Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 56

ETHICAL THEORY

BASI C PHI LOSOPHY


EGOISM AND MORAL SKEPTICISM

JAMES RACHELS
TYPES
sycho|og|ca| ego|sm: a|| humans are se|hsh |n
everyth|ng they do.the on|y monve from
wh|ch anyone acts |s se|f -|nterest
Lth|ca| ego|sm: humans have no ob||ganons to
anyth|ng except what |s |n the|r own
|nterest, humans ought to act |n the|r own
|nterest, and peop|e are a|ways [usnhed |n
acnng |n the|r own |nterests, regard|ess on
the eects on others

VIDEO-PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
hup:]]www.youtube.com]watch?v=nCnu1L0ca4L

REBUTTAL TO PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
This argument rests on the premise that people
never voluntarily do anything except what they
want to do.
People only act as a means to an end.
One may make a promise, and not want to keep
it [e.g. help out with chores at home], and
therefore acts in a way that one does not want
to.
However, the desire to keep promises is the end.
ETHICAL EGOISM
1here |s no reason why a person shou|d
act |n the |nterest of others
I on|y need to th|nk about myse|f

REBUTTALS TO ETHICAL EGOISM
It |s my advantage to ||ve |n a soc|ety |n wh|ch
peop|e's r|ghts are respects, e.g. not ye|||ng
"hre" |n a crowded theater, not stea||ng.
Lth|ca| ego|sm |s not |og|ca||y cons|stent
because the ego|sts ||ves se|hsh|y, but must
encourage others to ||ve unse|hsh|y, or e|se
her p|ans for happ|ness are defeated
1he pr|nc|p|e of eth|ca| ego|sm cannot be
un|versa||zed
GENUINE EGOISTS
Wou|d have to say that they have no
vested |nterest or care |n fr|ends, fam||y
or others
s]he wou|d have no sympathy or empathy
1h|s |nherent truth makes the doctr|ne
d|sturb|ng to Iames kache|s
J OHN ST UA RT MI L L
THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
A|so known as "the greatest happ|ness pr|nc|p|e"
napp|ness = p|easure
nedon|snc |n nature
Acnons are r|ght [mora||y correct] |n propornon
as they tend to promote happ|ness
1hey are wrong |f they produce unhapp|ness
THE GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE
Is the u|nmate end, w|th reference to a|| other
th|ngs are des|rab|e
It |s as far as poss|b|e from pa|n and as r|ch as
poss|b|e |n en[oyments
It must take |nto account a|| |nd|v|dua|s [an|ma|s
|nc.], and not [ust the agent, to determ|ne |f an
acnon |s eth|ca|
1he agent |s ob[ecnve
OBJECTIONS
8e|ng a d|s|nterested character] ob[ecnve
observer |s too h|gh a standard for humans
eop|e w||| not a|ways act |n the best |nterest of
soc|ety [human pop. growth]
In each s|tuanon a person wou|d have to
determ|ne a|| the costs and benehts
MORE OBJECTIONS
numans are |nherent|y awed and se|hsh
1he agent w||| want to make excepnons for her
own case
1he |nterest of two d|erent peop|e w||| come
|nto con|ct
1here are other ends of human acnon bes|des
happ|ness
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
[DEONTOLOGICAL]
Immanue| kant
DUTY
If a person who hates the|r ||fe, but neverthe|ess
preserves |t acts |n conform|ty w|th duty, but
not w|th the monve of duty 1he mora| worth
of an acnon does not depend on the resu|t
expected from |t
1he mora| worth of an acnon does not depend on
any pr|nc|p|e or acnon that needs to borrow |ts
monve from an expected resu|t

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

I ought never to act except |n a way that my
max|m shou|d become a un|versa| |aw
nypothenca| |mperanves cannot be |mag|ned
w|thout a cond|non g|ven
8U1 categor|ca| |mperanves have known
cond|nons
A max|m g|ves us a sub[ecnve pr|nc|p|e of acnons
and |s not an ob[ecnve pr|nc|p|e, or pracnca|
|aw
ILLUSTRATIONS
Dunes of se|f and dunes of other can be d|v|ded
|nto perfect and |mperfect categor|es
A su|c|da| person wants to get r|d of the|r ||fe:
what do they do? 1he |dea that ||fe shou|d
destroy ||fe |s a contrad|cnon, and cannot be a
system of nature
1h|s max|m cannot ho|d up
THE END OF ITSELF
Acnons must accord to the |dea of certa|n
|aws
numans ex|st as an end |n themse|ves, and
not mere|y a means
1hey must a|ways be v|ewed as an end

CONCLUSION
Act |n such a away that you a|ways
treat human|ty [ranona| be|ngs]
whether |n your own person, or |n
the person of any others, never
s|mp|y as a means, but a|ways at the
same nme as an end
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
St. 1homas Aqu|nas
WHY WE NEED ABSOLUTES
Religion is necessary for morality
because without God there could be no
right or wrong

