Morality and Ethics Part 1
Summary
TLDRIn this lecture, Wisdail introduces the foundational concepts of morality and ethics, exploring their definitions and applications. The video distinguishes between personal morals and societal ethics, delves into meta-ethical theories like moral realism and relativism, and examines various ethical frameworks, including Divine command, natural law, categorical imperative (deontology), and utilitarianism. The lecture aims to equip viewers with the knowledge to critically evaluate moral decisions and enhance their debating skills, ultimately encouraging self-reflection on one's ethical stance.
Takeaways
- 😀 The lecture aims to provide foundational understanding of different ethical theories and practices in morality and ethics.
- 🧠 Learning about morality and ethics helps to open minds, shape worldviews, critique personal frameworks, and understand different perspectives.
- 🤔 There is no single 'correct' ethical theory; debates often focus on which theory is most relevant for a specific situation.
- 📚 The lecture series includes an overview of morality vs. ethics, meta-ethics, and four key ethical theories: Divine command, natural law, categorical imperative, and utilitarianism.
- 🤝 The thought experiment involving a bank robbery scenario is used to provoke thought on personal ethical decision-making.
- 🔑 Morality is defined as an individual's sense of right and wrong, while ethics are the societal norms and rules that guide behavior.
- 🌐 Meta-ethics explores whether moral truths are absolute or relative, and whether they are objective facts or subjective opinions.
- 📜 The Divine command Theory and natural law Theory are both contingent on belief in God, which can limit their persuasiveness in debates.
- 💡 The categorical imperative by Kant focuses on the intent behind actions, emphasizing universalizability and treating people as ends, not means.
- 🌟 Utilitarianism, in contrast, prioritizes the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, with a distinction between act and rule utilitarianism.
- 🏆 The conclusion emphasizes the importance of understanding one's actions and those of others through the lens of ethical theories.
Q & A
What is the main purpose of learning about morality and ethics according to the lecture?
-The main purpose of learning about morality and ethics is to open our minds, shape our worldview, recognize and name our beliefs, critique our own frameworks for understanding the world, challenge our own beliefs, and see how other people think, which is particularly useful in debating and evaluating debates.
What is the difference between morality and ethics as defined in the lecture?
-Morality refers to an individual's definition of what is wrong and right, coming from the individual, while ethics are generally recognized rules within a culture or society, coming from the society at large and having a more external influence.
What is a thought experiment presented in the lecture?
-The thought experiment involves a scenario where two accomplices, Yangtag and Ghana, are arrested for robbing a bank and are offered a deal by a prosecutor based on their decision to confess or remain silent, highlighting the conflict between personal freedom and the welfare of the accomplice.
What are the two main branches of meta-ethics discussed in the lecture?
-The two main branches of meta-ethics discussed are moral realism, which includes moral absolutism and moral relativism, and moral anti-realism, which includes moral subjectivism.
What is the Divine command Theory and how does it relate to determining right and wrong?
-The Divine command Theory posits that the rules determining what is right or wrong come from God or religious text. According to this theory, actions are considered right because God commanded them or are commanded by God because they are inherently right.
Can you explain the natural law theory and its origin?
-The natural law theory, proposed by Thomas Aquinas, suggests that there are basic goods put into place by God, such as life, reproduction, and education of offspring. From these goods, we derive natural laws that guide our understanding of what is good or bad.
What is the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant, and what does it emphasize?
-The categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant emphasizes that moral obligations are derived from pure reason, independent of religious beliefs. It focuses on the intent behind an action and the moral law, advocating for universalizability and treating people as ends, not means.
What is utilitarianism, and what principle does it follow?
-Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. It follows the principle of utility and requires making decisions from the position of an unbiased stranger.
What is the difference between classic utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?
-Classic utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people in the immediate sense, while rule utilitarianism considers the long-term effects and aims to maximize happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people over time, considering the precedent set by actions.
How does the lecture conclude about the significance of understanding morality and ethics?
