Consequentialism and Aggregate Happiness Calculation

From guest blogger, Jimmy.

When faced with the problem of helping an old lady cross the street, and she gets hit by a car, one may feel blameworthy. But what I want to examine is, was it the best thing to do, factoring aggregate happiness and all?  
       
I believe it still is the best thing to do, instead of just standing there, not helping while fully capable.  It's true, you have to do the best you can do, and one didn't know a car would come.  It would be foolhardy to quickly run across the street and see if any cars are coming. One should be brave and trust that cars may stop when supposed to.  Furthermore,  that being able to trust, is an action onto itself. That trusting is taking into account the whole moral community-the lady, cars, other pedestrians, into account.  Now one is taking into account the aggregate happiness for everyone,  not just the old lady. Yea, its a terrible thing that happened,  but what if the lady got hit without you there? Then that would be even more sad.  So at least pedestrians and cars will look around and see that a positive action-helping the old lady-was preformed, and they will see how kind you were.

Deontology and Stealing Meds to Save a Life

From guest blogger, Julie.

Imagine a situation where your spouse is critically ill, but could be helped with a dosage of Medication X. However, you are too poor to afford the medication. Do you watch your beloved spouse suffer and eventually pass from the disease or do you break the law and steal the medication so that your spouse can go on to live life with you?

Do we save our spouse at the cost of doing something else that seems immoral (i.e. stealing)? It seems our “moral gut” would tell us to steal the medication for our spouse and provide them relief and salvation from their deadly illness. It is our duty to protect our loved ones/family. Or is it? Let us see how Kant would evaluate this dilemma. 

If the maxim is formulated as:

1. I will steal medication for my sick spouse since I cannot afford it.
2. Everyone steals medication for their sick spouse since they cannot afford it. 
3. Since everyone is stealing medication, frenzy will ensue and there will be no medication left to steal or there will be no more access to medication.

Here lies a contradiction, thus deeming this maxim impermissible. 

This still seems wrong to let our spouse die when we didn’t try everything in our power to help them. What can we do now to save our spouse? Which moral theory would allow this action to be ethical? Not Virtue Ethics, as that would be a contradiction of virtues. It seems Consequentialism is our only option. Again this would depend as to whether or not a greater net good or bad is brought about from stealing the medication. Do we tarnish society in the long run by allowing theft to be moral under certain circumstances or do we live in pain from the loss of our loved one due to inaction?

What do you think? Is there a way to save our loved one in a moral manner?

Why Ethical Objectivism Alone does not Answer our Dilemmas

From guest blogger, Rei.

Ethical Objectivism is the concept that there are some objective moral truths that are universal and independent of culture or belief.  Of the 11 arguments against objectivism we studied in class, the argument from absolutism resonated in my mind. The argument is as follows:

1.)     If moral claims are objectively true, then moral rules are absolute.

2.)     No moral rule is absolute.

3.)     Therefore, moral claims are not objectively true.

First, by testing for validity it can be found that this argument is not valid, as it follows the structure of: if p then q, q, therefore p. However, the argument can be changed to be valid as done below:

1.)     If moral rules are absolute, then moral claims are objectively true.

2.)     No moral rule is absolute.

3.)     Therefore, moral claims are not objectively true.

The argument is now valid. Now let us test for soundness. Consider the following thought experiment: you have a loaded gun and have the option to shoot a stranger. Would you shoot a stranger? Probably not. Do not shoot strangers seems like a viable moral rule. If shooting the stranger will end world hunger? Maybe the rule should have an escape clause to address such a situation; i.e. If world hunger doesn’t end as a result, do not shoot strangers. This thought experiment shows us that extenuating circumstances, such as the shot ending world hunger, make absolute moral rules unfeasible. This is because moral rules will not be able to account for all of these extenuating circumstances. Thus, premise 2 is true. Premise 1 on the other hand is not. Why? The previous thought experiment showed us that moral claims can be viable in spite of absolutism via the addition of escape clauses. So the argument is not sound.