God is to moral law what legislature to
statutes

Without Gods commands there would
be no moral rules

If morality is subjective, then we cannot
criticize others, but if we say the Nazis
were wrong, then we presuppose an
objective standard of morality
PROBLEMS?
If we accept d|v|ne command theory, then
whatever God dehnes as good |s good.
1oday murder |s wrong, tomorrow |t |s
r|ght, 1oday |y|ng |s wrong, tomorrow |t |s
a v|rtue.
1herefore God |s arb|trary.
ON THE OTHER HAND
If we w|sh to argue that God |s not arb|trary, then
God has to appea| to a mora||ty outs|de of her]
h|mse|f, God d|scovers mora||ty rather than
|nvennng |t.
1h|s puts mora||ty above God, or more abso|ute
or rea| than God.
Aqu|nas: God cannot contrad|ct h|s] her d|v|ne
omn|potence.
!"#$%&'()*")%+*
%$*+"-.-&/
Some say we can never understand another cu|ture
except our own we|| enough to make [udgments about
|t
Mora| [udgments are on|y va||d |n the country or or|g|n
Most peop|e th|nk th|s |s the most respecuu| way to
approach other cu|ture [and re||g|ons]
8ut: 1h|s |s the root of mora| |so|anon|sm
And Cu|tures [udge |ncom|ng cu|tures, as we|| as the
|ncom|ng cu|tures [udge the present ones


BEHAVIORISM
Comes from psychology
Is the theory that human and animal
behavior can be explained in terms of
conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or
feelings, and that psychological disorders
are best treated by altering behavior
patterns.
Comes into conflict with nature versus
nurture debates

FEMALE ETHICS
In a back|ash to V|ctor|an |deo|ogy, some constructed that
women were |ndeed equa| to men mora||y, and
somenme even mora||y super|or to men
Iema|e eth|c |nc|uded concern about the v|o|ent and
destrucnve consequences to human ||fe un||ke
patr|archa| he|ds ||ke war, po||ncs, and cap|ta||sm that
crush some to ga|n the upper hand
8ut the fema|e eth|c |s |nseparab|e from the po|ar|zanon
of ma|e and fema|e, [essenna||sm] wh|ch has a|ways
|ed to the subord|nanon of women



THEORY OF JUSTICE
numans must accept two bas|c pr|nc|p|es: Lqua| bas|c ||bernes and
the arrangement of soc|a| and econom|c |nequa||nes
1hese two wou|d be accepted by ranona| humans |n a hypothenca|
pos|nons |f they d|d not know any facts about themse|ves
Cf course no soc|ety can be a scheme of cooperanon wh|ch |s
vo|untar||y entered |nto
Lach person |s p|aced |n a soc|ety due to the|r b|rth
8ut the theory of [usnce wou|d be c|ose to perfect |f executed
correct|y


QUESTIONS
Wh|ch theor|es have the b|ggest aws |n them?
1he |east aws?
Are any theor|es ever perfect?
CHRISTIAN APPROACHES
Roman Catholicism, in which there is a tendency for reason (especially in the form of
natural law) to be most prominent,
Among Protestant approaches, reason and Scripture are generally primary.

THE NATURAL LAW
St. 1homas Aqu|nas
PRESUPPOSITIONS
1he wor|d |s a creanon of a supreme|y
ranona| be|ng: God
God has made everyth|ng accord|ng to
a d|v|ne p|an
An eterna| |aw governs everyth|ng

THREE NATURAL INCLINATION
1o preserve human ||fe
1o surv|ve [sex, food, hghnng]
1o do good
PRECEPTS
Good |s a natura| |nc||nanon
Natura| |aw has been taught to a||
an|ma|s [food, sex, hghnng]
8ecause humans are |nc||ned to good,
humans have a natura| |nc||nanon to
know the truth about God, and to
||ve |n soc|ety
SITUATIONAL ETHICS
Ioseph I|etcher
OVERVIEW
S|tuanona| eth|cs puts a h|gh prem|um on
freedom from prefabr|cated dec|s|ons
and prescr|pnve ru|es
1he s|tuanona| eth|cs approach to
dec|s|on mak|ng |s re|anve, or non-
abso|ute and var|ant, or non-un|versa|
LEGALISM
Lega||sm a|ways emphas|zes order and conform|ty
wh||e s|tuanona| eth|cs puts a prem|um on
freedom and respons|b|||ty
1he r|ghtness |s |n the shape of the acnon as a who|e,
an not |n any s|ng|e phase or d|mens|on of |t
Lega||st says "do what |s r|ght and |et the ch|ps fa||
where they may"
Lega||sm c|a|ms a r|ght, S.L. says your r|ghts depend
|n the s|tuanon
SITUATIONALISM
Was prec|p|tated |n Chr|snan eth|cs by the
eras reacnon to |ega||sm
S|tuanona| Chr|snan eth|cs has a tacnca|
formu|a for the strategy of |ove: the
|nd|canve, p|us the |mperanve equa|s the
normanve [what |s, p|us the command
equa|s what ought to be done]
Iudgment ] dec|s|on |s respons|b|||ty |n
hum|||ty
EXAMPLES
Unmarr|ed |ove |s more eth|ca| than marr|ed
hatred
Ly|ng can be more eth|ca| than te|||ng the truth
Stea||ng |s beuer than respect for persona|
property
No acnon |s |ntr|ns|ca||y r|ght or wrong: |t
depends on whether |t hurts or he|ps peop|e |n
the s|tuanon

