UNIT 10 THEORIES OF CONDUCT

Ethical Theories of Good Human Conduct

Introduction

• Previous Unit Review:

  • Discussed ethical terms: good, bad, right, wrong.
  • Explored normative ethics and utilitarian view (pleasure and happiness as intrinsic goods).
  • Examined how some associate goodness with natural qualities while others see ethical terms as non-definable.
  • Covered concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic good, and ethical pluralism.

• Current Unit Focus:

  • Understanding theories of good human conduct.

Objectives

1. Illustrate the Difference between Rules and Principles of Human Conduct:

   • Rules: Specific guidelines or regulations that prescribe or restrict actions.
   • Principles: Fundamental truths or propositions serving as the foundation for behavior.

2. Describe Theories of Conduct:

   • Theories that explain and guide human behavior and decision-making based on ethical principles.

3. Distinguish between “Form” and “Content” of Human Behaviour:

   • Form: The manner in which an action is performed.
   • Content: The actual action or behavior itself.

4. Define a Truly Rational Behavior:

   • Behavior guided by reason and logical thinking, often aligned with ethical principles.

5. Differentiate between Act-Utilitarianism and Rule-Utilitarianism:

   • Act-Utilitarianism: Evaluates the morality of an action based on its individual consequences.
   • Rule-Utilitarianism: Evaluates the morality based on adherence to rules that generally lead to the greatest good.

6. Explain the Structure of Theories of Conduct:

• Analyzing how various ethical theories structure and justify human conduct.

Rules and Principles of Human Conduct

Key Points

1. Rules of Conduct:

   • Culturally approved guidelines for behavior.
   • Examples:
     • Never take a human life.
     • Never cause needless pain and suffering to others.
     • Don’t engage in sexual activity outside marriage.
     • Always turn the other cheek when you have been injured on one cheek.
     • Don’t steal.
     • Always honor your parents.
     • Never tell a lie.

2. Limitations of Rules:

   • Rules provide specific guidelines but lack justification for why they should be followed.
   • Do not offer a complete guide to human conduct.

3. Need for Moral Principles:

   • General principles of conduct are necessary to understand what one should do in all circumstances.
   • These principles provide the foundational reasons behind specific rules.

4. Theories of Conduct:

• Attempt to state principles from which specific rules of conduct follow.
• Provide a structured approach to ethical decision-making.

Universalizability

Key Points

1. Definition of Universalizability:

   • Act in a way that the rule of your action could become a universal law.
   • Similar to the Golden Rule of Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
   • Implies fairness and reciprocity in treatment.

2. Principle of Impartiality and Reciprocity:

   • Do not expect special treatment if you are not willing to give the same treatment to others.
   • Ensures consistent behavior in similar circumstances.

3. The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant:

   • Moral principles that one should unconditionally follow.
   • Example: Act such that you could will the maxim of your action to become a universal law.
   • Illustrates the idea of universalizability through examples of breaking promises or helping others in trouble.

4. Application Examples:

   • If you break a promise because it's inconvenient, you're implying it's acceptable for everyone to break promises in similar situations.
   • If you help others in trouble, you're suggesting that everyone should help others in similar situations.

5. Limitations:

• Universalizability and impartiality alone do not specify what is right or wrong.
• They provide a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining moral actions.

Rationality and Morality

Key Points

1. Hegel’s View on Rational Morality:

   • Behavior must be rational to be considered morally good or desirable.
   • Rationality in moral conduct involves:
     1. Logical coherence or consistency
     2. Generation of universals
     3. Empirical evidence in support of generalizations
     4. Public intelligibility

2. Logical Coherence or Consistency:

   • Moral beliefs and rules should be internally consistent.
   • Example: Believing others should respect your interests while you respect theirs, or the opposite, both can be consistent.
   • Inconsistency arises when actions or beliefs contradict each other.

3. Generation of Universals:

   • Adhering to general principles consistently over time.
   • Avoiding changing principles without valid reasons.
   • Ensures stable and predictable moral behavior.

4. Empirical Evidence:

   • Valid reasons or empirical evidence should support behavior.
   • Actions without good reasons or evidence are irrational.

5. Public Intelligibility:

   • Behavior should be publicly understandable or acceptable.
   • Idiosyncratic reasons that are personal and not publicly verifiable are irrational.
   • Rationalization (justifying actions with false reasons) is not true rationality.

6. Rationality as the Form of Morality:

• Rationality provides the structure or language of morality, not the content.
• Ensures that moral principles meet the criteria of rationality.
• Does not specify the exact moral principles to follow.

Ethical Egoism

1. Definition:

   • Ethical egoism is the view that one's own long-term advantage should be the guiding principle for conduct.
   • The aim is to promote one’s long-term interest.

2. Decision Making:

   • Different actions might be considered, but the chosen action should clearly serve one's long-term interest the best.