The argument is not sound, but it does highlight that escape clauses are needed for the viability of ethical objectivism. This brings into question the value of ethical objectivism alone as a determinant of reasoning. If moral rules are not absolute, why have them? They can tell us how to act, usually. They can tell us what’s right and wrong, usually. They can tell us what is the morally correct thing to do given a bunch of circumstances. So can sane human beings who can empathize and consider the consequences of their actions. Most everyone can figure out if it’s wrong to shoot a stranger. Philosophical thought is in the harder decisions such as is it morally righteous to kill for the sake of a larger beneficial cause.

An objectivist criticism of my claims may be that I may be over exaggerating the significance of extenuating circumstances. My response to such a criticism would be that the widespan contemporary issues of now are all subject to said circumstances. For example, the black lives matter movement is affected by the fact that black people were enslaved 170 years ago, and black people did not have equal rights until the 1960s. Anti-abortion movements are influenced by religious practices that originated thousands of years ago.

Why do we disregard irrationality and irrational actors?

From guest blogger, Charlie.

From my brief exposure to philosophy, the rational actor seems to be the sole subject of discourse. Irrationality is treated at best as a footnote or at worst as a some sort of Lovecraftian horror. It is definitely pervasive, I doubt that any individual would convincingly contend that he has attained a level of cognition rivaling Spock. Irrationality isn’t simply a consequence of human nature but a required aspect of it.

First off let’s visit the definition doldrums and hammer out what exactly rationality and creativity are. Dictionary.com, such an illustrious source, has seven definitions for rationality; most of which involve the terms ‘reason’ and ‘reasonable’. I want to go a bit further and say that a process is rational if it is a finite sequence of steps that are valid according to some consistent logic. An irrational process is then one that is not rational. Creativity is defined as, “The ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.” (www.dictionary.com, accessed 7/14/2016).

I would like to present the following argument that irrationality is a required aspect of human nature:

1) No creative process is rational.

2) Creative processes are a required aspect of human nature.

3) Therefore, irrational processes are a required aspect of human nature.

Defense of 1:

If a creative process is rational, then there exists a consistent logic and a finite sequence of steps in that logic that derives this creative process from an existing process. This then requires that this creative process is equivalent to that process (according to the logic whose existence was asserted). But, if this creative process is equivalent to a previous process, it is by definition not new and not creative.

Defense of 2:

This one is pretty easy to defend, humanity without creativity is without the arts and sciences.

If the above argument is correct there is a lot of previous theories that have to be reexamined. Can Virtue Ethics withstand scrutiny if its virtuosic individuals need to be irrational? Surely a virtuosic individual needs to be creative. Given the necessity of irrationality doesn’t this directly conflict with The Kantian Perspective? How does an Objectivist evaluate the actions of an irrational actor?

Consequentialism and the "Too Demanding" Objection

From guest blogger, Bryan.

We talked about the consequentialism few days ago in class,  and one of most well-know theories is Mill’s utilitarianism. The theory is defined as an action that is morally correct if and only if, the results of the action produces most net pleasure among all the available actions for everyone who can be effected by the action. My first expression to theory is positive and relevant as it reflects my thoughts while making decisions; however, here are my few objections after thinking the principle deeply.

One of controversial objections for utilitarianism is that it is too demanding.  According to utilitarianism, the right action is to maximize the net overall happiness, then any actions that does not achieve this idea is impermissible action.  For instance, if a doctor can save a person from dying, and the doctor also can use the person’s organs to save ten other people who are waiting for organs if the person dies. If utilitarianism is true, the doctor is moral correct to choose to do nothing and let him dies so the doctor can save more people because the amount of happiness of ten families are much greater than the pain in one family.   Moreover, we can also use donation to charity as an example to demonstrate the refutation.   If people all donate money to charity, then the net happiness will be greater than not doing it.  Does this mean people who do not do this behavior is moral corrupted?

Another objection regarding of utilitarianism is that it is too simple.  Utilitarianism states that happiness is the only intrinsic good of determining correct actions; however, we have no clue about who decides happiness.   Additionally, human is driven by many other traits such as integrity, justice, and kindness for our future generation. The theory to me lacks enough considerations.  

