Duty Makes Right

Why does he think that whatever is of intrinsic value, it can’t be happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, utility?

“It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.”

To have a good will is to make choices in accordance with moral principles.

So, what is it to make choices in accordance with moral principles?

Moral principles can be viewed as imperatives that command us to do (or not do) certain things. But. What’s special about them?

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Kant’s view is that moral principles are categorical. So, let’s call the fundamental moral imperative

“The Categorical Imperative.”

First formulation of the categorical imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone

could act on it, and you would be willing to have everyone act on it.

Unfortunately, this is already ambiguous. Why?

At least two different senses in which I might be willing to have everyone act on it.

UniversalizableReversible

A principle is universalizable if everyone could consistently act on it. (Logical constraint).◦ Examples: never lying, never stealing, never

breaking one’s promise, etc.

A principle is reversible if the person acting on it would be willing to have everyone act on it. (Psychological constraint)◦ Developing one’s talents and helping the needy.

Universality test identifies the perfect duties◦ A perfect duty is one that must always be

performed no matter what.

Reversibility test identifies the imperfect duties◦ An imperfect duty is one that does not always

have to be performed.

Suppose you had promised to meet someone at a certain time.

Suppose further that you could prevent an accident or bring relief to the victims of one by breaking the promise.

Should you break it?

Suppose that a Nazi fanatic is considering whether he should act on the principle “Kill all the Jews.”

The principle is universalizable; it is possible for everyone to act on it.

If the fanatic would be willing to die if he were a Jew, the principle would also be reversible.

Second formulation:

◦ What makes an action right is that it treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end.

◦ People have inherent value:Self-Conscious – Can be aware of

principles governing their actions Rational – Can determine if these principles are universalizable and reversible Free – Can choose to act on these principles

Broad’s Typhoid Man

Ewing’s Prudent Diplomat

One problem with Kant’s account is that it seems to be too rigid. No absolute perfect duties.

An actual duty is one that we are morally obligated to perform in a particular situation.

A prima facie duty is one that we are morally obligated to perform in every situation unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Rank duties hierarchically.

An action is right if it falls under the highest ranked prima facie duty in a given situation.

This is how we deal with conflict.

Ross's (incomplete) list of prima facie duties:

Duties stemming from one's own previous actions:     1. fidelity - duty to fulfill (explicit and implicit) promises/agreements.      2. reparation - duty to make up for wrongful acts previously done to  others

Duties stemming from the previous actions of others:     3. gratitude - duty to repay others for past favors.

Duties stemming from the (possibility of) a mismatch between persons' pleasure or happiness and their "merit":     4. justice - duty to prevent or correct such a mismatch

Duties stemming from the possibility of improving others’ conditions :     5. beneficence - duty to improve the conditions of others in these respects

Duties stemming from the possibility of improving one's own condition with respect to virtue or intelligence:     6. self-improvement - duty to improve one's own condition in these respects

Special duty to be distinguished from the duty of beneficence:     7. nonmaleficence - duty not to injure others

What makes an action right is that it is in accord with the principles established by an ideal social contract.

An ideal social contract is one drawn up by ideal social contract makers.

Ideal social contract makers would be totally impartial.

Veil of ignorance

Such contract makers are said to be in the original position.

Principle of equal liberty: each person has an equal right to maximum possible liberty.

Principle of fair equality of opportunity: each person has an equal opportunity to be given an office or position.

The Difference Principle: social and economic opportunities are arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.

Would those in the original position behind the veil of ignorance agree to the following social policies:◦ Entitlement programs such as welfare?◦ An inheritance tax of over 75 percent?◦ The right to an easy rescue?◦ Homosexual marriage?◦ Legalized euthanasia?

Thought Experiment: Nozick’s Basketball Player: What is this supposed to illustrate?

Rawls’s principles do not adequately protect individual rights.

In fact, a society based on Rawls’s principles would have to constantly violate people’s rights.

Suppose that we start with a just distribution of wealth.

Now suppose that a basketball player becomes so popular that people are willing to pay extra to see him.

The resulting distribution of wealth may violate the difference principle. Is it therefore immoral?

Gambling, prostitution, and drug use are called no-victim crimes because no one is forced to engage in these activities against their will.

Is it immoral to engage in these activities? What moral theory justifies you position? Should they be legalized? Why or why not?

One of the central questions in political philosophy is what makes a government legitimate?

Nowadays most people in the West believe that the only legitimate source of governmental power is the consent of the governed.

Social contract theories try to explain how governments can legitimately acquire their power.

Hobbes claimed that there were two things that all rational persons naturally desired: peace and justice.

In order to establish peace and justice, Hobbes believed that rational people would agree to sacrifice some of their freedom and live under the dictates of a supreme ruler, the Leviathan.

Whereas Hobbes viewed the social contract as one where the subjects give up their rights to the Leviathan, Locke viewed it as one where the subjects entrust their rights to the state for safekeeping.

Locke envisioned a system of checks and balances to keep the state from becoming too powerful.

Much of the philosophy behind the American political system is Locke’s.

To protect themselves from those who demand more than their fair share and to extract compensation from those who refuse to give it, Nozick claims that people would voluntarily join private protection agencies.

These protection agencies would function as minimal states and protect its members’ rights to life and property.

Justice – treat equals equally Mercy – do not cause unnecessary

suffering Utility (beneficence) - maximize

happiness Rights (autonomy) – do not violate

others’ rights Care – exhibit care for those who have

cared for you