From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > AQA AS Philosophy - Moral Philosophy

---

Contents 1 Utilitarianism 1.1 Felicific calculus 1.2 Mill’s Utilitarianism 1.3 Objections to Mill’s higher pleasures 1.4 Positive and Negative Utilitarianism 1.5 Assessment of Classic Utilitarianism 1.5.1 Advantages 1.5.2 Disadvantages 1.6 Ideal Utilitarianism 2 Kant’s deontological theory 2.1 Categorical Imperative first formulation 2.2 Kant and the problem of lying to a murderer 2.3 Categorical Imperative second formulation 2.4 Categorical Imperative Third formulation 2.5 Advantages - RADA 2.6 Disadvantages - MMMCAC 3 Virtue theory 3.1 Advantages 3.2 Disadvantages 4 Applied Ethics 4.1 Abortion 4.2 Human-being / person distinction 4.3 Applying Philosophy to decisions of abortion 4.4 Foetus potential as an objection to Utilitarianism in abortion 4.5 Philosophy in relation to special cases of abortion; rape / contraceptive failure 4.6 Virtue theory and abortion 4.7 Euthanasia 4.8 Active & Passive Euthanasia 4.9 Animal rights 4.10 Objections to Carruthers’ argument 4.11 Peter Singer & Utilitarianism on animal rights 4.12 Practical implications of Singer’s argument 4.13 Criticisms of Singer’s argument 4.14 Kant and Regan on animals 4.15 Criticisms of Regan 5 Comments

Utilitarianism

• (Classical) Utilitarianism; in line with the theory that humans are hedonistic (automatically seek pleasure) says that morally; we should seek to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number, according to Bentham.
• If not possible, negative utilitarianism should be applied; reducing the greatest pain for the greatest number.
• Bentham treats happiness and pleasure as synonymous
• It is a consequentialist theory – as it looks at the consequences.
• Classical Utilitarianism is egalitarian – it treats each person as one and no more than one. The theory is therefore impartial.
• Bentham says that all pleasures are commensurable; that is to say – they are comparable. The pleasures of eating chocolate cake are comparable to achieving a life goal like writing a novel. Note that he says they are quantitatively commensurable, not qualitatively. He is not interested in quality of pleasure, just numbers and amounts. Some people argue that this is a “swinish doctrine” as it seems somewhat sensually hedonistic in a negative way.

Felicific calculus

• Since Bentham says that pleasures can be quantified, he formed, effectively, a ‘happiness calculator’.
• The felicific calculus takes into account the following factors:
  1. Intensity
  2. Duration
  3. Certainty
  4. Propinquity
  5. Fecundity (chance of pleasures producing other pleasures)
  6. Purity (chance of pleasures producing pains)
  7. Extent

Mill’s Utilitarianism

• Mill disagrees with Bentham that pleasures are quantitative and thus commensurable
• He says that there are “higher and lower pleasures”.
• His basic idea was that pleasures of the mind and spirit – reading, conversation, philosophising (*smirk*) were higher pleasures, whereas

sensual ones, drinking, eating, were lower pleasures

• He says that given the choice, people familiar with both types of pleasures would pursue the higher ones over the lower ones
• There are problems with this theory – the distinction between higher and lower pleasures is unclear. Though both sensual – are gulping down coca cola and enjoying a fine wine equal in terms of pleasure? A lot of people would argue that the wine tasting is a higher pleasure. It’s also difficult to differentiate between different ‘heights’ of higher pleasures; which higher pleasures are highest?
• Mill also assumes that people will follow the higher pleasures. Given the choice between reading poetry and having a cup of coffee, often people will choose the coffee, the lower pleasure – despite being familiar with both. Perhaps this is because higher pleasures often involve a certain amount of pain.
• Mill said: “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” – because pigs can only experience lower pleasures. It’s better to be human, you see.

Objections to Mill’s higher pleasures

• Ryan: the human is no better acquainted with the pig’s pleasures than the pig with the humans. They don’t know each others lives, it’s not commensurable.
• Ryan: To say that Socrates prefers his way of life, even if he is constantly dissatisfied is to say that he thinks it better – not that he thinks it more pleasant

Positive and Negative Utilitarianism

• Positive Utilitarianism aims to promote the greatest pleasure for the greatest number
• Negative Utilitarianism aims to reduce the greatest pain for the greatest number
• JJC Smart points out a bizarre paradox with Negative Utilitarianism; for the best way to reduce the greatest amount of pain for the greatest number would be to kill everyone on earth.

Assessment of Classic Utilitarianism

Advantages

1. Secular – the theory makes no appeal to religion. We live in an increasingly secular world and this theory is good in the fact it detaches itself from religious dependency and Atheists can better associate with it
2. Connection with human nature – theory connects directly with the human desire for happiness and thus appears in line with common sense notions concerning human nature
3. Common-sense – the theory seems to follow common sense. After all, if we are about being happy, we surely should care about being as happy as possible.
4. Egalitarian – The theory treats one person as just that – according with the moral view that many people share in the modern world
5. Human wellbeing – the theory focuses directly on human wellbeing, which surely should be a key notion in any theory of morality.
6. Decision maker – It provides us with a decision procedure, it tells us how to act within any given situation.

Disadvantages

1. Hedonism = True? – Alisdair MacIntyre points out that while he is writing an essay, he could be doing any other activities which could bring him pleasure. He doesn’t enjoy writing the essay, but he does it anyway. Why? Perhaps to bring a meaning or point to his life rather than seeking pleasure as utilitarianism assumes. Preference Utilitarians say that we should act to satisfy preferences. Note that preference is not synonymous with desires, but rather welfare. If it is your preference to drink water to survive, and you see water in front of you and want to drink it, but I stop you because it is in fact acid, I am satisfying your preferences despite you desire to drink it.
2. Commensurability – Bentham argued that all pleasures could be compared and measured up. Is this true? How can the pleasure of eating be compared to the pleasure of achieving a life goal? Are they not intrinsically different?
3. Knowledge of the consequences – considering Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory rather than deontological, we must predict the consequences. This seems quite absurd and difficult. How can this theory be taken seriously if it relies on us effectively predicting the future. The standard reply to this is that we have a fairly good idea of what the consequences will be.
4. Too demanding – I want a cup of tea. This will make me happy, but I would make more people even more happy if I didn’t have my cup of tea and went about donating and helping solve world poverty. I should therefore abandon this idea of having the cup of tea because Utilitarianism prescribes it. Surely this is too demanding?
5. Too impartial – Supposing a house is on fire, and inside are your mother and a stranger, who is a brain surgeon. You have time to rescue one of these people. According to Utilitarianism, you should rescue the surgeon because it would produce the greatest amount of happiness overall as she would go on to save more people. This is in conflict with deontological theories that you have a duty to your family.
6. Obligations – You have promised to meet a friend at 5pm to help them with homework. However, if more happiness is produced overall from you going to the cinema instead, you are free to ignore the promise.
7. People as means to an end – Utilitarianism treats people as means to the end of an increase of happiness. Imagine a talented pauper who would make thousands happy if only given the chance. He could murder a rich man, take his money and increase overall happiness. He has acceptably (according to Utilitarianism) used this rich man as a means to achieving the end of a production of happiness. Kant says this is wrong; as we live in a kingdom of ends and people should be treated as ends in themselves, not means to an end.
8. Conflict with justice – suppose a terrorist has blown up a pub. An innocent man is arrested, and despite there being no evidence against him, tensions are running high and there is a strong desire for ‘justice’, so the police fabricate evidence and convict him. Overall happiness is increase, but justice has not occurred. According to Utilitarianism however, the moral thing has been done!
9. Moral agency - Jim & the Indians – suppose Jim goes to a village in the middle of an execution. Jim is told he can kill one of the Indians himself and the other 19 will be let go or let all 20 die. Utilitarianism says that he should kill one himself, as this would reduce the most amount of pain. However, it ignores Jim as a moral agent – it ignores the damage to his integrity and that it is he who is doing the act. It simply regards consequences. Surely this is a fault?

Everything discussed above is regarding act utilitarianism.

• Act Utilitarianism – You should assess each and every act in terms of its consequences without concerning ourselves with the past
• Rule Utilitarianism – We learn from experience the kind of actions that in the long run contribute to the most happiness. We should follow these rules.

• Rule Utilitarianism helps us overcome problem 8 with justice
• On its own however, it seems that it is being non-utilitarian and depending on the duties of justice
• Two-level Utilitarianism helps us overcome this, saying that we should use rule utilitarianism most of the time, in every day life, but when faced with conflicts of integrity, duty and promoting the most happiness, we should seek to use act utilitarianism.
• As Richard Hare says – we should act as “proles” most of the time (rule util.) but when faced with conflicts, become “archangels” (act util.)
• This, on Utilitarian grounds, solves Jim’s problem as it can explain both why Jim should feel repulsed at doing such a thing, but should do it anyway.

Ideal Utilitarianism

• As propounded by G.E.Moore – we should act in such a way to promote aesthetic interests; intrinsically valuable things such as love, knowledge and art
• This can be problematic, however – in the notion that it doesn’t seem sensible to suggest that we are gaining something from knowing how many hairs are on our head. Love can often be possessive and destructive, and in a given case the world might be a better place, morally speaking, for not containing it
• A second problem can be discovered when comparing it to Classic Utilitarianism, which says that we should aim to produce happiness and that we are naturally motivated to pursue this. Ideal Utilitarianism gives us no reason, no motivation however to pursue these supposedly “intrinsically good” things. Indeed, knowledge might be intrinsically good, but why should we pursue it?

Kant’s deontological theory

• Kant’s theory is duty based, it is not a consequentialist theory
• There are hypothetical and categorical imperatives
• Hypothetical imperatives contain an antecedent and a consequent; i.e. if you want to go to Ipswich, then take the 10:35 train north The antecedent being the “if” and the consequent being the “then”.
• Categorical imperatives however are simply a case of “just do this”, they do not contain an antecedent. I.e. “do not kill”.
• Moral matters are categorical imperatives, the rest are hypothetical.
• Categorical imperatives can be seen as duties. I.e. the duty not to steal or kill.
• Kant separates duty from desire, as duties are often opposed to desires. If you perform a ‘duty’, because you want to, according to Kant; you are not acting morally.
• Humans have free will in moral matters because they can reflect on their desires
• Kant called our ability to be motivated by reason alone “autonomy”
• Motivation by anything else is “heteronomy” (including desires, emotions etc)
• There is a bizarre paradox though – for if Kant claims we are not morally responsible for things done from desire, if we murder out of desire; we’re not morally responsible
• Kant fixes this using Wille and Willkur
• Willkur decides whether one acts according to moral law or on desires
• Only God possesses a Wille – no desires!
• Kant says that we should use the Categorical Imperative as a test for maxims of an action: if a maxim cannot pass the test it must be rejected as morally unacceptable
• Kant made 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Categorical Imperative first formulation

• Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law

The problem of lying promises

Logical contradiction interpretation:

• I will a world in which everyone will make lying promises, even to me, whenever it is advantageous for him or her to do so”
• If everyone made lying promises then no one would believe promises, so they couldn’t be made  logical contradiction
• However; “I intend to kill my baby that cries more than average to get a good night’s sleep” – no logical contradiction here!

Teleological contradiction interpretation

• Suppose we have an instinct of self love, the purpose of which is self preservation
• Suppose the natural purpose of promising is to establish trust and confidence and the co operation they make possible. False promising, ergo, undermines the purpose for which promising exists on a universal scale. It must therefore be rejected.
• As for suicide – self love, to ensure preservation would be being undermined if someone kills themselves out of “self love” because they cannot bear anymore pain. This must be rejected
• However, consider the suicide again – regardless of whether we do have the self-love instinct; he could will that others commit suicide if in his situation.

Practical contradiction interpretation

• “Who wills the end wills also the means which are indispensably necessary”
• If there is a particular means to achieving your end that must necessarily be done, it would be irrational not to carry out these means
• If you make a lying promise, you are carrying out the practice of promise keeping and the practice of making promises
• So you’re universalising the practice of promise keeping and practice of making lying promises
• CONTRADICTION!
• However, doesn’t work for suicide. Suicide will not be thwarted by universalising the maxim. There is no contradiction

Kant and the problem of lying to a murderer

• A murderer comes into the house looking for his intended victim. He asks you if the victim is in the house (the victim is in the house and you know this)
• According to Kant, it’s your duty not to lie, you must say that he is indeed in the house

How should one respond to this claim?

• Ralph C.S. Walker says that he was possibly going senile
• Roger J. Sullivan’s argument runs as follows:
  • He says that Kant is claiming that “never lie” and “show concern for others” conflict in this case.
  • But, he says, it does not follow from this that the two specific duties: “do not lie, here, now” and “show concern for this person, here, now” conflict.
  • Kant denied that there can be any conflict of duties; if it seems that one must fulfil two duties but cannot, then one of them is not a duty at all
  • So according to Sullivan; Kant is denying that the policy of lying is acceptable, but not that lying in this case is.
  • Kant would have thought it a duty to lie here to help the intended victim
• Christine M. Korsgaard takes it for granted that Kant really did think it was wrong to lie here;
  • She thinks that, on the universal law formula of the categorical imperative, Kant was mistaken in thinking that it leads to the conclusion that one should not lie to the murderer
  • She argues that, if the murderer thinks there is any point in asking you whether the person is in the house, he must believe you do not know he is a murderer, otherwise he’d be fairly sure you’d lie and there’d be no point asking.
  • So, imagine you lie to the murderer. Can we universalise the relevant maxim? Korsgaard, supporting the practical contradiction interpretation, asks: “could there be a universal practice of lying under such conditions?”
  • Her answer is yes. The murderer will believe you.

Categorical Imperative second formulation

• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

Categorical Imperative Third formulation

• Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxims always a law-making member in the universal kingdom of ends.

Advantages - RADA

1. Associates with everyday moral experience – despite complexity, the theory has many points of contact with everyday moral experience. For example, its opposition between acting morally and on one’s desires si something close to many people’s understanding of morality, even those who have never read Philosophy.
2. Absolute moral rules – they must never be broken. This is something with which one is in many cases likely to agree with, such as “one should never inflict needless suffering on the innocent”.
3. Dignity of human beings – respects the dignity and humanity of human beings. Shows that we are worthy of respect and also factors in somewhat of an egalitarian view.
4. Rights – The idea that a human being is worthy of respect and possesses an inherent dignity supports the idea that he has rights, for example the right to freedom or life. This is part of the modern moral consciousness.

Disadvantages - MMMCAC

1. Acting for the sake of the law – Peter Winch in criticising Kant refers to Simone Weil – here a father plays with his child not out of duty but from pure joy and pleasure. Winch points out that there is a kind of purity in the father’s behaviour, but not according to Kant. A father who got no pleasure from playing with his child but simply did so “because he had to” out of a sense of duty is more moral according to Kant. Surely it’s the other way around?!
2. Motivation – Kant says the only important thing from a moral point of view is motivation. However, take Henry James’ novel The Portrait of a Lady. Ralph Touchett intends to help his cousin Isabel Archer who wishes to study and travel by persuading his father to bequeath her £70,000. However, because she is rich she falls prey to Gilbert Osmond, who woos and marries her for her money. One of the central points of this novel is that Ralph is morally responsible even though his intentions were entirely honourable. In such a case, Kant’s emphasis on motivation to the exclusion of consequences seems mistaken.
3. Moral luck – The example above shows us Ralph had bad luck. Ye he was still morally responsible. Take another example – a lorry driver may run over a child even though he could do nothing to prevent the accident, but nonetheless would feel responsible and feel guilty. Kant’s moral theory ignores luck in matters of morality, so it can be argued that it fails to be sensitive to a fact about life which no theorising will make disappear.
4. Common humanity ­– Raimond Gaita argues that Kant’s emphasis upon rationality as the most important feature of human beings is misleading. He says that it is important that humans have a sense of fellowship, but suggests that this sense cannot rest upon the fact we are rational. Rather; as Kant overlooks – it is the fact that we are mortal. In short, when Kant focuses on our rationality as central to our humanity he misses out a great deal of what really does give us a sense of our humanity.
5. Conflict of duties – Many philosophers argue that Kant is mistaken in his rejection that duties can conflict. An example is found in Sophocles’ Antigone in which Antigone is caught between obeying the laws of the state and the laws of the gods. On the one hand she feels she must obey Creon’s edict forbidding the burial of her brother, Polyneices, yet, she believes she must bury him. Either way she does something wrong. It is possible that a contemporary Kantian could respond to this by granting moral dilemmas can arise.
6. Morality as a priori – There are reasons to think that such a theory is possible because a priori moral theory is not justified by any feature of human nature. Many philosophers argue that any theory should involve from the first an understanding of the kind of things that make us happy (i.e. as Utilitarianism does). They argue that if it does not give us a motive to act morally, there is no reason why we should be morally good.

Virtue theory

According to virtue theory; we should live a full life in accordance with the virtues. These virtues we learn and hopefully we will eventually enjoy doing them. There are four cardinal virtues:

1. Courage
2. Temperance
3. Wisdom (practical wisdom)
4. Justice

Advantages

1. Emotional emphasis – it factors in emotions unlike the cold theories of Kantianism or Utilitarianism and can be seen as more ‘realistic’ than them. After all, we do normally think that it is not just important to act, but to feel the right emotions for an act.
2. Pleasure of performing virtues – it is more appealing to think that you are acting morally; virtuously because you want to do so rather than because you are forced to from a sense of duty, for example
3. Moral education – It places given moral decisions concerning what to do in the context of a whole life, seeking to explain how and why he makes certain decisions. It explains how one can receive a “moral education”
4. Considers whole life – considers lives as a whole rather than individual actions. Solon: “we should call no man happy until he is dead”; until he has lived a full life and we can consider it as such.
5. No decision procedure – Morality is so complicated that any theory that attempts to provide such a procedure must be prone to simplifying and distorting morality

Disadvantages

1. Some wicked people are happy – yet the life of virtue is the happy life! Or the virtuous are unhappy.
2. Not all individuals are virtuous – Stefan Zweig said that amongst the kind of people he found most appealing were confidence tricksters, those addicted to morphine, those who handled their life, their time, their money, their health, their good reputation in a squandering and almost scornful manner” because they had a sense of vitality, yet weren’t virtuous. They were exciting to be with yet according to Virtue Theory their actions were anything but commendable. For the same reason we might be happy to live intensely but not so virtuously. (Bertrand Russell made an observation, that perhaps this explains why virtue theorists have often ignored the points just made: “Philosophers, for the most part, are constitutionally timid, and dislike the unexpected. Few of them would be genuinely happy as pirates or burglars”).
3. Vices can produce good, for example an envious writer may be stimulated by successful writers to produce a best-selling book.
4. Cultural relativism – Christianity says that pride is a vice as we owe everything to God, whereas Aristotle placed pride as the central or crowning virtue.
5. Moral life – Hannah Arendt says that virtue theory fails to provide us with a proper understanding of what she called goodness beyond virtue and evil beyond vice. For example, Aristotle; the father of Virtue theory places what he calls two vices; cannibalism and nail biting on a par with each other. Surely nail biting is a vice whereas cannibalism is evil?

Applied Ethics

Abortion

Abortion is defined as 'the expulsion (either spontaneous or induced) of a foetus from the womb before it is able to survive"

This along with euthanasia and animal rights conveys one of the most volatile debates of modern times. Most anti-abortionists would argue that abortion is, effectively; the murder of another person. However, there is a period in which the transition between being simply a 'fertilised egg' and becoming a 'human being' takes place. One of the leading questions heading this debate is when does such a change occur?

There are four main points that mark this change on the timeline;

1. Birth; some people express that the foetus only becomes a "human being" once it has been born
2. Viability; states that it becomes a human being when it can survive on its own.
3. Quickening; the point at which the mother first feels the foetus move in the womb is the point at which it becomes human
4. Capacity to feel pleasure and pain; some argue is the foundational factor which renders a foetus 'human'.

Naturally; there are objections to all of these points. For example, viability is discredited by Peter Singer who notes that a baby born prematurely 30 years ago would not have survived. Yet, today, thanks to medical technology it would. Ergo, according to the viability theory; the foetus would not have been human 30 years ago, yet a same aged foetus today would be. The quickening theory is also open to question; i.e. if a human becomes completely paralysed for a day due to an accident, do they temporarily stop being human while they recover their capacity to feel pleasure and pain?

Human-being / person distinction

A number of philosophers recognise the difficulties in 'drawing the line', and accredit it to confused definitions of the words 'person' and 'human being'. While it might be orthodox to think that these words are synonymous; these philosophers argue the contrary.

Human beings are said to be a member of a 'species'; a biological term categorising us into the race of 'homo sapiens'.

Persons are somewhat different. John Locke defined a person as "a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places". In other words; a 'person' is a rational and self conscious being, regardless of the biological species. It could be argued therefore that self-conscious, rational animals, such as chimpanzees, as Peter Singer argues, are "persons". Singer would argue, therefore, that because foetuses of 8 months are not self-conscious or rational; there are no serious moral problems in aborting them.

These aforementioned 'conscious' aspects of beings can be further categorised into 'non conscious', for example stones or cheese, 'conscious', such as rabbits or fish, or 'self-conscious' such as human beings. It is from these categorisations that we often act. For example, we would show no remorse in attacking some cheese with a large knife, due to its inability to feel pain as a non-conscious entity. However, we would feel somewhat morally reluctant to begin carving at a live rabbit, who is conscious, or furthermore at an 8 month old foetus.

Applying Philosophy to decisions of abortion

Utilitarianism is often used by Philosophers in decisions of abortion. This is the doctrine that suggests we should act in a way to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number.

Singer, who propounds a utilitarian theory in this matter, alludes to the notion that foetuses are 'incapable of feeling pleasure or pain' (arguing at one point that they are less conscious than a prawn, later changing this to a fish). In considering this, juxtaposed with the idea conveyed by the vast majority of utiltiarianists; that pleasure is synonymous with 'happiness' - then the foetus is incapable of being happy and ergo should not be factored in to the decision making to abort. Everyone else's feelings, whether they will be happy or not override, that of the foetus due to its inability to experience either of these emotions.

Concluding from this theory therefore, consider the hypothesis that a woman is the only person who will be emotionally affected (experience pleasure or pain) as a result of having an abortion. If it will make her happy, there are no moral consequences and it is not morally wrong to abort. Many philosophers, along with ordinary people say that this is a "cold" theory; noting that it does not take into account the intrinsically deep and profound nature of raising a child. Effectively, this theory could suggest it was morally acceptable for a woman (providing she was the only one to be morally affected) to abort a foetus after 8 months of pregnancy if her motive of bearing a child in her womb was to stay at home, away from work and watch television.

Foetus potential as an objection to Utilitarianism in abortion

Some philosophers argue that foetuses have the potential to become self-conscious persons. This leads on to the notion that they might lead a very good life and be very happy. Surely this future happiness is as much as a consequence which should be factored into the utilitarian decision making as much as the woman's happiness is. The only difference is the time-scale. This is, in effect, using Utilitarianism against Singer. Nevertheless, Singer responds to this, noting that it is a foetus now and should be treated as such, just as a Prince is a Prince now and should not be treated as a King.

In considering this again, however, recall that Singer defines a person as a self conscious, rational being with capacity to feel pleasure and pain. He does not observe consequences for the foetus in formulating his decision; he simply acts on what the current state of affairs is now. Now, consider someone who is anaesthetised, that is to say; they have been laced with anesthetic and are ergo no longer self conscious, rational or have the capacity to feel pleasure or pain. According to Singer, ergo, it is morally acceptable to kill this non-person, because at the time they did not meet the necessary conditions to be factored into his theory. When we relate this back to abortion, it seems preposterous. Singer might be forced to accept therefore that there are good utilitarian grounds for not accepting abortions.

Philosophy in relation to special cases of abortion; rape / contraceptive failure

The woman who is carrying the foetus is argued in a contemporary context to have 'rights'. There are a number of analogies conveyed by Judith Jarvis Thomson which argue that in certain cases, such as rape or contraceptive failure; abortions can be justified.

Rape - one of the most famous analogies of rape is that of waking up one morning and finding yourself plugged into a famous violinist who has fatal kidney disease. The only way for him to survive is for you to remain plugged into him for 9 months, and unplugging yourself will ensure his death. It seems clear that you haven't asked for this to happen, you haven't invited this parasite and ergo, according to Thomson, you should reserve the right to 'unplug'; or in the context or abortion, terminate the foetus' life.

Contraceptive failure - the analogy of contraceptive failure is to imagine that there are 'people seeds' which float around in the air like pollen and attach like parasites to the inside of houses, growing people. The only way to prevent this is to seal off all windows and doors. However, very rarely; a seed gets through and as a result a person ends up growing, uninvited, unintentionally, despite all precautions taken. Some argue that surely since you didn't wish for this to occur you have the right to remove this people seed; or in less euphemistic terms - kill the foetus.

As interesting as these analogies may seem, they are indubitably somewhat ridiculously contrived. They are simply quintessential science-fiction and cannot be related to the real life moral dilemmas of abortion.

Virtue theory and abortion

Aside from Utilitarianism, virtue theory has tried to be applied to abortion by certain philosophers. For example, rather than considering happiness; pleasure or pain - we should consider virtues and vices. For example, consider the woman who was pregnant for 8 months and aborted in a bid to obsessively watch television at home. Her abortion is morally acceptable in Utilitarian terms. However, under the doctrines of virtue theory, this is a vice of selfishness and ergo might be seen as morally wrong.

