PHI 1700: Global

Sessions 19 & 20 April 20th & 22nd, 2020

Normative Ethics: Ethics Today we start investigating ethics, which involves Ø formulating practical rules/ for how we should behave in order to be a person. – (normative = concerning how things ideally should/ought to be, in contrast with descriptive = concerning how things actually are)

» We have already come across some in class that present views about how we should behave: • contractarianism: doing the right thing means fulfilling your obligations to other people by keeping the promises/agreements you’ve made with them, • including obeying the in your community • care ethics: doing the right thing generally results from viewing others as deserving of care & concern Ø In this unit we’ll focus on three additional leading theories about how we ought to behave:

, (esp. ), & deontology. 2 What do we mean by a “good person”? Ø A normative ethical is about what we should do / a “good person” in the sense of doing the right thing for others to affect their lives in a positive way, and making the world a better place for everyone to live in. – In contrast, a normative prudential theory describes what we should do / being a “good person” in the sense of doing what it takes to satisfy one’s desires & achieve personal goals.

Sometimes being a good person ethically aligns with or contributes to being a good person prudentially: – i.e., doing something to help other people could also make you happier, or help you work towards one of your goals. …but other times, being a good person ethically can be in tension/conflict with what seems to be prudent for you (beneficial for achieving your personal goals). – Doing the right thing might be inconvenient or unpleasant sometimes, » or it might require you to give up some things you’d like to do or to have. 3 One of the major debates in normative ethics is generalism vs. particularism:

Ø Generalist normative ethical theories propose that there are general rules, principles, or formulas that define what it means to be an ethically good person / do the right thing. That is, in all situations, one can do the right thing by acting in accordance with a moral rule, , or formula. » Utilitarianism & deontology are each generalist theories.

Ø Particularist normative ethical theories contend that being a good person / doing the right thing can’t be boiled down to rules, principles, or formulas. Particularists typically argue that doing the right thing is about using one’s own judgment to determine the right action for each specific situation. » Virtue ethics, the topic of this week’s sessions,

is a particularist theory. 4 The first normative ethical theory we consider: Ø virtue ethics = doing the right thing results from developing good , which involves cultivating moral (384-322 BCE), a particularist, believed that being a good person is much more complicated than just following rules: » it’s a matter of developing skills which enable us to make the right choice for each situation we confront, • since “the right thing to do” depends upon the situation. » He suggests that the best way to become a good person, we should follow the example set by moral exemplars – people who do the right thing & can serve as role models.

He characterizes moral exemplars as people who have cultivated Ø virtues = states of excellence in one’s character, developed through repeated practice, which allow a person to make good choices & do the right thing at the right time – So, we call his theory “virtue ethics” to highlight its emphasis on developing good character &

a virtuous person, which will in turn lead to good behavior. 5 The Good Place, Season 1 Episode 3

6 Aristotle indicates right off the bat that he holds a particularist view of normative ethics: • He states that we should only expect to be able to develop rough guidelines – not rigid laws – about how we ought to behave. “…noble & just [i.e., right] actions . . . exhibit much variety & fluctuation…" – The right thing to do in situation A might be completely different from the right thing to do in situation B, • and that makes it hard to pin down anything all these right actions have in common that makes them "right”. – So, “doing the right thing” could not be expressed in terms of strict rules that apply in all situations. » We must be content, then, in speaking of [ethics] . . . to indicate the roughly & in outline, . . . speaking about things which are only for the most part true ...... it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the of the subject admits.” ( I.3) 7 Think about a person who you look up to, who always seems to know how to do the right thing in every situation. • According to Aristotle, this person you’re thinking about – someone you regard as a moral exemplar – is likely someone you would define as having good character. – He that “good character” is synonymous with being virtuous or having virtues:

virtues = states of excellence in one’s character, developed through repeated practice, which allow a person to make good choices & do the right thing at the right time He suggests that you can think of each virtue as a type of learned skill: an ability you gain that allows you to do well when put to the test, – like being a good team player when you have to work with others – or having good time management when you’re on a deadline. » moral virtues: character traits that lead us to do the right thing ethically; skills that lead to good ethical choices (e.g., being fair, considerate, generous, etc.) 8 – According to Aristotle, “good character” is synonymous with being virtuous or having virtues: virtues = states of excellence in one’s character, developed through repeated practice, which allow a person to make good choices & do the right thing at the right time