-The lecture concludes that understanding morality and ethics provides a framework for comprehending the actions we take and those around us, emphasizing the importance of living well, doing good, and loving deeply.
Outlines
📚 Introduction to Morality and Ethics
The speaker, Wisdail, introduces the topic of morality and ethics, setting the stage for a foundational understanding of various ethical theories and practices. The lecture aims to provide knowledge essential for debate application, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and critiquing one's own beliefs and understanding different ethical frameworks. The speaker outlines the lecture's structure, which includes the difference between morality and ethics, meta-ethics, and an overview of four ethical theories: Divine command theory, natural law theory, categorical imperative (deontology), and utilitarianism. A thought experiment involving a bank robbery scenario is presented to provoke thought on personal ethical decision-making.
🔍 Exploring Meta-Ethics and Moral Realism
This section delves into meta-ethics, which provides a framework for understanding the nature of ethical claims. The speaker explains moral realism, which posits that certain moral truths are absolute and unchanging. This includes moral absolutism and moral relativism, with the latter suggesting that moral views can vary between cultures. The speaker discusses the challenges of moral realism, such as the source of objective moral facts, and contrasts it with moral anti-realism, which denies the existence of objective moral truths, instead suggesting that morality is subjective and dependent on individual perspectives or cultural contexts.
🌐 The Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory
The speaker presents two ethical theories rooted in religious or divine principles: the Divine command theory and the natural law theory. The Divine command theory suggests that moral rules are derived from God's commands, while the natural law theory, attributed to Thomas Aquinas, posits that there are inherent goods given by God, from which we derive natural laws. The speaker also addresses potential criticisms of these theories, particularly their reliance on belief in God, which may limit their applicability in secular debates.
📘 Categorical Imperative and Deontology
The speaker introduces the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant, an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of reason and moral law, independent of religious belief. The categorical imperative is based on the principle of universalizability, which requires that moral rules should be applicable universally. Kant's theory also stresses treating people as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. The speaker provides an example of a software engineer faced with a moral dilemma to illustrate how deontology would guide decision-making in such a scenario.
🌟 Utilitarianism: Consequences and the Greatest Good
Utilitarianism is explored as an ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. The speaker differentiates between classic utilitarianism, which seeks immediate benefits, and rule utilitarianism, which considers long-term outcomes. A hypothetical scenario involving organ donation is used to illustrate the stark differences between utilitarian ethics and other theories, such as deontology, and to highlight the moral complexities that arise from prioritizing overall utility.
🌿 Conclusion: Reflecting on Morality and Ethics
In the concluding section, the speaker summarizes the key points of the lecture, emphasizing the importance of understanding the difference between morality and ethics, the concepts within meta-ethics, and the various ethical theories presented. The speaker encourages reflection on personal ethical decision-making, using the knowledge gained to evaluate actions and their consequences. The aim is to equip the audience with a framework for understanding and critiquing ethical theories and their applications in real-life scenarios.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Morality
💡Ethics
💡Meta Ethics
💡Moral Realism
💡Moral Relativism
💡Moral Anti-Realism
💡Divine Command Theory
💡Natural Law Theory
💡Categorical Imperative
💡Utilitarianism
Highlights
Introduction to the foundational understanding of different ethical theories and practices in morality.
The importance of learning about morality and ethics to open our minds and shape our worldview.
The distinction between having beliefs without names and the utility of ethical theories in critiquing our understanding frameworks.
The absence of a universally correct ethical theory and the importance of comparative analysis.
Overview of the lecture content, including the difference between morality and ethics, meta-ethics, and four ethical theories.
A thought experiment involving a prosecutor's offer to two accomplices to explore personal ethical decision-making.
The definition of morality as an individual's sense of right and wrong, and ethics as societal norms.
The conflict between personal morals and professional ethics, exemplified by a lawyer's dilemma.
Introduction to meta-ethics, including moral realism, moral relativism, and moral anti-realism.
Exploration of moral absolutism and the challenges of determining objective moral facts.
