After doing this for seven days, write me a short summary of what you did and what you learned from it for two points. Due 9/9.
One of the great laments of our time is the busy-ness of our modern lives. Although many complain about how labor-saving devices seem to have only led us to having even less quiet than we had before, they rarely do anything about it. Every major religious tradition is adamant about endorsing solitude, quietness, meditation, prayer, and reflection. Even many non-religious thinkers have had high praise for the practice of making and enjoying quiet time every day. This week, I want you to find fifteen minutes a day to simply be quiet and alone. My favorite way to do this is by sitting on my back porch watching the trees and listening to the sounds of the wind blowing and the animals. (We live on the edge between town and country.) There are several components to effective quiet time.
Location: I highly recommend some location which has natural beauty and a low level of societal noise (traffic, machines, television, people, music). A park, a fountain, a forest, a large yard. These are best. If you are unable to have access to anything like this, do your best to find or create a place where you can at least be alone without any interruptions and without any distracting noises. A church, library, your car (no radio), basement, etc.
Time: Part of the value of this exercise is to learn that your life is really something you control, rather than something which others are in control of. We do so much to avoid being quiet and to give up real control of our lives to others. Also, consistency is easiest when you use a regular schedule. Therefore, I strongly recommend you try doing this at the same time each day. Morning is far superior to evening because it sets the tone for the entire day. I like to get up, get dressed, and then spend some quiet time before I even eat breakfast.
Activity: It is crucial for this experiment that you do absolutely nothing in the way of activity during this time. The whole purpose is to not be accomplishing anything else. Some people (my father) like to take their quiet time while walking, but I find it all too easy to be distracted by the walking itself and not be contemplative. I strongly encourage you to simply sit somewhere during this time and not be doing anything except considering the world, your life, nature, God, or whatever object you prefer. Although this may seem strange to some of you, I also encourage you to not pray during this time. At least, don’t pray the entire time. Emphasize listening more than you talk if you do choose to pray. Praying can be a pretty intense activity which distracts you from being quiet as much as any other. I have nothing against a cup of coffee or a cigarette during this time if these are things you enjoy.
Concentration: You will probably find it very difficult to do nothing for 15 minutes continuously. The pace of modern life is quite addictive. Once again, I suggest you consider the difficulty of the task part of its value. This is time for you to deliberately consider things you ordinarily don’t need to think about. Essentially, you are trying to get your mind off the daily routine and hustle and bustle. Instead, you are wanting to become aware of more important, more grand, more eternal things which we habitually ignore because they do not call us on the phone.
Notes: When you are alone, I recommend you have a note pad so you can write down anything you think of or feel you are hearing. Try not to let this become the focal point of the activity, where you are writing lists and deliberately thinking about problems in your life. Once again, this would be a form of activity which is contrary to the main purpose. If you think of things, write them down so you don’t have to occupy your mind with them and you can focus again on simply being quiet.
Note for those who already do this: The idea of these experiments is to target things in the average person’s life which are missing. Hence, I expect most people to find the experiment itself valuable. Clearly, some of you already are going to be doing the things I suggest, and for you the challenge is a little different. Instead of simply doing what you already do during your quiet time, you might try making the time longer or adding a new practice such as prayer if you are quiet, quiet if you pray, reading, listening, or something else in the spirit of the experiment for one week.
For the write-up: Pay attention to yourself this week and other people. There are at least two direct benefits of deliberately setting aside time for being quiet. One is that you actually get more done because you tend to have a better perspective on what is important and what is not. The second is that you tend to be less easily disturbed throughout the day by things that ordinarily would upset you. This is not a miracle cure, by any means, but you will probably notice a change in your attitude and how people treat you. Also, I know for some of you this is going to be a very difficult exercise because you are already quite stressed out or because being quiet is so completely alien to you. Once again, I encourage you to consider that the harder this is for you to do, the more you really need to do it. Have fun, and remember this is just an experiment for one week of your life. Of course, you may discover the benefit of doing this and decide to continue the practice.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Homework 10 (Due 8/24/09 by 5:00 PM) (Two points)
Part 1: Virtue Theory
Virtue Theory is an ancient theory of ethics which comes largely from Aristotle. Aristotle started with the idea that all things are virtuous when they fulfill their proper function or design. A hammer is virtuous if it hits nails in well. Aristotle believed humans were designed to reason, and this meant exerting ruler-ship over the bodily appetites. The proper application of reason to bodily appetites over time produces the human moral virtue of excellence. This may sound rather complex, but in essence the idea is quite simple.
In order to know what is right or wrong in any given situation, simply ask someone who is very virtuous. A virtuous person will know what to do because he has developed the kind of character which is naturally capable of determining right from wrong. If you have a group of virtuous people, they will all pretty much agree about what is moral and immoral. This is a very aristocratic notion of ethics in the sense that the “best” people are the ones who get to decide. But, of course, part of the idea about being the “best” is that you can be trusted not to abuse the power given to you to set the moral compass of the society.