» moral virtues: character traits that lead us to do the right thing ethically; skills that lead to good ethical choices (e.g., being fair, considerate, generous, etc.) Aristotle asserts that nobody is born morally virtuous: Ø instead, we become morally virtuous through our actions. As with any other skill, practice makes perfect: • you have to do the right thing over & over until it becomes “second nature”. So, just as “men become builders by building & lyre-players by playing the lyre; • so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” (NE II.1) 9 Aristotle suggests that every interaction with other people is a chance to develop our virtue, and Ø the choices we make determine our character: – “…by doing the acts that we do in our transactions with other [humans] we become just or unjust, – and by doing the acts that we do in the presence of danger, and by being habituated to feel fear or confidence, we become brave or cowardly. – The same is true of appetites and feelings of anger; • some men become temperate & good-tempered, others self-indulgent & irascible, by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate circumstances.” (II.1) Having good intentions is important, – but Aristotle believes that actions, (rather than your intentions) are the true mark of your character. 10 » moral virtues: character traits that lead us to do the right thing ethically; skills that lead to good ethical choices (e.g., being fair, considerate, generous, etc.)

ØEach moral virtue represents the midpoint (“”) between two extremes: an excess (too much) & a deficiency (too little). He draws this conclusion by noting that most things that are good for us are best in moderation: • E.g., “drink or food which is above or below a certain amount destroys the health, while that which is proportionate [to our needs] produces & increases & preserves it.” • Too much or too little food/drink/sleep/studying/partying is bad: but an intermediate amount is good for you. Aristotle reasons: “So too is it, then, in the case of temperance & & the other virtues… • temperance & courage, then, are destroyed by excess and [deficiency], and preserved by the mean [i.e., moderation].” 11 Each moral virtue represents the midpoint (“golden mean”) between two extremes: an excess (too much) & a deficiency (too little). Ø E.g., courage is the midpoint between fearing everything & fearing nothing: – “…the man who flies from and fears everything & does not stand his ground against anything becomes a coward, – & the man who fears nothing at all but goes to meet every danger becomes rash, » …[but] by being habituated to despise things that are fearful & to stand our ground against them we become brave” Ø Temperance is the midpoint between enjoying too much pleasure & not enjoying enough pleasure. – “…the man who indulges in every pleasure & abstains from none becomes self-indulgent, – while the man who shuns every pleasure…becomes in a way insensible [unable to enjoy anything]... » …[but] by abstaining from [most, but not all] pleasures we become temperate” (NE II.2) 12 Each moral virtue represents the midpoint (“golden mean”) between two extremes: an excess (too much) & a deficiency (too little). • Everything in the middle column (”BALANCE”) is a moral virtue (a good character trait, generally resulting in right actions), • …while the Excesses & Deficiencies (side columns) are the corresponding vices (bad character traits, generally resulting in wrong actions).

ØDo you agree with this list? 13 However, Aristotle adds that to be truly virtuous, it isn’t quite enough to behave in accordance with each virtue: Ø you also have to enjoy it (& not enjoy doing wrong). “We must take as a sign of [someone’s] character the pleasure or pain that [result from] acts; – for the man who abstains from bodily pleasures & delights in this very fact is temperate, » while the man who is annoyed at it is self-indulgent, – and he who stands his ground against things that are terrible & delights in this or at least is not pained is brave, » while the man who is pained is a coward.” • J He concludes that “[someone with] virtue tends to do what is best with regard to pleasures and pains, and [someone with] vice does the contrary.” (II.3) » Do you agree with Aristotle that true role models (i.e., virtuous people) are people who get pleasure from doing the right thing? 14 Since being virtuous is not just a matter of controlling our behavior, but also involves having the right feelings & mindset, Ø Aristotle thinks that moral education must begin at an early age.

