Everyone, whether they realize it or not, has some beliefs about the differences between right and wrong, or good and bad. We use these beliefs to guide our behavior, judge the behavior of others, and decide on laws and punishments in our society. Sometimes,
however, situations arise that force us to call our moral beliefs into question and to debate the truth about moral behavior with our peers. It is usually the really difficult cases, in which the right thing to do is difficult to decide, and cases
which divide people against one another in their opinions, that bring the differences in our moral intuitions into focus and force us to clarify our moral principles.
In this unit, we will investigate some notoriously difficult and divisive moral dilemmas involving justice, rights, and the value of human life. We will explore the moral theory of utilitarianism in depth, considering whether it can help us determine the right thing to do and how to produce a just society. Finally, this unit will introduce two ethical theories in contrast to utilitarianism: deontology and natural law.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 7 hours.
This chapter outlines the three broad categories of ethical systems normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics. Use the navigation arrows on the right and left side of the page to move forward through the eleven sections in this chapter. By the end of this reading, you will be able to define the three broad ethical systems and describe several approaches to ethics. Be sure you have a good understanding of the important approaches for Unit 1: deontology, consequentialism, and natural law.
Watch this video beginning at the 32:14 time stamp. Compare the different theories of morality, including virtue ethics, non-cognitivism, deontology and utilitarianism. These are the different ethical systems described in this course, and the video discusses how the idea of a "moral fact" is problematic without a theory of specific sets of rules and values that interpret the fact.
Read this tutorial about the process of reflective equilibrium in moral reasoning. This account and the diagram that accompanies it represent a process of moral reasoning, in which we deliberate between principles and particular cases, revising each in the light of the other.
In this video, the idea of Utilitarianism as increasing good and decreasing suffering is addressed. Then a variety of scenarios are described that show the limits of utilitarianism regarding justice and rights for individuals.
Read this description of the famous Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case. As you read, consider whether you agree with the ruling in this case, and if you would rule differently, as well as why you would do so. This text discusses the famous lifeboat case, which established the legality of choosing to murder out of necessity. Although the details of the case are quite graphic, this fact itself may serve as a prompt for many of us to revise our initial intuitions about the moral status of killing one to save many others.
In this reading on Utilitarian ethical theory, Kemerling explains that utilitarians agree that the action with the best consequence is the morally correct action, but it is noteworthy that different utilitarians define "best consequences" in different ways. For Bentham, the best consequences are decided for each action, while for Mill, the best consequences can be achieved by following rules and pursuing higher orders of pleasure (like intellectual goals instead of base hedonism).
Read the first chapter, "Of the Principle of Utility," from this 1780 text in which Bentham justifies the principle that the morality of our actions depends on the consequences produced. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham was the first to formalize the moral principle that whether our actions are right or wrong is a matter of the consequences they produce (i.e. how much happiness and how much unhappiness results from them). It is important to note that, although Bentham places a lot of emphasis on the pleasure and pain experienced by the individual person, he is not recommending that our laws should be guided purely by individual hedonism, but by a collective responsibility to improve the happiness of everyone in society.
Watch the first hour of this video. Notice how the different utilitarians may decide the best action based on numbers and quantities - for example, numbers of lives saved in a particular scenario. If that is the case, then utilitarians have to ask whether the best consequences are merely based on numbers or based on higher values, like the value of one individual life.
Read this article which presents difficulties with calculating benefits and various utilitarian responses to those difficulties. Be able to define hedonistic and idealistic utilitarianism, soft and hard utilitarianism, and the difference between act and rule.
Finish watching the last half hour of this video. In this last section of Talbot's lecture on utilitarianism, the question of rule utilitarianism is explored in depth. One can ask whether following rules results in a strange variety of deontology instead of utilitarianism, and an ethical theory that is forced to reconcile specific kinds of rules with situations that require specific acts, with an example of legislators deciding on a law.
Read the first two chapters of Mill's Utilitarianism, "General Remarks" and "What Utilitarianism Is". After you are done reading, ask yourself if you are able to define the principle of utility, describe the difference between higher and lower pleasures according to Mill, and describe actions which are of a generally injurious class.
Read this description of Utilitarianism in relation to other ethical theories. After reading, be sure you are able to define deontology, describe social contract theory, and discuss the role of virtue in ethical matters.
We will look at deontology in more depth in Unit 3, but for now, read this basic introduction and notice the basic contrast between deontology and consequentialism. Note: Utilitarianism is a type or a subset of consequentialism. Do you think there are duties apart from consequences?
Saint Thomas Aquinas offers a theory of natural law that is rooted in eternal and divine law. Notice again how Aquinas' natural law differs from consequentialism. Do you think there are any eternal natural laws?
Read Articles 4, 5, and 6 of Question 94. Be able to explain the following concepts: speculative reason, practical reason, natural law, whether the natural law is the same for all, whether the natural law can be changed, and whether the natural law can be abolished from the hearts of us as human beings. Do you agree with Aquinas' description of a natural law? How does it relate to deontology and consequentialism?
In this famous letter, King makes a distinction between just laws and unjust laws and refers to the moral law, or the eternal law, as the basis for distinguishing between just and unjust laws. Notice how Martin Luther King draws upon the idea of a natural law to defend civil rights for all in this famous letter. Would you agree that segregation laws violate the natural law?
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.