Who, then, is a virtuous person? Someone who has developed many or all of the important character virtues to a great depth. There are many such virtues, but generally people recognize honesty, kindness, generosity, charity, patience, respect, love, wisdom, responsibility, loyalty, courage, perseverance, integrity, and (in America) self-reliance. The Boy Scouts are one good example of an organization which tries to emphasize character virtues through its oaths and activities. The idea of the organization is that the habits of character are built slowly and steadily over time so that when moral dilemmas or temptations arise, the person will have a solid character foundation on which to base his decision. The primary instruction of Virtue Theory is to develop virtues in ourselves and when we are unsure what to do, ask someone much more virtuous than ourselves. Thus, we should practice being good by developing virtuous habits and then when a big moral choice comes along, we should ask a mentor what to do. Specific moral questions become less important than the idea of being a good person. “Is abortion immoral?” What do all the virtuous people think, and how will this act impact the person’s character?
Another key component of Aristotle’s Virtue Theory is that each virtue is a mean or midway point between two extremes, each of which is undesirable. Appropriateness is thus the real key to wisdom and proper application of virtue for Aristotle. Brazenness (speaking your mind no matter what the consequences) is just as foolish as lying, whereas honesty is knowing when to say what is true and how to say it effectively.
1-6. Answer the questions from above. 7. List between 6 and 12 virtues you think are the most important to make a good person and define them in one sentence or less.
Virtue Theory is an ancient theory of ethics which comes largely from Aristotle. Aristotle started with the idea that all things are virtuous when they fulfill their proper function or design. A hammer is virtuous if it hits nails in well. Aristotle believed humans were designed to reason, and this meant exerting ruler-ship over the bodily appetites. The proper application of reason to bodily appetites over time produces the human moral virtue of excellence. This may sound rather complex, but in essence the idea is quite simple.
In order to know what is right or wrong in any given situation, simply ask someone who is very virtuous. A virtuous person will know what to do because he has developed the kind of character which is naturally capable of determining right from wrong. If you have a group of virtuous people, they will all pretty much agree about what is moral and immoral. This is a very aristocratic notion of ethics in the sense that the “best” people are the ones who get to decide. But, of course, part of the idea about being the “best” is that you can be trusted not to abuse the power given to you to set the moral compass of the society.
Who, then, is a virtuous person? Someone who has developed many or all of the important character virtues to a great depth. There are many such virtues, but generally people recognize honesty, kindness, generosity, charity, patience, respect, love, wisdom, responsibility, loyalty, courage, perseverance, integrity, and (in America) self-reliance. The Boy Scouts are one good example of an organization which tries to emphasize character virtues through its oaths and activities. The idea of the organization is that the habits of character are built slowly and steadily over time so that when moral dilemmas or temptations arise, the person will have a solid character foundation on which to base his decision. The primary instruction of Virtue Theory is to develop virtues in ourselves and when we are unsure what to do, ask someone much more virtuous than ourselves. Thus, we should practice being good by developing virtuous habits and then when a big moral choice comes along, we should ask a mentor what to do. Specific moral questions become less important than the idea of being a good person. “Is abortion immoral?” What do all the virtuous people think, and how will this act impact the person’s character?
Another key component of Aristotle’s Virtue Theory is that each virtue is a mean or midway point between two extremes, each of which is undesirable. Appropriateness is thus the real key to wisdom and proper application of virtue for Aristotle. Brazenness (speaking your mind no matter what the consequences) is just as foolish as lying, whereas honesty is knowing when to say what is true and how to say it effectively.
1-6. Answer the questions from above. 7. List between 6 and 12 virtues you think are the most important to make a good person and define them in one sentence or less.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Ethics Experiment #1—Obedience
After doing this for seven days, write me a short summary of what you did and what you learned from it for two points. Due 8/26.
During this week, the focus is going to be on developing the ability to be happily obedient. Most people have the capacity to be obedient if they must, but they usually resent doing so, and this resentment will almost always come out later in some form or another. What I want you to try for one week is to obey those in authority and the law, but to do so happily as well. Grudging obedience is better than not at all. But happy obedience is even better. If it helps, take pride in the fact that you are simply doing something you choose to do to change your own life. Most likely you will find this very difficult to do, and that in itself should raise the level of pride you can take when you are able to obey though you dislike doing so. The goal here is not that you become a perfectly obedient person overnight. That won’t happen. The idea is to take a few areas of your life that you currently practice rebellion in and instead try to be obedient in them. Here are some suggestions:
1. Obeying the law:
1A. Try obeying the traffic laws. Almost all people obey them when there is a police car near by. Disobeying simply because you won’t be caught is exactly what the common criminal does. This week, drive whatever the posted speed limit is and no more. Obey construction zones, come to a full stop at stop signs and when turning right on red, use your turn signal when turning or when changing lanes, and stop for yellow lights instead of going faster to slip through them. For most of you, this will require leaving a bit earlier than you are used to. However, I suspect that one of the odd things you will discover is that you really don’t get there much if any quicker when you speed and break the law. While you are doing this, observe yourself. Are you more calm because you aren’t worried about getting caught? Are you less tense? Because you have left with enough time to arrive, are you more relaxed in getting there? Are you more worried about all the crazy fast drivers all around you? I predict most of you will find this rather small task extremely difficult to do and to enjoy. That in itself should be an indication of how much you actually aren’t in control of your own lives, but I’ll leave such analysis to you.
1B. Report all of your tips. If you work in a tipped industry, you know for a fact that very few people do this. Try it for a week, just to see how it makes you feel to know you have nothing to hide from the IRS or from anyone who is in a position to punish you.