3. Two Shades of Ethical Egoism:

• Epicureanism: Focuses on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
• Rational Self-Interest: Involves making choices that rationally serve one’s best long-term interests.

Epicureanism

1. Definition and Background:

   • Ethical egoism was historically championed by Greek Epicureans.
   • They believed the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure, viewing it as the sole 'good.'
   • In ancient Indian culture, a similar school of thought called "Charvak" also emphasized immediate personal gratification and happiness.

2. Philosophy:

   • Epicureans: Advocated for living in a way that maximizes pleasure but advised against excessive indulgence.
   • Charvak: Focused on immediate personal gratification, disregarding the past and future, which is now considered obsolete.

3. Guidelines for Maximizing Pleasure:

• Avoid excessive food, drink, and personal relations to maintain health and happiness.
• Live a detached life to prevent heartbreaks and disturbances.
• Epicurean ethics focuses more on avoiding displeasure than seeking pleasure.

Rational Self-Interest

1. Definition and Background:

   • Ayn Rand's ethics emphasize man's life as the standard for judging good or evil.
   • Man is seen as an end in himself, with the moral purpose of achieving his own rational self-interest.

2. Principles of Rational Self-Interest:

   • Ontological Freedom: Each individual has the right to their own freedom and must respect others' rights as well.
   • Human Rights: Each person possesses basic rights due to their rational nature, including:
     • Right to life
     • Right to work
     • Right to property
     • Right to choose and pursue values
     • Right to liberty and pursuit of happiness
   • These rights should not encroach on the similar rights of others.

3. Social Relations and Obligations:

   • Individuals should not sacrifice themselves for others, nor sacrifice others for themselves.
   • Rights imply obligations, such as keeping contractual agreements and supporting one's children.
   • Right to life does not mean others must provide necessities; forcing others to do so violates their rights.

4. Respect and Obligations:

• Rational self-interest means respecting others' rights and demanding respect for one's own rights.
• Obligations exist in situations caused by one's participation but not in situations one did not cause.

The General Good Theory (Utilitarianism)

1. Definition:

   • Utilitarianism is about acting to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
   • The focus is on maximizing total good or the best total consequences.

2. Implementation:

   • Strive to create happiness for everyone affected by your actions.
   • When making decisions, use the best available information to approximate outcomes.

3. Challenges and Scenarios:

• Scenario 1: In a fire, saving a famous physician over a relative because the physician can save more lives.
• Scenario 2: Unintended harm despite best intentions, like a car accident leading to a passenger's death.
• Scenario 3: Dealing with conflicting promises, such as a doctor choosing between an appointment and an emergency surgery.
• Scenario 4: Keeping promises made in extreme situations, like explorers in the Arctic.
• Scenario 5: Deciding between helping one's own family or a neighbor's family when the latter may yield more good.
• Scenario 6: Ethical dilemmas in justice, such as convicting an innocent habitual criminal to prevent future crimes.

Rule-Utilitarianism

1. Definition:

   • Rule-utilitarianism judges the rightness of an act by the consequences of adopting the rule under which the act falls.
   • Contrasts with act-utilitarianism, which judges based on the consequences of individual acts.

2. Principles:

   • Focus on the consequences of adopting and following rules.
   • Adopt rules that, when followed, lead to the best overall outcomes.

3. Challenges and Scenarios:

• Rule Example 1: "Never convict an innocent person."
  • Violating this rule has severe negative consequences.
• Rule Example 2: "Never take a human life."
  • Needs modification for self-defense or justified battle situations.
• Rule Example 3: "Never break a promise."
• Can be modified to allow breaking promises made under duress or to achieve a significantly good result.

Theories of Conduct Not Based on Consequences

1. Introduction:

   • Utilitarianism (act and rule) bases conduct on consequences.
   • Some theories argue that acts can be good or bad regardless of their consequences.
   • Moral obligations may arise from past conditions and relationships, not just future outcomes.

2. Types of Moral Obligations:

   1. Duties of Gratitude:

      • Owe gratitude to those who have helped us, like parents.
      • Not based on future consequences but on past relationships.

   2. Duties of Fidelity and Loyalty:

      • Keep promises unless overridden by a more urgent duty.
      • Duty is to the person to whom the promise was made, not based on probable future consequences.

   3. Duties Related to Justice:

      • Justice involves equitable, not equal, treatment.
      • Based on "deservedness" and proportionality of punishment.
      • Injustice examples include partiality and disproportionate punishment.

3. Utilitarianism and Punishment:

   • Utilitarian punishment is future-looking: aims to improve the offender, deter others, and protect society.
   • Retributive punishment is past-looking: punishment is deserved for the offence committed.

4. Case Study:

   • Habitual criminal punished for a crime he did not commit (example 5).
   • Retributivist: He should not be punished because he is innocent, regardless of future benefits.
   • Rule-utilitarian: Punishing an innocent man undermines law and security, so he should not be punished.