“It is very important “whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth.” (II.1) • It’s much easier to do the right thing if we are trained to do so early in life. – We must also learn early in life to take pleasure in doing good things & find it painful to do wrong. » He notes that the habits we form regarding how we feel about doing good/bad are very hard to change, since they “have grown up with us all from our infancy; • this is why it is difficult to rub off this passion, engrained as it is in our life.” (II.3) » “Hence we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as says, so as both to delight in & to be pained by the things that we ought; this is the right education.” 15 Aristotle encourages us to think of doing the right thing as a skillful activity, because it requires judgment & discretion. • As he stated from the outset, the right thing to do depends very much on the situation: – E.g., with respect to courage, in some situations the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution (towards cowardice), – while in other situations the right thing is to defend ourselves without hesitation (toward rashness). He admits that it can be hard for us to be absolutely certain that the particular situation we’re in requires us to act in the direction of one of the vices: » “…to what point & to what extent a man must deviate [from the mean] before he becomes blameworthy it is not easy to determine by reasoning, • such things depend on particular facts, and the decision rests with perception” of the situation, • along with judgment of what’s best for those particular circumstances (II.9) 16" He suggests that our best bet is to establish a habit of aiming for moderation:

Ø i.e., if you’re not sure what to do, Aristotle recommends that you THE MEAN • identify the moderate, middle-ground option (the “golden mean”) between the most extreme responses to the situation, and then strive to achieve it.

» Note that this is just a guideline, and not a strict rule, • Aristotle certainly believed that there are situations that call for extreme responses: • the challenge of becoming a good person is developing the judgment necessary to know when extreme responses are right, vs. when they should be avoided.

17 Ø . ..if you’re not sure what to do, identify & strive to achieve the moderate, middle-ground option (the “golden mean”) between the most extreme responses to the situation.

Even if we’re generally trying to make moderate choices, THE MEAN we ought to expect that – we will occasionally err on the side of excess or deficiency (going too far in one direction, leaning toward one of the vices): “. . .the intermediate state [the mean] is in all things to be praised, • but…we must incline sometimes towards the excess, sometimes towards the deficiency; for so shall we most easily hit the intermediate & what is right.” (NE II.9) » (For an analogy, think about shooting free-throws: • if you undershoot or undershoot the basket, that gives you feedback which can help you correct your form & shoot more accurately in the future.) ØBasically: we learn how to hit the mid-point

effectively by learning from our mistakes. 18 On Aristotle’s view, you don’t have to do the exact right thing every time in order to become a virtuous person. • Although he thought that our actions determine our character, – he also thought that ”our character” is the product of all of our actions across our entire lifetime: Ø so what really matters is that your overall record is good » not that each individual action was the perfect choice. Failures to hit the midpoint are a necessary part of the process of learning where the midpoint falls & how to target it successfully. • E.g., a courageous person doesn’t hit the midpoint between cowardice & recklessness all the time, • rather, their actions average out around the virtuous midpoint between these two vices.

– “The man . . . who deviates little from [the golden mean] is not blamed, • . . . only the man who deviates more widely” will be judged as having a less-than-stellar moral character (NE II.9) 19 Virtue ethics gives us rough guidelines on how to be good people, • but leaves the fine details of what’s right/wrong up to our discretion, on the basis of our reasoning. Ø However, Aristotle also believed that some actions are always wrong: » “not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; … some actions have names that already imply badness, e.g. spite, shamelessness, envy, ...adultery, theft, murder; • for all of these & such like things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, & not the excesses or deficiencies of them. ØIt is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong” [in doing any of these]. (II.6) E.g., there is no such thing as “committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, • but simply to [commit adultery at all] is to go wrong.” (ibid.) 20 Aristotle’s strict prohibition of certain types of actions suggests that Ø even if you think “the right thing to do” always depends on the situation, you’re likely to believe there are at least some general moral rules.

