NORMATIVE

ETHICS
ETHICAL THEORIES

Theory
• a way of seeing

Ethical Theories
• Attempts to see or view moral phenomena and hence understand morality.
• Good moral theories provide a compass and direct human conduct
ETHICAL THEORIES

Normative Ethics
• Studies what makes actions RIGHT or WRONG so that we can choose
the RIGHT thing to do.
• Answers the questions, “What should I do?” “How ought I act?”
UTILITARIANISM
 John Stuart Mill

Jeremy Bentham

English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
were the leading proponents of what is now called “classic utilitarianism
THE BASIC IDEA OF
UTILITARIANISM
The Greatest Happiness Principle:
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness” –John Stuart Mill

• Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters:pain and pleasure
Happiness = pleasure,and the absence of pain
Unhappiness = pain, and the absence of pleasure

Happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value:

“Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, all desirable things are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and
the prevention of pain.”
 FELICIFIC CALCULUS
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy
Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to
cause and thus determine the moral status of any considered act
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
MEMORITER VERSES

“Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure—

Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure.

Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it be public, wide let them extend
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:

If pains must come, let them extend to few.”

 UTILITARIANISM IS A FORM OF
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Consequentialism: Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its
consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available.
Otherwise it is wrong.

The Good: Things (goals, states of affairs) that are worth pursuing and promoting.
The Right: The moral rightness (or wrongness) of actions and policies.

Consequentialists say that actions are Right when they maximize the Good.

Utilitarianism defines the Good as pleasure without pain. So, according to Utilitarianism, our one
moral duty is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

• Conceptualized by philosopher Philippa Foot, the trolley problem is a thought

experiment in ethics, with the following formulation:

You may perform an action that would benefit many people, but in doing so,
one person would be unfairly harmed. Under what circumstances would it be
ethically justifiable for you to violate that person’s rights in order to benefit the
many?
THE
TROLLE
Y
PROBLE
M
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs3rRDWQw5w
VARIATIONS OF THE TROLLEY
PROBLEM
• The fat man. What if pushing a fat man will save five people?
VARIATIONS ON THE TROLLEY
PROBLEM
• The mother. What if the
individual on the other track were
your mother? Would your answer
be the same?
• Relatives vs. significant other.
How would your answer be
different if the choice were
between your relatives and your
lover?
• Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South
American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty
Indians, mostly terrified, a few defiant, in front of them
several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-
stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and,
after a good deal of questioning Jim which establishes that he
got there by accident while on a botanical expedition,
explains that the Indians are a random group of inhabitants
who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are
just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors
of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an
honored visitor from another land, the captain is happy to
offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the Indians
himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion,
the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then
there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he
was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. The men
against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the
situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What
should he do?”
AUTONOMOUS CARS
• An autonomous car is a vehicle that can guide
itself without human conduction. This kind
of vehicle has become a concrete reality and may
pave the way for future systems where
computers take over the art of driving.
An autonomous car is also known as a driverless
car, robot car, self-driving car or autonomous
vehicle.
OBJECTIONS TO
UT ILITARIANISM
UTILITARIANISM = HEDONISM?
Objection: There is more to life than pleasure; knowledge, virtue and
other things are important too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy
only of swine.

Reply: Utilitarianism requires that we consider everyone’s pleasure,

not just our own. Also, says Mill, there is more to life than physical
pleasure. Pleasures of the “higher faculties” (including intellectual
pleasures inaccessible to lower animals) are of higher quality than
physical pleasures (and thus count for more).

Mill: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;

better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool,
or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know
their own side of the question".
 NOT ENOUGH TIME?

Objection: In the real world, we don’t have the time to calculate the effects of our actions on the
general happiness. Therefore,utilitarianism is useless.

Mill’s Reply: “There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During
all that time, mankind has been learning by experience ... the effects of some actions on their happiness;
and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality...”
SUBORDINATE RULES

Examples:
Keep your promises
Don’t cheat
Don’t steal
Obey the law
Subordinate rules are what we would normally call “common sense morality”.
According to Mill, these are rules that tend to promote happiness, so we should internalize them as
good rules to follow.They have been learned through the experience of many generations.

But subordinate rules are just that: subordinate. If it is clear that breaking a subordinate rule would
result in much more happiness than following it, then you should break it.
 BREAKING SUBORDINATE RULES

In some cases it may be necessary to do a direct utility calculation:

• When you are in an unusual situation that the rules don’t cover.
• When the subordinate rules conflict.
• When you are deciding which rules to adopt or teach.