Morality of Capital Punishment: A Kantian Perspective

From guest blogger, Amara,

The morality of capital punishment has always been up for debate among philosophers. There is always controversy when deciding when or when not it is permissible to take someone’s life as their punishment. The perspective I want to analyze is of the philosopher, Kantan. Though there are some drawback to capital punishment, there are more benefits to having a death penalty, such as increased security, decrease in crime rate, proper justice would be served and also, human life will be more valued and respected.

From a Kantian perspective, I believe that Kant would be all for the death penalty because he strongly believes in justice. Kant had a phrase, lex talionis, which translated into “eye for an eye”, which explains how he felt justice should be served. Kant believes that human beings are rational and autonomous creatures. This meaning that we as humans know what is morally acceptable and what is not. We are able to reason, and eventually come to a decision on our own. Since we are able to self-legislate, we ultimately are the ones responsible for the decisions we make and the consequences that they cause. So if we, as rational and autonomous beings, thought everything out, and still decided do something that is immoral towards someone else, according to lex talionis, the victims have a right to do either the same thing back or something equally as bad to you.

Another principle that Kant had was the principle of humanity which states: always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means. An “end” being a species that was part of the moral community, so they deserve proper respect and treatment. A “means” is when you use a person or thing to achieve your own personal goals and show no respect towards them. So when we do something immoral to others that are part of this community, we are violating the principle because we are not treating them as an “end”.

Relating everything back to capital punishment, if a rational and autonomous person decides to kill another rational and autonomous person, then I believe Kant would say that the person who killed them should receive the death penalty, because he broke the principle of humanity, therefore the lex talionis principle comes into play. There are some counter-arguments against this theory, and many think that lex talionis is flawed because of the following:

·         It cannot explain why criminals who intentionally hurt their victims should be punished more than those who inflict the same amount of pain and hurt on people by accident.

·         The punishment given to those who committed the crime is sometimes deeply immoral.

My suggestion to fix the first flaw would be to punish the person based off of their intentions. For example, if someone pushed some off of a building intending to kill them, then they should be killed according to the “eye for an eye” principle. On the other hand, if someone accidently bumped into another person, causing them to fall off the building and die, it was not intentional and therefore should not be punished. If the person is moral, their guilty conscious of accidently killing someone should be enough punishment for them. Another skeptic may ask, how will you find out their intentions? This will be the more difficult part, but I feel like through investigation, our judicial system is able to come to proper conclusions and appropriately serve justice, so we should keep doing just that.

Here is an example for the second flaw: someone burned someone else at the stake, so according to lex talionis, is it morally permissible for someone else to burn the murderer at the stake to serve justice? Many feel like this deeply immoral because it causes someone else, who is an outsider in the situation, to do this immoral act to someone. I believe that though, inflicting death is an immoral action, if a person takes someone else’s life, they deserve to have their life be take from them. On the issue of it being deeply immoral, I feel like the way the murderer dies can be in a less inhumane way, as long as dying is the end result. As for the outsider having to kill someone, I feel like if it is their job to serve justice, and this is the ruling on a case, then the outsider should not be seen as immoral when killing. Or maybe Kant could edit his definition of members in the moral community to when a rational and autonomous person kills another rational and autonomous being, their moral status should be revoked, and they are kicked out of the moral community. Thus, it is morally permissible to kill them. 

Cultural Relativism and Cultural Practices

From guest blogger, Ming.

We talked about Ethical Relativism in class. It has two forms: cultural relativism and individual relativism. I want to talk about Cultural relativism mainly. The theory is that one makes his/her decision depends on cultural commitments. In other words, morality is made by each society and society has final say in ethics.

Before reading Ethical Relativism, I thought it would be a good thing because I believe that majority people would make moral decisions, and the society would make best choice that is beneficial to well-beings.

However, the story of Nuran Halitogullari changed my mind. A 14-year-old girl was killed by his father because she was raped and her father thought she had dishonored their family. Such “honor killings” usually go unpunished in Istanbul because of cultural beliefs that a family’s honor often depends on the “purity” of its women. From my point of view, that girl already suffered a lot, and it takes courage to live her future life. She already lost virginity and that is a huge suffer for her and for her family. However, killed by her father, she was even poorer than being raped. If cultural relativism is correct, then killings in such cultures are moral. But how can killing innocent people be moral?