The concept of moral relativism and its implications for cultural differences in moral beliefs.
Moral anti-realism and subjectivism, suggesting morality is situation-dependent rather than absolute.
Ethical theories as consistent frameworks for differentiating right from wrong.
The Divine command Theory, linking morality to religious commandments.
Natural law theory by Thomas Aquinas, deriving moral laws from basic goods put in place by God.
Categorical imperative by Emmanuel Kant, emphasizing moral obligations derived from pure reason.
Utilitarianism, focusing on the consequences of actions and maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.
The difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in terms of immediate versus long-term outcomes.
Practical applications of ethical theories in various scenarios, including the doctor's dilemma in organ donation.
Conclusion emphasizing the importance of understanding the actions we take and those around us through ethical frameworks.
Transcripts
hi everyone my name is wisdail and today
we're going to be looking at morality
and ethics this is the first lecture in
a series of two and the second lecture
will look at a more practical
application of whatever we're going to
learn today whilst this lecture is going
to be a foundational understanding of
different ethic ethical theories and
practices in Morality the aim of this is
to equip you with knowledge required to
apply in debating but why it all should
we care about learning about morality
and ethics the first thing is that it
opens our mind and shapes our world view
it's important to recognize that
although we currently have beliefs we
often don't have names for those beliefs
so we use certain ethical theories when
making decisions but we don't even know
what those things are called right and
we also aren't able to see the flaws in
those lines of thinking learning about
these ethical theories allows us to
critique our own Frameworks for
understanding the world it helps us to
challenge our own beliefs as well as see
how other people think and of course
there is some use in debating which is
not necessarily to provide argumentation
but it's to help with evaluation of
debates so you can use an ethical Theory
or an ethical framework to evaluate a
debate there is no such thing as an
ethical theory that is the correct way
there are only different ways that we
have that many people adopt all we can
do is draw the comparatives between the
different ethical theories and at the
end of the day the winner in the debate
is the is the team that can show you
which ethical theory is most relevant
for its usage at that point in time
so let's look at an overview of what
we're going to get in this particular
lecture we're first going to look at the
difference between morality and ethics
then we're going to look at something
called meta ethics then we're going to
look at four ethical theories firstly
the Divine command Theory next the
natural law theory
thirdly the categorical imperative also
known as deontology and fourthly we're
going to look at utilitarianism
all right so to begin let's look at a
little bit of a thought experiment right
and this is something that's completely
hypothetical and has no real world
relevance whatsoever uh so yangtag and
Ghana have been arrested for robbing the
YSL bank and are placed in separate
isolation cells both care much more
about their personal freedom than the
welfare of their accomplice a clever
prosecutor makes the following offer to
each you may choose to confess or remain
silent if you confess and your
accomplice remains silent I will drop
all charges against you and use your
testimony to ensure that you're
accomplished as serious time and
likewise if your accomplish confesses
whilst you remain silent they will go
free whilst due to the time
if you both confess I get two
convictions but I'll see to you that you
both can early parole and if you vote to
remain silent I'll have to settle for
token sentences on firearm possess
possession charges if you wish to
confess you may leave a note with the
Jailer tomorrow morning what would you
as Ghana do now I'm not going to give
you an answer to this thought experiment
but you're welcome to pause this video
or just reread the slide and think about
internally what you would do but
furthermore pay attention to the reason
as to why you would do what you ideally
want to do and at the end of this video
or at the end of this lecture hopefully
you have an ethical Theory which gives
you a name towards your line of thinking
for this particular thought experiment
so at the end of this lecture come back
to the store experiment and wonder and
ask yourself what would you do and then
try and name the ethical theory that you
had internally and just ignore
whatever's written in green writing at
the bottom there I don't I don't know
how that got there right so let's look
at the difference between morality and
ethics so this is just simply in terms
of definition and it's not an absolute
definition so morals versus ethics in
terms of what they are where they come
from and why we apply them so what are
models they are an individual's
definition of what is wrong and right
ethics however level are generally
recognized rules within a culture or
Society models generally come from the
individual in other words it is