1C. Drinking, smoking, drugs. Obviously, there are some rather restrictive laws regarding these things. Whatever age you are, if you consume these items, simply try obeying the relevant laws for one week. No drugs. Smoking only if you are over 18. Drinking only if you are over 21. It’s only a week, after all, and if you can’t even restrain yourself for one week, what does that say about your control of your own life?
1D. Littering. It is illegal to litter, including cigarette butts. Simply avoid doing this for one week.
1E. Stealing. Obviously, ordinary theft is unlawful, but this includes any form of deception or taking advantage when whoever rightfully owns the property would not want it to be done.
2. Obeying your parents
Most of you live with your parents or at least still have regular contact with them. For one week, simply try obeying them without argument and without delay. If there are things you know they expect of you, do them. If there are particular things they ask you to do (or tell you to do J) do them without arguing. If nothing else, you’ll probably shock them more than if you picked purple as your new hair color. If your parents say something you don’t like, try agreeing with them instead of arguing with them, just for an experiment. The way you talk to those in authority over you is also a measure of obedience. If you are married, try obeying your spouse for one week.
3. Obeying your teachers
Some of you are in school. Some things that represent obedience to teachers include doing all assignments, not talking in class, showing up on time, and being honest in all work (not cheating in any way). Just for one week, try treating all your teachers as people who exercise legitimate authority over you and you are willing to obey concerning such things.
4. Obeying your boss
Many of you have jobs. Every job has a boss who will occasionally (or often) ask/tell you to do things you do not want to do or disagree with. For one week, practice obeying your boss and doing whatever he/she asks without dispute or grumbling. This mean not slacking off just because the boss isn’t watching or because you think you won’t get caught. Practice behaving how you would if your boss were watching you the entire time.
Obviously, some of you will have more on this list to attempt than others. I recommend that you pick the things you think you can best manage and try doing the same items for a week. It may be overwhelming for some of you to try to do all of this at once, especially if you have really developed the habit of widespread rebellion against authority. Remember, obedience does not mean you agree. It simply means you act as if the person making the rule has the authority to tell you what to do, whether you like it or not. Have fun, and remember, part of the point of this exercise is to find out if you even have the capacity to obey or not, and to develop it more whether you already do or not.
During this week, the focus is going to be on developing the ability to be happily obedient. Most people have the capacity to be obedient if they must, but they usually resent doing so, and this resentment will almost always come out later in some form or another. What I want you to try for one week is to obey those in authority and the law, but to do so happily as well. Grudging obedience is better than not at all. But happy obedience is even better. If it helps, take pride in the fact that you are simply doing something you choose to do to change your own life. Most likely you will find this very difficult to do, and that in itself should raise the level of pride you can take when you are able to obey though you dislike doing so. The goal here is not that you become a perfectly obedient person overnight. That won’t happen. The idea is to take a few areas of your life that you currently practice rebellion in and instead try to be obedient in them. Here are some suggestions:
1. Obeying the law:
1A. Try obeying the traffic laws. Almost all people obey them when there is a police car near by. Disobeying simply because you won’t be caught is exactly what the common criminal does. This week, drive whatever the posted speed limit is and no more. Obey construction zones, come to a full stop at stop signs and when turning right on red, use your turn signal when turning or when changing lanes, and stop for yellow lights instead of going faster to slip through them. For most of you, this will require leaving a bit earlier than you are used to. However, I suspect that one of the odd things you will discover is that you really don’t get there much if any quicker when you speed and break the law. While you are doing this, observe yourself. Are you more calm because you aren’t worried about getting caught? Are you less tense? Because you have left with enough time to arrive, are you more relaxed in getting there? Are you more worried about all the crazy fast drivers all around you? I predict most of you will find this rather small task extremely difficult to do and to enjoy. That in itself should be an indication of how much you actually aren’t in control of your own lives, but I’ll leave such analysis to you.
1B. Report all of your tips. If you work in a tipped industry, you know for a fact that very few people do this. Try it for a week, just to see how it makes you feel to know you have nothing to hide from the IRS or from anyone who is in a position to punish you.
1C. Drinking, smoking, drugs. Obviously, there are some rather restrictive laws regarding these things. Whatever age you are, if you consume these items, simply try obeying the relevant laws for one week. No drugs. Smoking only if you are over 18. Drinking only if you are over 21. It’s only a week, after all, and if you can’t even restrain yourself for one week, what does that say about your control of your own life?
1D. Littering. It is illegal to litter, including cigarette butts. Simply avoid doing this for one week.
1E. Stealing. Obviously, ordinary theft is unlawful, but this includes any form of deception or taking advantage when whoever rightfully owns the property would not want it to be done.
2. Obeying your parents
Most of you live with your parents or at least still have regular contact with them. For one week, simply try obeying them without argument and without delay. If there are things you know they expect of you, do them. If there are particular things they ask you to do (or tell you to do J) do them without arguing. If nothing else, you’ll probably shock them more than if you picked purple as your new hair color. If your parents say something you don’t like, try agreeing with them instead of arguing with them, just for an experiment. The way you talk to those in authority over you is also a measure of obedience. If you are married, try obeying your spouse for one week.