The generalist approach to normative ethics (specifying moral rules meant to apply in all situations, like “Do not steal”) often gets criticized for its lack of nuance: – Rules like these might not quite capture our idea of what’s right/wrong, since they don’t allow for exceptions or situational sensitivity,

…but rules are useful because of the clarity they offer: » they give us definite, unambiguous answers about whether or not an action is morally acceptable, • without leaving anything up for debate or interpretation.

In opposition to Aristotle, a generalist might counter that rules are preferable to rough guidelines, simply because • it’s easier for many people (especially young children) to develop an understanding of right/wrong in terms of rules (rather than having to use their own judgment). 21 Now we’ll see how Aristotle’s theory of virtue ethics fits into a broader philosophical investigation: ØWhat constitutes an human life?

Aristotle’s answer to this question is shaped by his theory of – teleology, according to which anything which undergoes change throughout its is developing toward its . Øtelos (Greek) = end, aim, goal, final purpose, ultimate objective

Aristotle believed that everything a living organism does is done in order to actualize its telos (transform potential into ): – to become what it is supposed to be, to achieve its truest form, to realize its true purpose, . » E.g., an acorn’s actions are all directed towards its ultimate goal of becoming an oak tree; » a caterpillar’s life purpose is to develop into a butterfly.

22 Aristotle believes humans must have a telos, too. Ø He reasons that an ideal human life must be one that allows him/her to fully achieve the final objective (telos) of human life – whatever it turns out to be. Aristotle proposes that • our telos is “, …[because] this we choose always for itself & never for the sake of something else.”

Ø Eudaimonia translates to flourishing, well-being, having a life truly worth living. » (Some scholars translate eudaimonia as “” – but this is a misleading oversimplification of what Aristotle intends: • it’s more about maximizing your potential & doing the best you can than about feeling good & enjoying pleasure, • …though you’re likely to feel happy as a side effect of maximizing your potential. 23 Aristotle defends his conclusion that our final objective is eudaimonia (flourishing), by eliminating some possible alternatives: » "…honor, pleasure, reason, … we choose [these] indeed for themselves… • but we choose them also for the sake of eudaimonia, judging that through them we shall be happy.” • (Same goes for money, love, and any other things that matter to us because they contribute to living your best life.) • “Eudaimonia, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself... ØEudaimonia, then, is…the end [goal] of action.” (I.7) Aristotle believes everything else we desire & pursue is just a means (a method, route, or tool) 24 we use to attain our ultimate end, to flourish. But what is eudaimonia, really? What does it mean to flourish, or to have a life worth living?

• Aristotle thinks flourishing must involve the use of our reason. – He bases this on an assumption that an ideal human life is one that fulfills the function (purpose) of human , • along with an assessment that our function must be to use reason, since reason is unique to humans (no other living things have it). Ø More specifically, flourishing is the optimal, skillful use of our reason to excel in all areas of life: – eudaimonia “turns out to be activity of [the rational part of our] soul exhibiting virtue, • …but we must add ‘in a complete life’… one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed & happy.” (I.7) ØSo: eudaimonia is the virtuous use of reason throughout one’s whole life. 25 According to Aristotle, Ø developing moral virtues is part of our pursuit of eudaimonia. Becoming a good person (ethically speaking) is part of what it takes to live your best life. – Someone who truly pursues eudaimonia will develop their reason so they can make good choices & do the right thing in all areas of life: • He thinks that becoming morally virtuous (building your skill at doing the right thing for other people and making the world a better place) is a component of maximizing your full potential as a human.

