Functions of a moral theory

1. Functions of a moral theory • To keep society from falling apart • To diminish human suffering • To promote human flourishing • To resolve conflicts of interest in just & orderly ways • To assign praise & blame: responsibility In order to “work” a moral theory needs to help resolve moral issues in manner acceptable to society at large.

2. CHARACTERISTICS of Moral Theories Moral Theories should provide for 1. STABILITY: constant, consistent • Moral issues will not be resolved on whim or caprice. 2. UNIVERSALITY: Principles or practices applied fairly/equally - level playing field • There will not be different rules for different people in the same situation.

3. CHARACTERISTICS of Moral Theories 3. IMPARTIALITY: avoid “inclinations”/each person counts for one • Moral issues will be decided without showing favoritism for a friend or yourself. 4. OBJECTIVITY: Make decisions on a verifiable basis, apart from inclinations/emotions • Moral decisions will not be made on non-verifiable basis, or according to personal preference. 5. [Compassion?]

4. NIELSEN’s Defense of Utilitarianism Nielsen argues against the idea that there is a privileged set of moral principles that can never be violated through our choices of actions. He is responding to 2 crits of utilitarianism • Utilitarianism can require sacrifice of an innocent person • Utilitarianism can require us to go against strongly held moral convictions.

5. “Negative Responsibility” • He argues that we are responsible not only for the consequences of our actions, but also for the consequences of our nonactions. • He states that hard decisions are made by people in extreme situations, not by people with ‘corrupt minds’. • He argues that there may be situations when violence against innocents is justified.

6. Nielsen’s Two Cases Magistrate & Mob: • Nielsen argues since that you can give a ‘consequentialist’ argument either way here, utilitarianism doesn’t REQUIRE the killing of an innocent person in such a situation. • Shows weakness of utilitarianism. The “fat man”: • Nielsen states the contrast as between inhumanity [killing innocent] to inhumanity plus evasiveness [not willing to choose] Is this a fair contrast? • If we are responsible when we OMIT an action [negative responsibility], then NOT blowing the man out of the mouth of the cave is worse on the consequences than doing it.

7. WILLIAMS opposes “Negative Responsibility” He thinks that it is a problem because it requires us to act against moral convictions that are central to who we are. • It MATTERS if we violate them because it damages who we are. [Which can affect how we respond in the future.] Williams argues that the Utilitarian emphasis on “negative responsibility” is because it focuses on situations. • Utilitarianism violates moral integrity because it requires us to reject conscience and our personal ideals for the lesser of two evils.

8. Williams: Is Utility a Moral Theory? To ask Jim & George to follow a utilitarian analysis is an attack on their integrity. So we must ask: • How deep is George’s revulsion for the research? • And how strong is Jim’s opposition to killing a person? How does William’s view respond to Nielsen’s view that we hold our moral convictions on the basis of consequences? • Without strongly held moral convictions all that is left is “causal intervention” [Williams] • How do you keep “impartiality”? [Kant]