individual and ethics come from the
society at large in other words it has a
more external influence
why do we apply them we apply morals
because we believe in something being
right or wrong and ethics we apply them
because society says it's ideally the
right thing to do
but however there's also a conflict that
occurs between the definitions of
morality and ethics the definition of
the previous slide are not absolute they
just give us a general idea of both
concepts for example a lawyer's models
may tell them that murder is
reprehensible and that murder must be
punished however their ethics as a
professional lawyer requires them to
defend their client to the best of their
ability even if they know that the
client is guilty this example is useful
to show us the difference between
morality and ethics in terms of
definition in that morality is your own
personal feeling so personally I may
feel that murder is wrong if I were a
lawyer but ethically I am Bound by an
ethical code created for lawyers for
example right the same thing occurs for
practicing physicians in medicine okay
let's look at the idea of meta ethics
there's a framework for understanding
meta ethics now meta ethics is basically
a complex there's a lot of complicated
words just to explain things that we
already know right so this just gives us
a framework upon which we will build our
ethical theories right so this framework
that is on the slide here is let's just
go through it so we have meta ethics
which is split into two types we have
model realism and model anti-realism
right and under moral realism we have
model absolutism and moral relativism
under model anterioralism we have model
subjectivism right so there's quite a
few words quite wordy but let's look at
what each of them mean in more detail so
starting with meta ethics let's look at
first moral realism right moral realism
just simply says that certain things are
always wrong and other things are always
right this is also known as model
absolutism basically an extreme stance
is taken for example a model realist
might believe that extreme violence
towards another person is always wrong
at every single point in time right so
that's all moral realists believe
however there is a problem with this
meta ethic framework which is that if
such thing as a moral fact exists who
determines them who determines what is
absolutely right or absolutely wrong and
that's just a a rhetorical question for
you to think about right if it is true
that there are such things that are
objectively right and wrong where does
that objectiveness come from
the next option is moral relativism
right and this is a bit more lenient in
saying that more than one view can be
correct relative to other views and
under moral relativism we have
descriptive cultural relativism and
normative cultural relevant relativism
right and the difference between that is
just that descriptive says that people's
beliefs differ from culture to culture
what's normative says that it's not the
beliefs that differ but the moral
effects that differ between cultures in
other words who am I to tell other
cultures how to live
and a lot of us may actually adopt The
Stance of thinking which is okay but
there is a problem with it so if we do
believe in moral relativism would you
say that they may be things that are
objectively right and wrong but it
differs between cultures and that's okay
essentially right the problem is if all
cultures are right that means that none
are wrong so if what everyone is doing
now is right then there's no need for
change or moral progress so that really
brings this Theory into question because
then we can't say that every culture is
right and it is a common thing within
liberal spaces to believe that every
single thing that every culture believes
is right and we want to preserve it but
the question then becomes about what
does that do for the global
um the global movement towards moral
progress or change right that's just
something to think about and then on the
other end of things we get something
called moral anterioralism which
basically means which is the opposite of
moral realism moral anti-realists
believe that there's no such thing as an
objectively right or wrong thing there
are no moral facts it's solely dependent
on the situation so an example of this
or a type of this is moral subjectivism
which says that the death penalty is
neither right nor wrong but people have
different views on it based on a variety
of factors for example cultural or
social influence Etc right another
example using the violence from earlier
a moral realist would believe that
violence is absolutely wrong independent
of the circumstance a moral anterialist
would be like no there's nothing
inherently wrong with violence but it
can be good or bad based on when it is
used right and most people including
myself would fall on the spectrum of
moral anti-realism for most things
however in something far more serious
than violence for example murder
I personally believe that mother is
something that is an objectively wrong
thing right for me no matter what if you
are killing someone else that is bad
right there's no way in which I can say
oh it is a Justified stance so it is
something that is objectively bad but
for you you may feel differently and
that is okay right because difference is