I did a little research online and found that there are some awkward (at least seen by me) belief in other cultures. For example, Shiite Muslims believe that suffering martyrdom can pay tribute and absolve sin. Therefore, the day of Ashura, an event recognized by many Muslims around the world, select men join a procession and flagellate themselves with daggers to the head. Under Muslim cultures, it is morally right even though doing so causes pain. But how can hurting oneself be moral?

Virtue Ethics and the Definition of Virtue

From guest blogger, Tessa.

For this week’s blog post, I wanted to touch on Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics. When beginning to learn about this topic, everything sounded reasonable to me. For example, we should ask ourselves “what kind of person should I be?” instead of asking ourselves “what should I do?”. Our goal is to do what the ‘virtuous person’ would do. For example, an action is right if it is what would be done by someone of virtue. This sounds like realistic moral reasoning, although how do we define a virtuous person? The readings define a virtuous person as simply someone who sets a fine example and serves as a role model for the rest of us (also called a moral exemplar). Moreover, a virtuous act is between two vicious existences. One virtuous characteristic to have would be bravery, rather than being a coward or foolhardy.

While this seemed like a reasonable idea at first, I now have many more questions. What if people have a different definition of what ‘bravery’ is? What happens when different cultures value different virtues? Do we take cultures into consideration? What about conflicting virtues- someone may act with many virtues, but lack in one area- are they someone we should follow? These are just a few of the immediate concerns that came to mind during class. Believers say that you learn who is virtuous over time. It takes practice and learning from your mistakes to be able to find a real virtuous person.

Lastly, we briefly discussed people who may never have the chance of becoming virtuous. Some people may be doomed, because of their upbringing or their past/current role models. It really rubs me the wrong way that some people have absolutely no chance in becoming virtuous, so I may hone in on this for my paper.

A Circumstance of Ethical Euthanasia

From gust blogger, Bethany.

Most of us who have owned an animal know the pain of watching our beloved pet suffer. This suffering may come from a freak accident, from a disease, or from the physical deterioration that old age causes. When we believe that curing our pet is a lost cause, we often turn to euthanasia in order to end his or her misery. However, is euthanasia the most moral option in these situations? Do we always euthanize our animals for the right reasons? Sometimes it is difficult to assess whether the right decision has been made. For eleven years, my mother and I have been fostering dogs of all shapes, sizes, breeds, ages, backgrounds, and health levels for a Milwaukee dog rescue. Over two hundred and sixty dogs have passed through our doors, and despite our best efforts to recuperate sick dogs, we have lost some along the way.

About two weeks ago, my mother made the difficult decision to euthanize one of the most recent members of our pack—a six-month old puppy named Duncan. We rescued Duncan when he was two months old from a shelter in Alabama, after a police officer found him trapped between a fence and a garage, nearly dead. His litter had been abandoned, and all of the puppies but Duncan and his brother Connor had died of starvation. In the beginning, Duncan could walk and play with the other dogs at our house. However, it soon became apparent that something was very wrong with him—as he grew older, Duncan began losing the ability to walk for more than a couple of steps; he could not support his own weight, making it impossible for him to stand long enough to walk over to the food and water bowls or even to use the bathroom anywhere but on himself. Being the saint that she is, my mother would clean him off two or three times per day, bring him food and water, carry him outside for fresh air, make sure that he was laying on soft, clean bedding, and sacrifice her own time and money to take him to vet appointments and water therapy. Ultimately, veterinarians determined that Duncan suffered from a degenerating neurological condition, and my mother and the director of the rescue agreed that it would be best to euthanize him.

At first, I struggled with this. How could my mother actually come to the conclusion that Duncan must be euthanized—killed—when maybe there was a family somewhere out there that would happily welcome him and give him the love that he deserved? Looking back, I suppose that the optimist in me was in denial that killing this poor, helpless, innocent puppy was the most moral course of action. Part of me still is. However, looking at the situation through the lenses of different moral theories has helped me suppress my immediate emotional responses and objections.