Euthanasia or “mercy killing” (the killing of an innocent in order to end pointless suffering)
is a good example of something that violates a subordinate rule (Don’t kill innocents)
but can be justified on utilitarian grounds in unusual circumstances.
WEAKNESS OF UTILITARIANISM

• It depends on the results of the action but one can never predict what the
outcome will be.
• If actions are to depend only on results, wrong motives can still have right results
• Ignores the importance of duty: An act may be right or wrong regardless of the
amount of good or evil it produces.
• It does not consider the right of individuals
• It can advocate injustice (framing an innocent few)
• How do we measure one’s pleasure against another?
 PARTIALITY A ND THE “TOO DEMANDING”
OBJECTION
1.Critics also attack utilitarianism’s commitment to impartiality and the equal
consideration of interests.
• An implication of this commitment is that whenever people want to buy something
for themselves or for a friend or family member, they must first determine whether
they could create more well-being by donating their money to help unknown
strangers who are seriously ill or impoverished.
• If more good can be done by helping strangers than by purchasing things for oneself
or people one personally cares about, then act utilitarianism requires us to use the
money to help strangers in need.
• Why? Because act utilitarianism requires impartiality and the equal consideration of
all people’s needs and interests.
 PARTIALITY A ND THE “TOO DEMANDING”
OBJECTION

2.Critics claim that the argument for using our money to help impoverished strangers
rather than benefiting ourselves and people we care about only proves one thing—
that act utilitarianism is false.
• There are two reasons that show why it is false.
• First, it fails to recognize the moral legitimacy of giving special preferences to
ourselves and people that we know and care about.
• Second, since pretty much everyone is strongly motivated to act on behalf of
themselves and people they care about, a morality that forbids this and requires
equal consideration of strangers is much too demanding.
• It asks more than can reasonably be expected of people
ACT-UTILITARIANISM

• is the view that the rightness of an action depends only on the total
goodness or badness of its consequences, i.e. on the effect on the welfare
of all human beings (or perhaps all sentient beings).
• Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness of an action is to be judged
by the consequences, good or bad, of the action itself.
• Considers only the results or consequences of the single act
• Focus on the effects of individual actions
RULE-UTILITARIANISM

• Is the view that the rightness of an action is to be judged by the goodness

and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform
the action in like circumstances.
• Considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct.
• Focus on the effects of types of actions.

• We cant have a rule such as that because it will not benefit us in the long
run
 ACT VS. RULE
Act Utilitarianism
• The rightness of an act is fixed by the
utility of its consequences.
• It is an atomistic theory:
• The value of the effects of a single act
on the world is decisive for its
rightness.
Rule Utilitarianism
• Rightness of an act is not fixed by its
relative utility, but by the conformity with
general rules.
• The correctness of these rules is fixed by
the utility of their general acceptance.
• It is an organic theory:
• The rightness of individual acts can be
ascertained only by assessing a whole
social policy
CRITICISMS
Act Utilitarianism
• Difficulty in determining
consequences for others
• Impracticality of beginning anew
• Difficulty of educating the young or
uninitiated
Rule Utilitarianism
• Difficulty in determining
consequences for others
• Can a rule cover diversity?
• Can a rule truly bring about the
greatest good for all concerned?
• The stop sign is like the rule utilitarian approach. It tells drivers to stop
and does not allow them to calculate whether it would be better to stop
or not.

• The yield sign is like act utilitarianism. It permits drivers to decide

whether there is a need to stop. Act utilitarians see the stop sign as too
rigid because it requires drivers to stop even when nothing bad will be
prevented
• Rule utilitarians will reply that they would reject the stop sign method
• a) if people could be counted on to drive carefully and
• b) if traffic accidents only caused limited amounts of harm.
• But, they say, neither of these is true

• Overall then, rule utilitarian can allow departures from rules and will leave many choices up to
individuals.
• The key point is that while rule utilitarianism permits partiality toward some people, it can also
generate rules that limit the ways in which people may act partially and it might even support a positive
duty.
• Rules can have value. For example, rules can provide a basis for acting when there is no time to
deliberate. In addition, rules can define a default position, a justification for doing (or refraining from) a
type of action.