a good thing so the point of this is to
just help you understand where you stand
in method at meta ethics so are you a
moral realist or are you a moral
anteriorist and there is no right or
wrong weirdly enough right in this you
can have any theory that you want to
have and these things aren't necessarily
going to be applied
um too much in debates however the thing
that is going to be applied much more
are the ethical theories and given that
a lot of meta ethics seems like a very
messy
um challenge of definitions and what
ought to be defined as what ethic
ethical theories help us provide a
consistent framework for differentiating
right from wrong the key word there is a
consistent framework so ethical theories
are consistent they are meant to be
based on consistency and if you're
sticking with an ethical Theory you
ought to stick with it to the fullest
extent right so let's look at the
ethical theories
the first ethical Theory which you're
going to talk about is something called
The Divine command Theory this basically
says that the rules that determine what
is right or wrong come from God or
religious text and this is one of the
most common ethical theories worldwide
right however the usage in debating is
discouraged although it's worth
consideration and basically what it says
is that I believe for example that
killing or stealing is wrong because God
said it is wrong right
and then the question then becomes about
are actions right because God commanded
them or actions commanded by God because
they are right and that's a very
interesting thing to think about and I
feel that way personally so that's
something for you to think about as well
right um what determines the right
action in God's eyes or um looking at
that right that's the Divine command
theory in essence
the next theory is the natural law
theory this was proposed by a guy named
Thomas Aquinas so what Thomas said was
that there are basic Goods put into
place by God right and when we say Goods
we don't mean like physical goods and
services you know like that kind of
thing we mean Goods as in basic things
that exist that are right and put in
place by God right for example life to
reproduce to educate our Offspring to
avoid offense there were about seven of
them also right but I just put in some
more relevant examples of the goods
according to Thomas Aquinas and what
this Theory said the natural law theory
is that God gave us the tools we need in
order to know what is good or bad and
then the natural law is derived from
these goods for example for the good of
life which is given to us by God we are
able to derive laws for that so we can
derive a negative law and a positive law
what does this mean right just stick
with me so the negative law would be do
not kill mean do not take Life Away
whilst the positive law would be promote
or preserve life for example by loving
others so what the natural law theory
says is that basically there is a good
that is put into place by God such as
life and God gave us the ability to
determine what to do with that life some
of us may approach it negatively which
means here's life we must make a
negative law which says that do not kill
do not do anything against life or we
may make a positive law which is promote
life or preserve life right but you
would also note that both those laws
lead to a very similar end which is that
we want to almost have life in existence
we want that good to be protected you
know uh so whether it's a negative law
or positive law it doesn't matter the
natural law theory just says that God
gave us these things we derive things
from that right we derive our own
framework from these basic Goods so I
hope that makes sense
but there's always but if God gave us
the ability to recognize good and do
good then why do people ignore the
natural law all the time right and
there's two reasons for this and these
things are useful in debating because
you do see this quite often and this is
something that we know why do people
ignore the supposed natural law if it
does exist number one because of
ignorance right we seek what we think is
good even when it isn't good and that's
something that always happens with
humans right and the second thing is
emotion which is where we see what we
should do but emotion overpowers our
reason and this is something that all of
us can relate to right we know that this
currently happens it doesn't take too
much explanation but as you can see the
problem with the two theories that I've
mentioned thus far which is the Divine
command Theory and the natural law
theory are that both are contingent on
belief in God meaning that these aren't
going to be convincing to anyone who
doesn't believe in God that is why their
usage in debating is discouraged right
the reason why I've put these theories
in is that you can be aware of their
existence and many of us may subscribe
to them and that is okay I personally
subscribe to the Divine command Theory
and there's nothing wrong with that it's
just that when it does come to debating
you can't say oh this ought to be right
because God said it is right you know
you have to find a different way of
arguing around that right but it is
important to know when consider the
Divine command Theory and the natural
law theory but now there's two more
theories which are more important which
we're going to look at