3. Obeying your teachers
Some of you are in school. Some things that represent obedience to teachers include doing all assignments, not talking in class, showing up on time, and being honest in all work (not cheating in any way). Just for one week, try treating all your teachers as people who exercise legitimate authority over you and you are willing to obey concerning such things.
4. Obeying your boss
Many of you have jobs. Every job has a boss who will occasionally (or often) ask/tell you to do things you do not want to do or disagree with. For one week, practice obeying your boss and doing whatever he/she asks without dispute or grumbling. This mean not slacking off just because the boss isn’t watching or because you think you won’t get caught. Practice behaving how you would if your boss were watching you the entire time.
Obviously, some of you will have more on this list to attempt than others. I recommend that you pick the things you think you can best manage and try doing the same items for a week. It may be overwhelming for some of you to try to do all of this at once, especially if you have really developed the habit of widespread rebellion against authority. Remember, obedience does not mean you agree. It simply means you act as if the person making the rule has the authority to tell you what to do, whether you like it or not. Have fun, and remember, part of the point of this exercise is to find out if you even have the capacity to obey or not, and to develop it more whether you already do or not.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Homework 9 (Due 8/17 by 5:00 PM) (Four points)
First, an apology. I realize that posting this on Friday puts a big burden on those of you taking the class to try to do it in a much smaller time frame than normal. For that, I'm very sorry. It's only my own negligence to blame. As with all assignments, this is, of course, optional and meant to help you prepare for the material. I'll try not to let this happen again.
Part 1: Kantianism
Kantianism is a deontological theory credited to German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s theory, consequences do not matter because the world is dirty and imperfect and difficult to manage, although he probably wouldn’t say it that way. Instead, morality comes from our ability to reason because only reason is pure and untainted. Using our reason we can discern a universal principle of ethics and by applying this perfect idea into the world we can know what to do at any moment. The thing that makes an act good is the fact that we do it because it is derived from this universal principle, not because we want to do it. Only in doing the opposite of what we want can we do anything good. There, of course, will be times where we happen to want to do the thing which is actually right, but our carnal desires in such a situation corrupt the virtue of the act and make it amoral (having no moral value at all) even though it is still the best thing to do.
Every act is a representative of some (perhaps more than one) principle. The idea is to take the perfect moral principle and then only perform acts which are representatives of that principle. In Kantianism, the intention is everything. No matter what actually happens, every act is either good or bad to the extent that a person did it intentionally as an application of the universal principle contrary to his own desires. The universal principle, which Kant called a “categorical imperative,” comes in two formulations.
1. “Do only those things which you can at the same time will that everyone else would do in a similar situation.” This is the principle of universality which says that we should only follow rules which we would also want everyone else to follow. For instance, you shouldn’t lie because even liars prefer people to tell the truth. In fact, lying is incoherent to Kant since lying actually requires that most people will tell the truth. If everyone lied, then no one would take anyone else’s speech seriously, and lying would lose it’s power.
2. “Treat other people as ends and not as means only.” In ordinary language, “Don’t use people.” They are people too, and their lives are not just tools to be used for our own ends. We must respect their wishes too. Many people have likened this second version to the Golden Rule which says, “Do unto other people as you would want them to do unto you.”
This theory, like Utilitarianism, carries an important consideration for the wants and lives of other people. Since we must universalize anything, the best way to keep this principle before us is to remember that other people also have a will, and they matter. When you lie to someone, you are treating him as if his desire to know the truth does not matter, and you are violating the prescription to respect other people as ends not as means only.
1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. How does this theory deal with moral dilemmas caused by conflict between principles or behavior categories?
8. We tend to think of a person who naturally wants to do good as a good person. Does Kant agree?
Part 2: Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory is a deontological theory which has been formulated over time by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and (in it’s modern form) John Rawls. Social Contract Theory begins with two basic concepts. Each human is rational and self-interested, and our promises are binding on us. Because we are rational, we recognize that it is better to live in a society with all the benefits and protections that society brings us than to live on our own in the wild struggling for survival and food with our teeth and nails every day. When an outsider comes to live in a new society, he generally must both demonstrate a basic understanding of the ideas and beliefs of that society and also give his formal pledge that he will live in accordance with the rules and ideal of it. Thus, a new citizen sees the benefit of entering society, and he formally promises to live by the rules of that society. Because of this promise, we have every reason to expect him to do so and feel perfectly justified in holding him accountable if he does not. He has made a “social contract” with the rest of the citizens of that society.
Most people, however, are simply born into a society and they never have to demonstrate such knowledge or give any such formal pledge. Yet, at a certain rather vague point in each person’s life we simply assume that the person has tacitly given his word to behave properly as a citizen just as the naturalized citizen does overtly. If he does not intend to have this assumed about him, he should leave the society. Since he stays, we assume he agrees to the contract as well. If he does not agree, at the very least he owes some measure of obedience back to the society which raised and nurtured him all this time, even if he didn’t ask for it.
Thus all people are thought to be part of this social contract of proper behavior. In essence, the points of this contract are all the rules which a rational, self-interested person would agree to obey in order to gain the benefits of society in return. For example, in the “state of nature” outside of society, one’s life is constantly at risk from all manner of things. In order to gain the security of safe living, a rational person would promise to not kill his fellow citizens in order for a similar promise from them and also the understanding that they would commonly defend each other against foreign aggressors. Thus, it is immoral to kill because people would presumably not let you in their society unless you promised not to do so. Anything which a rational, self-interested person can be assumed to have agreed to in the state of nature as a price of admission into society is part of the moral code of that society. In order to get the protections of life, liberty, and property, we would all agree to give up some freedom so that other people could also enjoy an equal level of personal freedom. In essence, morality is the minimum admission price of anyone wanting to enter civilization and enjoy the benefits of leaving the unpleasant state of nature.
1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. What is it that makes a real contract binding on someone?
Part 1: Kantianism
Kantianism is a deontological theory credited to German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s theory, consequences do not matter because the world is dirty and imperfect and difficult to manage, although he probably wouldn’t say it that way. Instead, morality comes from our ability to reason because only reason is pure and untainted. Using our reason we can discern a universal principle of ethics and by applying this perfect idea into the world we can know what to do at any moment. The thing that makes an act good is the fact that we do it because it is derived from this universal principle, not because we want to do it. Only in doing the opposite of what we want can we do anything good. There, of course, will be times where we happen to want to do the thing which is actually right, but our carnal desires in such a situation corrupt the virtue of the act and make it amoral (having no moral value at all) even though it is still the best thing to do.
Every act is a representative of some (perhaps more than one) principle. The idea is to take the perfect moral principle and then only perform acts which are representatives of that principle. In Kantianism, the intention is everything. No matter what actually happens, every act is either good or bad to the extent that a person did it intentionally as an application of the universal principle contrary to his own desires. The universal principle, which Kant called a “categorical imperative,” comes in two formulations.
1. “Do only those things which you can at the same time will that everyone else would do in a similar situation.” This is the principle of universality which says that we should only follow rules which we would also want everyone else to follow. For instance, you shouldn’t lie because even liars prefer people to tell the truth. In fact, lying is incoherent to Kant since lying actually requires that most people will tell the truth. If everyone lied, then no one would take anyone else’s speech seriously, and lying would lose it’s power.
2. “Treat other people as ends and not as means only.” In ordinary language, “Don’t use people.” They are people too, and their lives are not just tools to be used for our own ends. We must respect their wishes too. Many people have likened this second version to the Golden Rule which says, “Do unto other people as you would want them to do unto you.”
This theory, like Utilitarianism, carries an important consideration for the wants and lives of other people. Since we must universalize anything, the best way to keep this principle before us is to remember that other people also have a will, and they matter. When you lie to someone, you are treating him as if his desire to know the truth does not matter, and you are violating the prescription to respect other people as ends not as means only.
1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. How does this theory deal with moral dilemmas caused by conflict between principles or behavior categories?
8. We tend to think of a person who naturally wants to do good as a good person. Does Kant agree?
Part 2: Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory is a deontological theory which has been formulated over time by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and (in it’s modern form) John Rawls. Social Contract Theory begins with two basic concepts. Each human is rational and self-interested, and our promises are binding on us. Because we are rational, we recognize that it is better to live in a society with all the benefits and protections that society brings us than to live on our own in the wild struggling for survival and food with our teeth and nails every day. When an outsider comes to live in a new society, he generally must both demonstrate a basic understanding of the ideas and beliefs of that society and also give his formal pledge that he will live in accordance with the rules and ideal of it. Thus, a new citizen sees the benefit of entering society, and he formally promises to live by the rules of that society. Because of this promise, we have every reason to expect him to do so and feel perfectly justified in holding him accountable if he does not. He has made a “social contract” with the rest of the citizens of that society.
Most people, however, are simply born into a society and they never have to demonstrate such knowledge or give any such formal pledge. Yet, at a certain rather vague point in each person’s life we simply assume that the person has tacitly given his word to behave properly as a citizen just as the naturalized citizen does overtly. If he does not intend to have this assumed about him, he should leave the society. Since he stays, we assume he agrees to the contract as well. If he does not agree, at the very least he owes some measure of obedience back to the society which raised and nurtured him all this time, even if he didn’t ask for it.
Thus all people are thought to be part of this social contract of proper behavior. In essence, the points of this contract are all the rules which a rational, self-interested person would agree to obey in order to gain the benefits of society in return. For example, in the “state of nature” outside of society, one’s life is constantly at risk from all manner of things. In order to gain the security of safe living, a rational person would promise to not kill his fellow citizens in order for a similar promise from them and also the understanding that they would commonly defend each other against foreign aggressors. Thus, it is immoral to kill because people would presumably not let you in their society unless you promised not to do so. Anything which a rational, self-interested person can be assumed to have agreed to in the state of nature as a price of admission into society is part of the moral code of that society. In order to get the protections of life, liberty, and property, we would all agree to give up some freedom so that other people could also enjoy an equal level of personal freedom. In essence, morality is the minimum admission price of anyone wanting to enter civilization and enjoy the benefits of leaving the unpleasant state of nature.
1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. What is it that makes a real contract binding on someone?
43-44. Utilitarianism
I've made a serious blunder. I neglected to post the homework version of Utilitarianism before the show, mostly because I didn't realize we'd get through two theories in one night. So, although you can't do it for credit, here at least is what should have been included in the previous homework assignment.