IN SITUATIONS
1he quesnon |s not what shou|d I do, but what
shou|d I do?
1he s|tuanon ||st puts the onus of dec|s|on on the
acnon- taker rather than prefabr|cated
d|recnves
1he on|y th|ng |s |ove, or [usnce, or concern
Sartre says humans are the same- fac|ng a
s|tuanon that changes- the cho|ce |s a|ways a
cho|ce of the s|tuanon kespons|b|||ty
VIRTUE ETHICS
roposed by Ar|stot|e, adopted by Catho||c mora|
theo|og|ans
Lqua||y between excess and dehc|t
1he |ntermed|ary of two extremes
Lxcess and dehc|t are character|sncs of v|ce
1he mean of p|easure and pa|n |s temperance
Some th|ngs are a|ways wrong: adu|tery, theh,
murder, envy, sp|te.you cannot cheat on your
spouse w|th the "r|ght" person It |s no easy
task to be good


PERSONALISM
Its essential, unifying perspective is that persons and personal relations are more
basic for understanding reality than abstract ideas like being or nature.
It describes human persons as radically social beings who develop full potential only
within human relationships.
It rejects the extreme body/soul dualism that exalts the spiritual at the expense of the
somatic.


QUESTIONS
Does ] shou|d b|oeth|cs favor one theory over
another?
Shou|d any be thrown out a|| together?

VIDEO- ETHICS AND AUTONOMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvIYt7bTeH0
JUDAISM LIKE OTHER SYSTEMS
some of the moral norms of Judaism are
identical to those of many other traditions
norms, for example, requiring aid to the needy
and prohibiting murder and theft.
Jewish ethics uses many resources, as do other
religions and secular systems, to know the
good, teach it, and motivate people to do the
good. In these ways, then, Jewish ethics is like
other moral systems of thought and practice.

JUDAISM UNIQUE
The Jewish vision of the ideal person and
society is a different picture from that in
Christianity and most other religions and
secular philosophies.
The use of Law as a motivational tool is
also unique.

SIX MAJOR MORAL METHODOLOGIES OF JUDAISM
Stories
History
Maxims and theories
Theology
General moral values
Law
STORIES
1. Stories- the core Jewish storythe Exodus from
Egypt, the revelation at Mount Sinai, and the
trek to the Promised Landloudly proclaims
that we can and must work together with God
to redeem ourselves and others from slavery
of all sorts.

HISTORY/ MAXIMS AND THEORIES
2. History. No nation that has gone through the
exile and persecution endured by Jews can
possibly have an idealistic picture of human
beings.
3. Maxims and theories. The Book of Proverbs,
the Mishnah

THEOLOGY/ GENERAL MORAL VALUES
4. Theology. All of Jewish morality is based, ultimately, on
the biblical command that we should seek to be holy
as God is holy; that moral action is commanded by
God.
5. General moral values. The Torah announces some
general moral values that should inform all our
actionsjustice, saving lives, caring for the needy,
respect for parents and elders, honesty in business
and in personal relations, truth telling, and education
of children and adults.

LAW
Advantages:
a bottom line
translates moral goals into concrete rules
helps us to decide among conflicting moral goal
establishes and preserves the authority of moral norm
preserves the coherence of a moral system

THE THREE FOLD STOOL
There are three sources of authority:
Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Jewish approaches tend to give primacy to
tradition, supplemented by reason, with
Scripture foundational in principle but less
directly appealed to.


TRADITION
Tradition is privileged, and even claims that may
seem to an outside observer to be motivated
by reason and experience may well be
ascribed to tradition
These include the Talmud and traditional
sources of halakhah as providing the basis
and framework for analysis of ethical
concerns.

QUESTION
01231 415678 29 415 :694 ;<<5;=2>? @67 A26541239B
-9 4129 C2D575>4 41;4 9;8E AF92>599 541239B

ETHICAL THEORY BIBLIOGRAPHY

General
Adapted from Contemporary Approaches to Bioethics, EXP 0027. Taught at Tufts
University, Spring 2012.
Jewish Ethical Theory
Elliot N. Dorff. Is There a Unique Jewish Ethics? The Role of Law in Jewish Bioethics
Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 21 (2001): 305-317: 305-306; 308-310.
Aaron L. Mackler. Is There a Unique Jewish Bioethics of Human Reproduction?
Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 21 (2001): 319-323: 320.
Christian Ethical Theory
Ronald Modras, Birth Control, Personalism, and the Pope 283-290: 283-284.
Adapted from Contemporary Approaches to Bioethics, EXP 0027. Taught at Tufts
University, Spring 2012.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi