PHIL 106 Contemporary Ethical Issues

Week 2 Wednesday lecture: Consequentialism 1

Two types of altruism:

Psychological altruism A behavior is psychologically altruistic if and only if it is motivated by an ultimate desire for the well-being of some other organism.

Evolutionary altruism

A behavior is evolutionarily altruistic if and only if it decreases the reproductive fitness of the organism exhibiting the behavior and increases the fitness of some other organism.

Sometimes cooperating is best

I love these guys.

I must help.

Some people doubt that psychological altruism is even possible

Psychological egoism = All human actions, when properly understood, can be seen to be motivated by selfish desires. Certainly humans are often selfish, but is it plausible that we are always selfish? Would it make sense, from an evolutionary perspective, for us to be unfailingly selfish?

Evolution tends to prefer simple and economical Belief that solutions pain! fingers are
injured

withdraw hand

pain!

Belief that fingers are injured

withdraw hand

Perception of my child hurt

Desire for my childs welfare

Action: parent helps child

Perception of my child hurt Belief that my childs welfare contributes to my welfare

Action: parent helps child

Desire for my own welfare

What is egoism?
Psychological egoism = All human actions, when properly understood, can be seen to be motivated by selfish desires.

Ethical egoism
= All human actions should be motivated by selfish desires. The best course of action is always to try to benefit yourself.

Divisions of ethics:

Meta-ethics Normative ethics next few lectures

Applied ethics

Ethical egoism is a normative ethical theory

Two traditional families of moral theories: CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES vs. DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

What is consequentialism?

What kinds of things can be morally assessed?

people actions events e.g., John is mean. Keeping promises is obligatory. The Holocaust was appalling.

states of affairs A world without suffering is better than a world with suffering. objects That painting is depraved.

CONSEQUENTIALISM: Actions are to be morally assessed solely by the consequences they produce.
Consequentialism implies that we can identify what is of intrinsic value, and then actions can be morally assessed according to whether they produce that value. In other words, consequentialists first define goodness, and then define rightness in reference to the production of goodness.

One version of consequentialism:

EGOISM

Not to be confused with EGOTISM Egotism = having an over-inflated opinion of yourself

Ethical egoism: All human actions should be motivated by selfish desires. The best course of action is always to try to benefit yourself.
Compare this to free market capitalism:

Free markets, in which companies and businesses seek profit, result in a much more productive society than when they try to look after each other.
However, this isnt actually egoism. The real value here is creating a productive society, and selfishness is just a means to that end.

All human actions should be motivated by selfish desires, because society actually flourishes better that way.
As soon as one adds the justification, it ceases to be egoism, because one has appealed to something else thats valuable other than ones own welfare. But according to egoism, the only thing thats valuable is ones own welfare.

Is ethical egoism a coherent ethical theory?

Ethical egoism:
Gee, I really like Brads pipe. It would be in my best interests to have it. I should steal it.

Mary

Brad

But what does Mary think about what Brad ought to do?

1.

Brad should let me steal his pipe, because its in my best interests to have the pipe.
Brad should not let me steal his pipe, because its in his best interests to keep the pipe.

2.

OPTION 1: When A morally judges Bs actions, A should consider whether those actions will benefit A.
Marys judgment about Brads actions: Brad should let Mary steal the pipe. Brads judgment about Marys actions: Mary should not steal the pipe. Marys judgment about her own actions: Mary should steal the pipe. Brads judgment about his own actions: Brad should stop Mary stealing the pipe.

Ethical egoism:

?
whatever is in his interests to say

Is it morally ok for Mary to steal Brads pipe?

OPTION 2: When A morally judges Bs actions, A should consider whether those actions will benefit B.
What should Brad do? He should stop me stealing the pipe, since its in his interests to keep it. But what should I do? I should steal the pipe, since its in my interests to have it.

This does begin to look incoherent.

The egoist has a reply to this Mary judges that she ought to steal the pipe, and she also judges that Brad ought to stop her.

But it doesnt follow that she wants both these outcomes. (That would be incoherent.) When Mary agrees that Brad ought to stop her from stealing the pipe, it doesnt follow that she wants him to.

Think of it as like watching sports

So perhaps this is a coherent psychological attitude after all: Mary ought to steal Brads pipe if its in her interests to have it, and Brad ought to stop her stealing his pipe if its in his interests to keep it. This is something both Mary and Brad can agree to.
But does this sound like the basis of a moral system?

One might say that this is what people ought to do, but according to Ethical Egoism this is what people morally ought to do. And that doesnt seem very plausible.

I ought to steal his stuff. He ought to stop me. Also, he ought to steal my stuff. But I ought to stop him.

She ought to steal my stuff. But I ought to stop her. Also, I ought to steal her stuff. But she ought to stop me.

morality?