Part 1: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory credited mostly to a British philosopher named John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism defines good acts as ones which bring people pleasure and bad acts as ones which bring people pain. We should always be trying to increase or maximize pleasure in the world and decrease or minimize pain. The other key component of Utilitarianism is that each and every person in the world counts equally in our evaluations of pain and pleasure. For instance, if some act brings moderate pleasure to two people and brings moderate pain to only one other person, then that is a good act because it has created more pleasure than pain. Because Utilitarianism takes other people’s pains and pleasures into consideration, it is much more appealing than mere Egoism. It becomes especially appealing when the pain or work or effort is going to come from us and the pleasure is going to be gained by a lot of other people. That seems like nothing more than putting the needs of others before our own and being generous with our lives, which looks like a good idea.
Historically, one of the strengths of Utilitarianism is that it helps us deal with situations that seem to offer no hope of resolution because principles are seriously in conflict. For instance, when the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the claim was that killing 50,000 (arguably) innocent people would save the lives of 500,000 soldiers. Thus, the death of some was less than the death of many, and we went ahead. If every single human life is infinitely precious and cannot ever be outweighed by greater goods, then our response to evil seems to be quite hindered by the very principles which we use to condemn evil. If it will take deadly force to stop the Nazis, but one must never kill, then what can we do but lay down and die? Utilitarianism tries to answer to such problems. Some of you may have seen Star Trek 2, where Spock says, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This is an excellent Utilitarian phrase.
As we will discuss, the distinctions between actual consequences and intended consequences and between whether each individual act should be analyzed on its own or whether it is the consequences generally found to follow from following a rule of behavior are certainly relevant questions for Utilitarian to address.
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. Do the needs of the one ever outweigh the needs of the many?
8. Would you sacrifice a loved one to save the lives of two strangers? Should a person want to?
9. How do you count pleasure and pain?
Part 1: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory credited mostly to a British philosopher named John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism defines good acts as ones which bring people pleasure and bad acts as ones which bring people pain. We should always be trying to increase or maximize pleasure in the world and decrease or minimize pain. The other key component of Utilitarianism is that each and every person in the world counts equally in our evaluations of pain and pleasure. For instance, if some act brings moderate pleasure to two people and brings moderate pain to only one other person, then that is a good act because it has created more pleasure than pain. Because Utilitarianism takes other people’s pains and pleasures into consideration, it is much more appealing than mere Egoism. It becomes especially appealing when the pain or work or effort is going to come from us and the pleasure is going to be gained by a lot of other people. That seems like nothing more than putting the needs of others before our own and being generous with our lives, which looks like a good idea.
Historically, one of the strengths of Utilitarianism is that it helps us deal with situations that seem to offer no hope of resolution because principles are seriously in conflict. For instance, when the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the claim was that killing 50,000 (arguably) innocent people would save the lives of 500,000 soldiers. Thus, the death of some was less than the death of many, and we went ahead. If every single human life is infinitely precious and cannot ever be outweighed by greater goods, then our response to evil seems to be quite hindered by the very principles which we use to condemn evil. If it will take deadly force to stop the Nazis, but one must never kill, then what can we do but lay down and die? Utilitarianism tries to answer to such problems. Some of you may have seen Star Trek 2, where Spock says, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This is an excellent Utilitarian phrase.
As we will discuss, the distinctions between actual consequences and intended consequences and between whether each individual act should be analyzed on its own or whether it is the consequences generally found to follow from following a rule of behavior are certainly relevant questions for Utilitarian to address.
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. Do the needs of the one ever outweigh the needs of the many?
8. Would you sacrifice a loved one to save the lives of two strangers? Should a person want to?
9. How do you count pleasure and pain?
Monday, August 3, 2009
Homework 8 (Due 8/10 by 5:00 PM) (4 points)
Instructions
For the next few weeks, we are going to be discussing several different traditional theories of ethics. If you want more information about any of these theories, I encourage you to check out just about any general textbook on ethics or any of the resources on the web. You should be able to find a discussion of egoism, utilitarianism, Kant, etc. in any general introduction to ethics textbook and certainly on many good websites (Stanford Philosophy, Wikipedia, e.g.) For each of these theories, I want you to read the explanation I give, and then do each of the following things for homework:
1. Formulate two questions about the theory.
2. Make a short list of three advantages to this theory.
3. Make a short list of three problems you see for it.
4. Try to think of a situation where you think this theory would give the right answer morally.
5. Try to also think of a situation where you think this theory would give the wrong answer morally.
6. What would the world look like if everyone followed this theory?
7+· Answer any questions I attach at the end of the explanation.
Note: In order to earn credit on the Criteria when you do them, I expect you to show me you understand the theory without simply copying over the words from this sheet. Then I want to see you discuss the merits and problems of the theory along with an example to show me you know how it applies to reality.
Part 1: Relativism
Relativism is essentially the idea that morality is not something fixed for all people either by theory or consequences or absolute principles. Instead, morality changes depending on the culture or the individual. Cultural relativism is the idea that the right thing to do is whatever a group of people or society believe is the right thing to do. “When in Rome, do as a Roman,” is a typical cultural relativist proclamation. The individual relativist (sometimes called subjectivism) takes this one step further. He says that morality is nothing more than whatever any particular individual wants to do. The cultural relativist would say that owning slaves is acceptable as long as the entire culture approves of such a practice. Likewise, if the culture rejects slavery, then one should not own slaves. The same is true of religious belief, sexual practice, or even whether something like honesty is virtuous. Every moral dictate is defined by whatever the cultural traditions of the people in the region accept. The individual relativist would say that practices such as slavery, abortion, sexual behavior, etc. are nothing more than individual preferences which cannot be urged on a person from the outside.
