[6.] Utilitarianism.

 

[6.1.] Branches of Ethics.

 

We’ve seen that ethics is a branch of the area of inquiry called philosophy.

 

Ethics itself consists of three different sub-branches. From most to least abstract, they are:

·         meta-ethics

·         normative ethics

·         applied ethics

 

 

[6.1.1.] Meta-Ethics.

 

meta-ethics (df.): the branch of ethics that tries to answer questions about the nature of morality itself.  It does not ask or make judgments about what types of action are moral and immoral. Rather, it asks questions like:

·         does morality depend on what we believe about it, or is it independent of our beliefs?

·         does morality depend on what God commands?

·         are moral judgments (statements attributing morality or immorality to a given act, e.g., “Murder is immoral” and “Charity is supererogatory”) capable of being true or false? or are they simply expressions of emotion? or something else?

·         is it possible to prove a moral judgment to be true or to be false?

 

We have already studied a handful of meta-ethical theories:

·         moral skepticism

·         moral-cultural relativism (a form of moral skepticism)

·         moral realism

·         divine command theory (a form of moral realism)

 

You can think of meta-ethics as trying to take a position above normative ethics, looking down on it and trying to explain where it comes from. (The word “meta” means above or about.)

 

 

[6.1.2.] Applied Ethics.

 

applied ethics (df.): the branch of ethics that asks relatively concrete questions about the morality of specific actions and policies; branches of applied ethics include:

·         medical ethics (abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, genetic engineering, fair distribution of prescription drugs and medical treatment…)

·         business ethics (corporate responsibility, moral rights and obligations of employees, diversity and discrimination)

·         sexual ethics (homosexuality, adultery, prostitution)

 

 

 

 

[6.1.3.] Normative Ethics.

 

normative ethics (df.): the branch of ethics that asks general questions about the morality of behavior; it attempts to provide general moral norms/standards of behavior.

 

normative (a.k.a. prescriptive) (df): a normative statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things should be, how they ought to be, rather than how they actually are.

 

[The opposite of “normative” is: descriptive (df.): a descriptive statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things actually are, not how they ought to be.]

 

So normative ethics is the branch of ethics that tries to answer general questions about how we should behave, about how we ought to act. In other words, it attempts to discover general rules or principles of moral behavior.

 

In this area of ethics, you will find claims like the following:

·         If doing x will benefit someone without harming anyone else, then it is morally permissible for you to do x.

·         If doing x will not violate anyone’s moral rights, then it is morally permissible for you to do x.

These are claims about what sort of behavior is morally permissible in general. They are also rules you can use to help you decide what the right thing to do is in any given situation.

 

For the remainder of the course, we will be moving back and forth between normative ethics and applied ethics.

 

 

[6.1.3.1.] Consequentialism vs. Deontology.

 

There are two main traditions within normative ethics:

 

consequentialism (df.): the tradition of normative ethics that judges whether an action is moral or immoral based only its consequences (i.e., its effects); nothing else about the action is morally relevant.

 

deontology (df.): the tradition of normative ethics that focuses on duty, holding that there are some actions that you have a duty to perform and some you have a duty not to perform, regardless of the consequences (from Greek “deon”, meaning duty). [We will discuss deontology at length when we study the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant.]

 

 

[6.1.3.2.] Classical vs. Modern Utilitarianism.

 

The first specific theory of normative ethics we will examine is a form of consequentialism. It is called utilitarianism (UT).

 

A rough definition: the right thing to do in any situation is whatever will increase the overall amount of happiness in the world and decrease the overall amount of suffering. This is how Utilitarians in the 19^th century stated the theory; I will call it “classical Utilitarianism.”

 

These days, utilitarians are likely to emphasize well-being or making people better off rather than happiness. A rough definition of this modern form: the right thing to do in any situation is whatever will increase the overall amount of well-being in the world. I will call this “modern Utilitarianism.”

 

We will see more elaborate definitions of classical and modern UT later.

 

 

[6.3.] Utilitarianism and Euthanasia.

 

The term “euthanasia” refers to the practice of allowing someone to die, or helping to bring about that person’s death, in order to end his or her suffering.

 

The word comes from the Greek “eu” (meaning “good”) and “thanos” (meaning “death”).

 

 

[6.3.1.] Euthanasia vs. Physician-Assisted Dying and Suicide.

 

You should keep the following concepts distinct:

 

·         passive euthanasia occurs when someone is allowed to die “naturally” by the removal of life-support (e.g., the removal of a respirator or feeding-tube) [This is how Terri Schiavo died.]

·         active euthanasia occurs when someone intervenes in order to cause the death of the patient (e.g., a doctor injects the patient with drugs that bring about his or her death). [This is how Matthew Donnelly died, except that it was his brother rather than a physician who killed him.]

·         physician-assisted dying occurs when the patient himself or herself has been diagnosed with a fatal disease and is already dying and brings about his or her own death with the help of a physician (e.g., the physician prescribes a lethal dose of drugs, which the patient then takes).

·         physician-assisted suicide is the same as physician-assisted dying, except that the patient is not terminally ill (although he or she may have some devastating disease, e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)).

 

 

[6.3.2.] Euthanasia: Two Views.

 

According to traditional Christian morality, euthanasia is always immoral; life is a gift from God and it is always immoral for you to end the life of another, even to put that person out of his or her suffering. (Although this is the traditional Christian view, not all denominations of Christianity accept it.)

 

According to utilitarianism, euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible: it is permissible in those cases in which it increases the happiness / welfare / well-being, and decreases the suffering, of those beings who are affected by it. This is the view that Rachels will argue in your next reading.

 

(As covered in EMP ch.7, your reading for today, utilitarianism also has specific consequences for the issues of marijuana use and our treatment of non-human animals.)

 

 

 

Stopping point for Wednesday September 30. For next time:

·         if you haven’t already done so, read EMP ch.7 (this was your reading assignment for today)

·         read RTD ch.34, “The Morality of Euthanasia”  by James Rachels

·         study today’s lecture notes

·         as usual, you may have a pop quiz on the reading and/or lecture notes