the first one is the categorical
imperative by a guy called Emmanuel Kant
so
what Khan said was that they are moral
obligations derived from Pure reason
right a moral obligation basically means
what we should do what's the right thing
to do right so he says that the moral
obligation is derived from Pure reason
right moral law is binding no matter
whether you follow religion or not and
we must use a reason and consideration
for others
so essentially this is the first theory
that you can see that breaks away from
the idea of using religion or God to
determine our morality instead it is our
own reason and ability to think as
humans that should determine this right
and in order to do this we ought to ask
what is the general rule behind an
action for example if you are okay with
stealing for example stealing a
chocolate bar from a convenience store
then what Kant says is that you are
saying that this principle of stealing
ought to be universable meaning that
everyone should be always allowed to
steal however we know that stealing
isn't universalizable right therefore we
shouldn't excuse ourselves from that
principle this is called
universalizability principle so
basically what Kant is saying is that if
you want to take an action right in
order to determine whether that action
is good or bad think about what would
happen if that action was applied to
everyone in the world would it still be
then be good or bad so if you want to
steal
if it was okay then for every single
person on Earth to steal then the action
would be moral all good but what we do
know is that it's really not okay for
every single person in the world to
steal so therefore that shouldn't be
applied in our own personal lives
therefore stealing shouldn't be more
makes sense
but furthermore what Kant also tells us
is that you should not violate the moral
law even for good reason
and he also tells us that we should
treat people as an end and not hemia
means right Mia is the key word there
because we use people as a means all the
time and that's okay we use people for
help we use people to get information
and that's fine as long as we don't
treat them as a mere means that's what
kante says right we should not fail to
recognize the fact that they have
autonomy that they have goals that they
have values and we have absolute moral
worth we shouldn't be manipulating
others and an interesting perspective
from count was on the idea of a line and
why lying is bad and what Khan tells us
is that when you lie to someone you rob
them of the opportunity to exercise
their autonomy because they can't act
using correct information basically
whenever you tell someone something
which is ideally the truth they can use
that information autonomously but when
you lie to them you rob them of the
ability to use the correct information
autonomously which is quite an
interesting perspective online I don't
know how much I buy into that however
it's the way that the categorical
imperative and deontology works on the
intent behind the action and the moral
law not necessarily the consequence so
it's that we must follow this moral law
and we can also look at a bit of extra
application of the categorical
imperative and of course in the next
part two of this lecture we're going to
look at pure application of especially
these theories but this is just to just
a basic idea so this ethical framework
is useful in debating especially in
scenarios where we encounter identity
politics or atrocities committed against
many people it's a useful way to
evaluate whether the action was model in
and of itself using reason
an example of deontology in practice so
suppose you're a software engineer and
you learn that a nuclear missile is
about to launch and that might start a
war you can hack the network and cancel
the launch but it's against your
professional code of ethics to break
into any software system without
permission moreover it's a form of lying
and cheating
deontology advises not to violate this
rule remember the moral law is binding
however in letting the missile launch
thousands of people will die but a
deontologist doesn't really care about
that they say that you ought to not
violate the model law and you ought to
stick to that moral obligation that
comes from reason so that is how
deontology would work in this case you
would
you would not let the missile
um or you would let them launch right
because it's against your own
professional code of conduct to break
into that Software System makes sense
right
and next let's look at the other end of
the Spectrum which is utilitarianism and
this is something that we've all heard
about surely before but even if you
haven't heard about it it's okay right
because we're going to learn about it so
utilitarianism focuses on the
consequences of action whilst deontology
and Emmanuel Kant and the categorical
imperative focused on the moral law and
the reason behind an action being the
most important utilitarianism says the
reason is not so important but the
overall outcome or consequence of the
action is the most important thing
so utilitarians say that action should
be measured in terms of the pleasure or
happiness they produce for the greatest
number of people this is the principle
of utility we should make decisions from
the position of an unbiased stranger
which in my opinion is a very difficult
