modified to include moral constraints or thresholds that protect certain fundamental rights or values, limiting the extent to which harm can be justified in pursuit of utility. 3. Consideration of long-term consequences: Utilitarianism can incorporate considerations of long-term consequences and the effects of actions on future generations, helping to ensure that decisions promote sustainable and equitable outcomes. Surmounting objections to utilitarianism often involves identifying and addressing factors such as the protection of individual rights, the fairness of outcomes for all affected parties, and the reliability of consequentialist calculations. By refining utilitarian principles and frameworks to address these concerns, proponents aim to strengthen the theory's applicability and moral integrity. Test Bank for Introducing Ethics: For Here and Now James P. Sterba 9780205903849, 9780205226689
Download
Close
Close
