Morality and Ethics Part 1

Summary

In 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:01

🔍 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.

10:02

🌐 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.

15:03

📘 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.

20:04

🌟 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.

Keywords

💡Morality

Morality refers to an individual's personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. It is a set of principles that guide behavior based on ethical standards. In the video, morality is distinguished from ethics, with the former being internal and the latter being external societal rules. The script uses the example of a lawyer who may morally believe murder is wrong but ethically must defend their client, illustrating the conflict between personal morality and professional ethics.

💡Ethics

Ethics are the collectively recognized rules of right and wrong conduct within a culture or society. They are external influences that dictate what is considered the right thing to do. The video emphasizes that ethics come from societal norms and are applied because society deems them as such, contrasting them with the individual's personal moral compass.

💡Meta Ethics

Meta ethics is a philosophical inquiry into the nature of ethical thought and the meaning of ethical language. The video explains meta ethics as a framework that underpins ethical theories, discussing moral realism and moral anti-realism, and their subdivisions. It helps viewers understand the foundational concepts that inform different ethical perspectives.

💡Moral Realism

Moral realism is the belief that there are objective moral truths that are universally valid, independent of human beliefs or opinions. The script introduces moral absolutism as a form of moral realism, suggesting that certain actions are always right or wrong. This concept is challenged by questioning who determines these moral facts.

💡Moral Relativism

Moral relativism posits that moral judgments are true or false relative to some particular standpoint. The video explains two types: descriptive and normative cultural relativism. Descriptive cultural relativism notes that moral beliefs vary by culture, while normative cultural relativism suggests that moral values differ between cultures. The script challenges relativism by questioning the implications of believing all cultural practices are morally correct.

💡Moral Anti-Realism

Moral anti-realism is the view that there are no objective moral facts or values. It is the opposite of moral realism. The video describes moral subjectivism as a form of moral anti-realism, where actions are neither inherently right nor wrong but are judged based on individual or cultural perspectives. This concept is used to explore the idea that morality can be subjective to personal experiences and contexts.

💡Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory is an ethical theory that suggests that an action is morally good if it is commanded by God or derived from religious authority. The video explains that this theory is common worldwide but is not often used in debating due to its reliance on belief in God. It is an example of a theory that ties morality to a higher power.

💡Natural Law Theory

Natural law theory holds that there are rights and wrongs that can be understood by reason and are inherent in the nature of things. The script attributes this theory to Thomas Aquinas, who proposed that God-given goods, such as life and reproduction, form the basis for deriving natural laws. This theory is critiqued in the video for its dependence on theistic belief.

💡Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperative is a principle formulated by Immanuel Kant, stating that moral actions should be based on reasoning that could be universally applied. The video describes this as a shift from divine-based ethics to reason-based ethics, where actions are judged by their universalizability and the intent behind them, rather than their consequences.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests the best action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as that which produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. The video differentiates between classic utilitarianism, which focuses on immediate outcomes, and rule utilitarianism, which considers long-term consequences. Utilitarianism is presented as a consequentialist theory, where the morality of an action is judged by its outcomes.

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]