To conclude; while Philosophy does attempt to answer some of the questions involved with the controversial debate of abortion by using various theories; it seems that there are certain flaws with them and that the analogies used are often contrived and difficult to relate to real life situations. The line between a foetus and a person is extremely disputable and the theories which attempt to answer this only seem to present us with cold and rational answers.

Euthanasia

• Voluntary euthanasia; where the patient expresses the will to die
• Some fear this may lead to a slippery slope. However, evidence from the Netherlands where this is legal, no such slope has been noted.
• Non voluntary euthanasia; where the person cannot say whether or not they want to die; i.e. babies or people with severe mental illnesses
• Peter singer draws an important distinction between prior existence utilitarianism and total utilitarianism here
• Imagine a couple with two children, the whole family is happy. The couple are thinking of having another child, however, this would mean less money available for the children. On the other hand, they know that if they have another child, this child will also be happy and contribute to happiness overall
• For prior existence utilitarianism- they should not have the new child, for what counts is increasing happiness for those who already exist. Any utilitarian considerations for this child are nonsensical as it does not exist!
• But – consider this case. The parents might know the child would be born with spina bifida, if it’s nonsensical to consider a non existent child’s happiness, then surely the same can be said for their unhappiness. *Therefore, the couple should go ahead and have the child!
• Total Utilitarianism suggests we should consider those who already exist and those who do not yet exist. But – there are odd consequences
• It seems to suggest we should breed as many humans and other creatures as possible in order to increase happiness, at least up until the point where a further increase in population would put strain on limited resources.
• I have room for a cage of mice in the corner of my study. According to Utilitarianism from the total view, I am being immoral in not breeding mice!
• Consider this: a baby is born with haemophilia. As severe as a disability it is – it is no detriment to happiness. Should the baby be killed? Prior existence utilitarianism says no! Total Utilitarianism, however, says that the baby can be replaced with another that is not disabled.
• So total utilitarianism supports infanticide; non voluntary euthanasia for disabled children!
• It also supports it for adult human beings who are no longer autonomous, say, as the result of an accident.
• Old people may fear losing autonomy and being subject to non voluntary euthanasia! Peter Singer might say this is an irrational fear, but if there is no way of removing it then non voluntary euthanasia should not be practised except on those who have never been able to make a choice; i.e. human infants.
• Objections to singer: “doesn’t take into account human significance of raising a child, etc”
• Involuntary euthanasia is where the person does not want to be killed and expresses such, yet is killed anyway. Utilitarianism might even support this, if the person was in extreme agony and had no prospects of ever being released. However, if the person could consent to his death but did not, surely this is an indication that he believes his life is worth living.
• Consequentialism vs Deontology  Rights vs Consequences

Active & Passive Euthanasia

• Active – administration of lethal treatments
• Passive – withdrawal of vital medication
• Imagine a patient dying of cancer is in great pain which will never fade. She will die within a few days. The patient asks her doctor to kill her. James Rachels argues that active euthanasia is the better thing to do here because it reduces the most pain (most prolonged)
• Many object to Rachel’s argument with the acts & omissions and moral agency theory
• However, Rachel responds with the following argument:
• Smith & Jones go to kill a child in the bath to gain inheritance money. Smith kills the child. Jones is about to, when the child slips and dies, he attempts no rescue. Despite one is an act and one is an omission, there is no real moral difference.
• A criticism of Rachel’s argument is that it only holds up some cases. The main reason is that Smith & Jones wanted the cousin to die. However, if I eat ice cream rather than giving money to the poor, I do not want them to die! Motivation counts for a lot! (but not in consequentialist terms)

Animal rights

• An important question is – can animals feel pain?
• Some philosophers say no and thus we have no special rights to them
• Though does this mean the anaesthetised should not be given any special rights?!
• Carruthers argues that animals are non conscious as follows:
• Imagine Abbie is driving along thinking about her next holiday. Her thoughts are not on the road. Suddenly, she “comes to” and returns her attention to the road. She realises she hasn’t the faintest idea what she’s been doing for the last few minutes. Yet clearly she was aware of the road or she would have crashed. Carruthers says that Abbie had of the road a non conscious experience.
• It is possible therefore, Carruthers argues, that an animal might very well be aware of the world, but not conscious of it. Carruthers then says that if animals can’t think to themselves, their pains must be non conscious
• He argues that just as it is mistaken to think there is any real cruelty in children who pull wings off flies are not conscious, so there would be no cruelty in someone who saws a dogs legs off, because dogs are non conscious.
• But surely he’s mistaken about the flies? The principle reason why it is cruel to pull wings off flies is not because the fly feels pain, but because it is a wilful destruction of life.