Consequentialism, which indicates that a particular action is optimific, and thus moral, if it maximizes total aggregate happiness points towards the verdict that euthanizing Duncan was the correct course of action. Duncan was ultimately saved from any further pain or discomfort, so he would not suffer any more in this life. Putting Duncan to sleep additionally ended up saving the rescue and my mother a great amount of money because there would be no more bills from Duncan’s future water therapy sessions and medical tests/procedures. This money that the rescue saved would be put towards saving other animals in need, thus increasing their overall happiness. The happiness of any family that would have potentially adopted Duncan was also preserved because the members of the family would be saved from feeling the pain of watching their dog deteriorate. Another positive implication is that my mother is now free from the commitment of spending so much time and energy caring for a special needs dog, and that energy can now be put towards caring for her own three dogs and numerous other foster dogs. The morality of this decision could be called into question, especially if the decrease in happiness that we perceived in Duncan due to his condition was incorrect. It is also possible that a wonderful family in search of a special needs dog would have adopted him and enjoyed every moment caring for him. It is difficult to consider this option, however, because finding such a family seems like a shot in the dark. Is keeping Duncan alive in hopes of finding him the perfect forever home worth the risk of causing a prolonged decrease in the happiness of my mother, the rescue, and other dogs that the rescue could have helped? It is impossible to correctly predict what the results of either course of action would be, but the most controllable action with a fairly certain optimific outcome is to euthanize Duncan.

Despite the fact that looking at this situation through the lens of Consequentialism indicates that euthanizing Duncan is the most moral action, I have difficulty accepting the fact that killing him was completely ethical. I have never believed that the means always justify the ends, so I think that it is important to consider other moral theories. Deontology places an emphasis on motives and intentions, stating that an action is moral if 1) the maxim is universalizable, and 2) if one treats humanity—whether oneself or others—as an end in themselves and never simply a means. Considering the first gloss, we can create the maxim that a chronically ill puppy is euthanized. When we universalize this maxim, then all people will euthanize their chronically ill puppies. Since no inconsistencies or contradictions arise from this statement, Kantian thought suggests that euthanizing Duncan was morally permissible. Even the second Gloss comes to this conclusion, since Duncan was an animal that was incapable of rationality or autonomy. In order for my mother to protect her own humanity and dignity by putting her emotions aside, she followed her duty to protect Duncan and decide what was best for him. On the other hand, could it be argued that euthanizing Duncan was immoral because the action was done with the intention of avoiding further responsibility to care for him and to save money? Was euthanasia simply a convenient way of dealing with the problem? While I would like to dismiss this notion, I find it difficult to disagree with it completely. I know for a fact that Duncan was becoming a burden to both my mother and the rescue. Does killing him for that reason make the act automatically immoral? It is obvious that this matter cannot be seen in black and white, because while Duncan may have been put down partially because he was a burden, he could also have been put down partially because it was the best way for my mother to fulfill her duty to herself by protecting him.

I would like to look at the situation from one final, more holistic perspective, since I personally have always relied on my innate feelings to gauge right versus wrong. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics indicates that humans should simply be virtuous, and that will in turn yield moral behavior. In the case of Duncan, we can ask ourselves: How can I be kind? How can I be brave? How can I be wise? It seems that we must rely on our natural inclinations, and I believe that many people would agree by saying that putting Duncan out of his presumed misery through euthanasia would be a kind thing to do. As the person making that decision, we would need both the bravery and wisdom not to do what is easy, but what is right. Of course, this raises the very important question of what constitutes kindness in this situation. Is it kind to eradicate a creature’s pain (pain that we assume exists) by killing the creature? Or is it more kind to save a creature’s life and to do everything in our power to make sure that its life is as good as it can be? What if Duncan was not in pain—what if he was happy and simply needed us to be more patient towards him and his condition?

In class today, we addressed the common conception that different theories about morality cannot be used in concurrence because they contradict one another; for instance, some place an emphasis on consequences, while others emphasize intentions, while still others emphasize virtues. However…what about when the intention is to have good consequences? What about when these lines of thought about morality come to the same conclusion? Could we almost say that this is an objective moral truth? Does it increase the value of the final moral claim? In the case of euthanizing Duncan, Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics all seem to support the claim that euthanasia was the moral course of action. It is morally permissible to take the life of a “lower” creature when it is suffering. While Duncan’s fate is still difficult to swallow, I have to believe that it was the ethical, moral, kind thing to do.