The argument for cultural relativism usually goes like this:
1. If there were any firm or universal moral principles, we should expect to see them in every culture we observe.
2. When we look at various cultures, we find absolutely no agreement about anything at all morally.
3. Therefore, there must not be any firm or universal moral principles.
4. Lacking firm or universal moral principles, the right thing to do is to simply obey the instructions of a local culture.
The argument for individual relativism goes one step farther in saying that even a culture does not completely agree about very much, therefore moral truth must simply be a matter of individual opinion. Even things as seemingly absolute as rape or murder or honesty do not interest a real individual relativist. He will observe that certainly a group of people might succeed in inflicting physical punishment on a rapist, but that does not mean that rape is morally wrong. It only means that they were stronger than the rapist, just as the rapist was stronger than his victim. Such strength in no way implies any moral superiority, and ultimately everything moral is simply a matter of taste and strength to pursue that taste. In America today, individual relativism is extremely popular when it comes to questions aside from those behaviors which put other people’s interests at risk. “As long as we do not hurt other people, anything we do is okay.” This position is actually a mixture of ethical theories, but it is probably the closest to individual relativism that most ordinary people ever come.
Questions for Egoism
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. Can both Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism be true?
8. Do you think people can be truly generous (also called being altruistic)?
For the next few weeks, we are going to be discussing several different traditional theories of ethics. If you want more information about any of these theories, I encourage you to check out just about any general textbook on ethics or any of the resources on the web. You should be able to find a discussion of egoism, utilitarianism, Kant, etc. in any general introduction to ethics textbook and certainly on many good websites (Stanford Philosophy, Wikipedia, e.g.) For each of these theories, I want you to read the explanation I give, and then do each of the following things for homework:
1. Formulate two questions about the theory.
2. Make a short list of three advantages to this theory.
3. Make a short list of three problems you see for it.
4. Try to think of a situation where you think this theory would give the right answer morally.
5. Try to also think of a situation where you think this theory would give the wrong answer morally.
6. What would the world look like if everyone followed this theory?
7+· Answer any questions I attach at the end of the explanation.
Note: In order to earn credit on the Criteria when you do them, I expect you to show me you understand the theory without simply copying over the words from this sheet. Then I want to see you discuss the merits and problems of the theory along with an example to show me you know how it applies to reality.
Part 1: Relativism
Relativism is essentially the idea that morality is not something fixed for all people either by theory or consequences or absolute principles. Instead, morality changes depending on the culture or the individual. Cultural relativism is the idea that the right thing to do is whatever a group of people or society believe is the right thing to do. “When in Rome, do as a Roman,” is a typical cultural relativist proclamation. The individual relativist (sometimes called subjectivism) takes this one step further. He says that morality is nothing more than whatever any particular individual wants to do. The cultural relativist would say that owning slaves is acceptable as long as the entire culture approves of such a practice. Likewise, if the culture rejects slavery, then one should not own slaves. The same is true of religious belief, sexual practice, or even whether something like honesty is virtuous. Every moral dictate is defined by whatever the cultural traditions of the people in the region accept. The individual relativist would say that practices such as slavery, abortion, sexual behavior, etc. are nothing more than individual preferences which cannot be urged on a person from the outside.
The argument for cultural relativism usually goes like this:
1. If there were any firm or universal moral principles, we should expect to see them in every culture we observe.
2. When we look at various cultures, we find absolutely no agreement about anything at all morally.
3. Therefore, there must not be any firm or universal moral principles.
4. Lacking firm or universal moral principles, the right thing to do is to simply obey the instructions of a local culture.
The argument for individual relativism goes one step farther in saying that even a culture does not completely agree about very much, therefore moral truth must simply be a matter of individual opinion. Even things as seemingly absolute as rape or murder or honesty do not interest a real individual relativist. He will observe that certainly a group of people might succeed in inflicting physical punishment on a rapist, but that does not mean that rape is morally wrong. It only means that they were stronger than the rapist, just as the rapist was stronger than his victim. Such strength in no way implies any moral superiority, and ultimately everything moral is simply a matter of taste and strength to pursue that taste. In America today, individual relativism is extremely popular when it comes to questions aside from those behaviors which put other people’s interests at risk. “As long as we do not hurt other people, anything we do is okay.” This position is actually a mixture of ethical theories, but it is probably the closest to individual relativism that most ordinary people ever come.
Questions for Relativism
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. If someone wanted to know what were the ethical rules he should follow in a country like America, how would you go about evaluating our culture for an answer?