ØA common objection to Aristotle is that it is naïve to presume that being ethical always promotes our well-being: • acting ethically can come at a personal cost rather than benefitting us, • e.g., returning a stranger’s lost wallet 26 (without swiping anything!) might be inconvenient to you & go against your self-interest. Another objection to Aristotle’s view is that eudaimonia may not be attainable for all people. Virtue typically consider virtues to be attainable by anyone who is willing to put in the time & effort to develop good character. – However, Aristotle admitted that it would be difficult to attain some of the virtues if one did not have material resources (e.g., one must have $, , or free time in order to be generous). – More generally, it’s hard to invest time & energy into developing an excellent character & treating others well if you are preoccupied with your basics needs and/or survival. » Claudia Card (1940-2015) & Lisa Tessman discuss how social circumstances beyond our control (an “unnatural lottery”) can impose serious obstacles upon our pursuit of virtue, • making it near-impossible for people in difficult circumstances to flourish. » Is it fair to expect everyone to strive for good character when it might be an unattainable ideal for some people? 27 Note that Aristotle does not say that we are obligated to help other people to flourish, » …only that doing the right thing & becoming a good person is necessary for us to flourish. • To some interpreters, this seems like a pretty egoistic way of looking at ethics, since it suggests we should do the right thing because it benefits us personally.

Ø egoism = the theory that whatever increases the happiness of the person performing the action is morally good Critics of this view say this isn’t an ethical theory at all, » since it is blatantly self-centered, and doesn’t display any concern for the interests of other people. Most moral philosophers defend the view that in order to act ethically, • we must be able to overcome our tendencies toward selfishness & egocentrism: • we must learn to think about other people, and how they are affected by our choices. • video: bit.ly/37U298n 28 egoism = the theory that whatever increases the happiness of the person performing the action is morally good

• In Aristotle’s defense, some contemporary virtue ethicists (like Julia Annas) argue that – doing the the right thing in accordance with Aristotle’s guidelines is beneficial to us in an acceptable way of making our lives meaningful & worthwhile, • …instead of benefitting us in an unacceptable way (e.g., enriching us materially, giving us undeserved fame or respect from others or bringing us joy at other people’s expense) An alternative defense of Aristotle’s view that doing the right thing & becoming a good person is necessary for us to flourish: • Aristotle is merely being realistic in recognizing that people are unlikely to do the right thing unless there’s something in it for them. – According to this view, there is no such thing as = people doing something good for others without getting anything in return; • instead, people will only do the right thing if they have incentives. 29 Though Aristotle didn’t think we must help other people to flourish, a recent normative ethical theory inspired by Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia encourages us to help everyone around use to flourish: • & Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach = doing the right thing means treating other people in ways that ensure they are capable of flourishing, where “flourishing” is interpreted as being capable of doing all the things humans . – The capabilities approach has been especially influential in the field of international development, which seeks to improve the condition of human lives across the globe. Though international development is often equated with economic development (a.k.a. poverty reduction), » Nussbaum & Sen argue that “development” needs to involve more than just raising a nation’s GDP: • the measure of successful “development” should be that every citizen is capable of flourishing, where they are able to use their resources to do things that are essential to a good human life. • videos: bit.ly/2UH5nIn, bit.ly/2unA1fl 30 Øvirtue ethics = doing the right thing results from developing good moral character, which involves cultivating moral virtues » This theory recommends that we cultivate moral virtues as part of a larger human endeavor toward fulfilling our ultimate purpose (i.e., achieving eudaimonia). Moral virtues are states of character that represent the “golden mean” (mid-point, balance point between two extreme ways of behaving. • When in doubt, a moderate course of action is likely to be a decent choice.

» As a particularist theory, it avoids specifying rules we must follow in all situations to do the right thing; • instead, it suggests that the right thing to do depends on the situation, and we must develop virtues so that we will be able to rationally determine THE MEAN the best course of action in each situation. Ø summary videos: bit.ly/2mTn6w4, bit.ly/2g220J2 31