thing to do but as a utilitarian you
ought to strive to do this to attempt to
do this and utilitarians say that pain
is pain no matter who is experiencing it
and there's two broad types of
utilitarianism such which are classic
utilitarianism and Rural utilitarianism
so classic is basically saying that we
must ensure that in every action we take
we have the greatest good for the
greatest number of people simple rule
utilitarianism says the same thing we
must have the greatest good for the
greatest number of people but in the
long term right that's the key
difference so there may be an action
that may be good for people now the most
amount of people now but if it's not
good for the most amount of people in
the long run we shouldn't take that
action right but again we are evaluating
on the basis of what happens
to the amount of people what is the
consequence for these people
and here's an example of the application
of utilitarianism so there's a doctor in
a hospital with an organ donation list
five people need organ donations one
needs a heart one needs a pair of lungs
two need a kidney each and one needs a
liver and if you haven't figured it out
now all those organs needed can come
from one person right and there's a high
likelihood of these people dying if they
do not receive these organs
the doctor also has a neighbor who just
sits around at home all day is horrible
to people doesn't contribute to society
no one would know if the neighbor
disappeared and it would make no
difference to everyone's deity living so
I know what you're thinking but
utilitarians find a way to justify right
so a classic utilitarian would say yes
it is Justified to kill the neighbor to
harvest these organs because you end up
saving the lives of five people
this is quite harsh but on a way up the
potential pain for five people is far
worse than the potential pain for one
person
so you can see the way up in terms of
consequence and if pain is pain and pain
is equal it the only differentiating
factor between pain is how many people
experience that same level of pain so if
we are able to prevent five people from
saving from feeling that pain versus
just ensuring that one person feels that
pain on the way up it seems a bit better
to help the fight and that's what
classic utilitarians would say however a
rule utilitarian would say that although
this does seem good now we would be
setting up for a dangerous precedent in
future
remember the long-term effect we would
live in a society where innocent people
could be killed for organ donation and
that Society will have far less utility
than a society where you don't live in
constant fear of that happening to you
that's quite interesting right at
Society will have far less utility than
a society where you don't live in
constant fear of that happening to you
that's very interesting to me that very
very interesting so that is what a rule
utilitarian would say and that is
something that although it does seem
like a stretch to say that now if this
does happen that in every society in the
future we'd be in society where innocent
people could be killed for organ
donation it doesn't make a bit of a
stretch right but that's just the way
that you rule utilitarian would think so
if you are utilitarian which is
something that we do a lot in debating
we have to assume the role of a
utilitarian or a deontologist just for
the role of debating
um make sure that uh you know the effect
and the time frame of that effect that's
basically the message that I am
construing there but we look at more
application in part two
okay and to conclude number one nothing
at all matters right and live well do
good or not and love deeply but
importantly you now have a framework for
understanding the actions you take as
well as those around you so what we've
covered is an idea or indifference
between morality and ethics in terms of
definition we know that morality is more
internal whilst ethics is more an
external framework that we follow we
then looked at meta ethics which
differentiated us between moral realists
and model anterioralists meaning that do
we believe in such things as being
objectively wrong or do we believe that
things are not objectively wrong but
it's dependent on circumstance and then
we looked at ethical theories
such as the Divine command Theory which
says that God said something is wrong
therefore it's wrong or the natural law
theory which is that God gave us the
ability to determine that what God has
given us is right or wrong and we
determine whether it's right or wrong we
form our own natural laws from it the
third thing being categorical
imperatives which is that the moral law
exists independent of religion and it is
binding and we ought to focus on the
reason behind an action the intent
behind an action using our reason and
ability to think about things and then
utilitarians would say it's not about
our reason it's not about our intent but
it's about the outcome of our actions
that's the most important thing and it's
quite simple to understand these
theories and hopefully you've got a
little bit more knowledge now on what
these theories are called why they used
and where they can be used and that's
the whole aim of morality and ethics
part one so thank you very much and I
hope to see you in the next lecture
[Music]
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)