8. Does a gang count as a culture within which the ethics of the gang are right and binding on members?
9. If someone really believed in individual relativism, would you want to live near him?
10. If I intentionally spill a cup of coffee on an individual relativist, should he get upset at me?
Part 2: Egoism
Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist theory which says that the right thing to do is whatever will benefit you personally the most. As long as it is good for you, it is good to do. Essentially, this theory has one moral principle which says, “Be selfish.” For instance, if you are confronted by a beggar, you should not give him money because it is not in your self-interest to do so. That money will better serve your needs if you buy lunch with it or pay for new socks for your own children. Charity only teaches people to be dependent on others and it discourages people from making things of value because you choose to give it away for nothing rather than purchasing a product which someone has worked to make. In many ways, capitalism as an economic system is premised on the idea that people usually will act in their own self-interest. This is called being a “rational agent.” If everyone does this, people will tend to prosper because everyone is individually getting ahead. Although this theory may sound silly at first, there are certainly times where it is best to be selfish because someone who never takes care of his own needs at all is never going to be in any position to really care for the needs of others (of course an egoist is not usually looking at it from this perspective, since other people are not of any real concern.)
Questions for Egoism
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. Can both Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism be true?
8. Do you think people can be truly generous (also called being altruistic)?
Ethics Theories Overview
Non-Cognitivist Theories
1. Intuitionism
2. Emotivism Emotionalism
3. Existentialism
4. Relativism
----a. Cultural Relativism
----b. Individual Relativism
Cognitivist Theories
---Consequentialist
5. Egoism
6. Hedonism
7. Utilitarianism
8. Racism
9. Egalitarianism
10. Socialism
11. Environmentalism
---Deontological
------Principle based
12. Kantianism
13. Social Contract Theory
14. Virtue Theory
15. Rights Theory
------Religious
16. Divine Command Theory
17. Natural Law Theory
18. Divine imitation Theory
1. Intuitionism
2. Emotivism Emotionalism
3. Existentialism
4. Relativism
----a. Cultural Relativism
----b. Individual Relativism
Cognitivist Theories
---Consequentialist
5. Egoism
6. Hedonism
7. Utilitarianism
8. Racism
9. Egalitarianism
10. Socialism
11. Environmentalism
---Deontological
------Principle based
12. Kantianism
13. Social Contract Theory
14. Virtue Theory
15. Rights Theory
------Religious
16. Divine Command Theory
17. Natural Law Theory
18. Divine imitation Theory
36. Why moral theories matter
How to evalutate moral theories
1. Valid/Accurate
Does the theory yield the right answers as principles on temptations?
Does the theory give the right answers in the easy cases?
Does the theory validate certain key principles we believe in: life, liberty, property, equality, freedom.
It should condemn obvious evil and applaud obvious good.
2. Simple
Does it simplify things or make them more complicated? Is it practical and can children learn it?
Is the theory decisive or does it lend itself to multiple interpretations? Experts necessary?
How many exceptions does the theory seem to have, and how hard do we have to work to find them? But does it also allow for them to exist? What kind of explanatory power does it have?
As a theory allows for exceptions, it becomes unsimple. But having no room for exceptions means it is too simple.
3. Practical/Useful
What will a society of people who follow this theory look like, and is it desirable?
What if no one except me follows this theory? Will it still make the world a better place.
Will the theory work with real people in the real world?
Has the theory stood the test of time?
Does the theory help persuade other people?
Does the theory resolve difficult cases to opponent’s satisfaction?
4. Mature/Sophisticated/Complete
Tell us what is moral and immoral and also why. An explanation of moral authority.
Does the theory recognize dilemmas, and resolve them without discounting any important considerations? Without oversimplifying or forgetting that it is a dilemma in the first place.
Does the theory encourage excellence? Support what makes us most human and does it help us grow?
Is it elegant? Does it sometimes have the "Aha!" effect on people?
Does it allow us both to applaud some and also to deplore/criticize others?
5. Rational/Logical
What worldview of moral truth does this theory fit into?
Does the theory contradict itself or is it coherent?
Is it theoretically consistent with itself?
What origin story fits with this theory.
1. Valid/Accurate
Does the theory yield the right answers as principles on temptations?
Does the theory give the right answers in the easy cases?
Does the theory validate certain key principles we believe in: life, liberty, property, equality, freedom.
It should condemn obvious evil and applaud obvious good.
2. Simple
Does it simplify things or make them more complicated? Is it practical and can children learn it?
Is the theory decisive or does it lend itself to multiple interpretations? Experts necessary?
How many exceptions does the theory seem to have, and how hard do we have to work to find them? But does it also allow for them to exist? What kind of explanatory power does it have?
As a theory allows for exceptions, it becomes unsimple. But having no room for exceptions means it is too simple.
3. Practical/Useful
What will a society of people who follow this theory look like, and is it desirable?
What if no one except me follows this theory? Will it still make the world a better place.
Will the theory work with real people in the real world?
Has the theory stood the test of time?
Does the theory help persuade other people?
Does the theory resolve difficult cases to opponent’s satisfaction?
4. Mature/Sophisticated/Complete
Tell us what is moral and immoral and also why. An explanation of moral authority.
Does the theory recognize dilemmas, and resolve them without discounting any important considerations? Without oversimplifying or forgetting that it is a dilemma in the first place.
Does the theory encourage excellence? Support what makes us most human and does it help us grow?
Is it elegant? Does it sometimes have the "Aha!" effect on people?
Does it allow us both to applaud some and also to deplore/criticize others?
5. Rational/Logical
What worldview of moral truth does this theory fit into?
Does the theory contradict itself or is it coherent?
Is it theoretically consistent with itself?
What origin story fits with this theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