Objections to Carruthers’ argument

• One could simply deny that Abbie’s experience was not non conscious. As Norman Malcolm argues: “suppose that as you pass an acquaintance he says “hello”; do you think to yourself: “he said hello”. Suppose you didn’t. Is it true therefore that you were not conscious of his greeting? Of course not!
• Secondly, Carruthers’ argument would prescribe us to reject all the behavioural evidence that we have that animals are conscious. It would also require us to suppose that the anatomical similarities between humans and animals are purely co incidental.
• Thirdly, we can ask: can we be more sure of Carruthers’ argument than we are of the ideas that animals are conscious? Surely not!

Peter Singer & Utilitarianism on animal rights

• Let us suppose that animals can feel pleasure and pain and thus can be factored into Utilitarian decisions
• Pushing ones thumb into a small frog would cause as much pain as whacking a large plank across a baby
• But we shouldn’t feel that the baby’s pain is more important, they’re the same amounts of pain! This would be being speciesist!
• Singer concludes that “all animals needs are equal”. We humans are included in the notion “animals”. We are equal to, say, koalas.

Practical implications of Singer’s argument

• Many animals are kept in battery farms to satisfy our pleasures. All things being equal, in Utilitarian terms however; the animals pain overrides our pleasure and thus we should not eat meat from battery farms.
• What of free-range farms then? Singer refers to previous notions… that some animals are self-conscious “persons” and thus should not be killed. Chickens, however, can be killed and eaten so long as our pleasure in eating them is greater than the pleasure they lose. He doubts the Utilitarian calculus will come down in our favour. However, he grants that chickens are replaceable.
• Utilitarianism is therefore against eating most meats. Singer is also against vivisection for cosmetic purposes, but perhaps not for medical purposes as it might be argued the pleasure gained would be greater overall. However, it is unlikely since we can never tell in advance the results of such a test.

Criticisms of Singer’s argument

• The deepest criticisms of Singer’s position are those given by Cora Diamond and implicitly by Raimond Gaita:
• Singer fails to recognise the fundamental reason we don’t eat each other is because we respect human fellowship and think that a human being is not something to be eaten, not that it is not in the other person’s interests!
• Yet, Singer argues its not in the animals’ interests to be eaten and thus we should not.
• Contradiction! Hurrah!
• Diamond argues that, if we are to treat animals better than we do – we should seek to extend a sense of fellowship to other animals. Yet Singer’s arguments involve absolutely no sense of this, either amongst human beings or between humans and animals
• Diamond argues that he fails to completely engage with the reality before us when we think about the treatment of animals
• Singer provides us with simply a “solution” – leaving out the deeper understanding of what the difficulties are! Tut tut, you have no emotions Singer!

Kant and Regan on animals

• Kant says that only rational creatures should be treated as ends in themselves
• So we can be cruel to animals?
• No! Because this would allow people to cultivate a general disposition of cruelty, and this would be immoral. Therefore, we should not be cruel to animals as this nurtures dispositions which are “serviceable to morality”.
• Tom Regan points out that Kant cannot make sense of the fact that foetuses, infants, even some human adults lack intellectual capacities that define Kantian personhood. Apparently, we may treat these beings as means to ends.
• Regan tries to patch up this gap in Kant’s argument by saying that rationality is not what gives something rights; but rather, whether it is a “subject-of-a-life”. A subject-of-a-life is something that has feelings, beliefs and desires, a creature that has an experience of the world.
• This includes babies and animals!
• So – using animals as means is wrong. Ergo, all farming and vivisection should be BANNED.

Criticisms of Regan

• Diamond says Regan is guilty of the misunderstanding of the nature of human beings of animals she thinks Singer is guilty of
• Carl Cohen argues that only persons have rights because they are members of a moral community and not simply “subjects-of-a-life”

Comments

The notes are suitable for someone studying the topic of moral philosophy for AS Level philosophy. The are aimed for the AQA exam board, but will also be suitable for other exam board specifications.

These notes were originally written by HearTheThunder in this thread on TSR Forums.