2. The branches of philosophy
• Philosophy is the study of the most
fundamental questions.
• Philosophy is divided into 5 main branches:
• 1. Metaphysics
• 2. Epistemology
• 3. Logic
• 4. Aesthetics
• 5. Ethics

3. What is Ethics?
Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the branch of
philosophy concerned with systematizing,
defending, and proposing concepts of right and
wrong conduct.
The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek
word ethikos, which derives from the word
ethos (habit, or custom).

4. 4 AREAS OF ETHICS
• Reflecting upon morality leads to 4 directions.
• Ethics is divided into 4 major areas.
• Each of these directions is studied by ethicists.
1. Value Theory
2. Normative Ethics
3. Metaethics
4. Applied Ethics

5. 1. Value Theory
• The area of ethics that tries to determine
what is valuable in and of itself, in what a
good life consists.
• Is it happiness?
• Is it getting what you want?
• Is it one?
• Is it many?
• Is it virtue?

6. 2. Normative Ethics
• There are 2 types of theories: Deontological
and teleological.
• Deontological. Theories that propose universal
rules. Making the right decision is in
accordance with the rule.
• Teleological. Making the right decision is
based on the outcome of action.
The area of ethics concerned with determining
the set of principle(s) of right action.
Propose moral theories.

7. From where to start?
• Some moral philosophers argue that a viable
moral theory is one that conforms to our
intuition.
• Yet others contend that because our intuitions
can be manipulated, we must use impartial
procedure.

8. Normative Ethics
• The Divine Command Theory: Acts are right
because God commands them.
• Utilitarianism: Right action is one that
produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number.
• Deontology: Acts are right if we can use them
consistently without any contradictions.
• Social Contract: Morality is a set of rules that
people agree to follow on the condition that
others follow as well.

9. Normative Ethics
• Prima Facie Duties: Rather than one single
principle, there are several important duties.
When they conflict, we decide which takes
precedence.
• Virtue Ethics: It places the virtues at the center of
morality. Right is what the virtuous person does.
• Feminist Ethics: Ethics has been the business of
men to address other man. Women should be
taken into consideration.

10. 3. Metaethics
• Meta-Ethics asks about the nature, of ethics.
• Meta-ethical questions:
• “Is it possible to acquire knowledge of right and
wrong?”
• “Are certain actions objectively right or wrong”
• “If certain actions are objectively wrong or right,
what makes them so?”

11. Various Theories of Meta-ethics
Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism:
Cognitivism: ethical sentences express actual
propositions that can be true or false.
Cognitivism embodies many views:
moral realism: ethical sentences express propositions
about mind-independent facts.
moral subjectivism: ethical sentences express
propositions about peoples’ attitudes or opinions. Moral
statements are subjectively true.

12. Non-cognitivism: moral statements don’t describe
properties, don’t make statements that could be
true or false.
When people utter moral sentences they are
expressing non-cognitive attitudes more similar to
desires, approval or disapproval, like
“Murder? Aaaarrrrgh!”

13. • Cognitivists hold that moral judgments
express beliefs: truth-evaluable mental states
that represent moral facts.
• Non-cognitivists hold that moral judgments
express some other sort of non-truth-
evaluable, non-representational mental states.

14. Take a sentence such as (1): “Slavery is morally wrong.”
Moral Realism: A cognitivist theory according to which sentences
like (1) are true by virtue of certain features of the world. These
features or facts are believed to be independent of our perception
of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.
Thus, according to realism, sentences like (1) are true because
there are moral facts that make them true.
Moral Subjectivism: A cognitivist theory according to which
certain moral statements are true because the subject believes
them to be true (or false). On this view, what makes “Slavery is
morally wrong” true is a fact about an individual’s mind; for
example, the fact that Lincoln feels that slavery is evil. What
makes moral subjectivism subjective is that it allows that what is
good/evil for one subject may not be good/evil for another.

15. (Meta-ethical) Moral Relativism: A cognitivist theory according to
which morality is relative to a certain civilization. Moral sentences
like (1) are true (or false) relative to the people who deem them
so.
Moral Objectivism: A cognitivist theory according to which the
certain moral claims are true (or false) independently of our
thinking them so. Accordingly, we value kindness because
kindness is good—it is not good because we value it. The good is
not good because it satisfies desire—it satisfies it because it is
good. The evil is not evil because it thwarts desire—it thwarts
desire because it is evil. Thus for the objectivist, kindness is good
and cruelty is evil, objectively, intrinsically, i.e., not in relation to
individuals or groups of individuals. Slavery is wrong in and of
itself regardless of the going practices in a given society and
regardless of anyone's desires or aversions.

16. Emotivism: A noncognitivist theory according to which
moral language is not fact stating but rather expressive of
feeling. Thus one who utters (1) expresses his
disapprobation or repugnance toward slavery. It is as if
one stated, “Boo slavery” or “Yuk, slavery!”
Prescriptivism: A noncognitivist theory according to which
moral claims such as (1) are commands. A prescriptivist
who says that abortion is wrong, for example, is not
arguing that abortion has a moral property of wrongness.
Rather, he is prescribing that one not commit abortion.

17. Moral nihilism: a meta-ethical theory according to which
nothing is morally right or wrong.
Some nihilists argue that moral statements such as “Slavery is
wrong” or “Saving innocent lives is good” are neither true nor
false because there are no moral facts in the world that would
make such statements right or wrong.
Another form of nihilism, known as error theory, which argues
the following:
• When we make moral statements, we always assume that
something can be right or wrong.
• But because nothing can be right or wrong, our statements
are mistaken.
• Consequently our moral statements are errors.

18. 4.Applied Ethics
• Typically, moral philosophers regard this branch
of ethics one that deals with more particular
problems, such as issues in medicine, sports,
business, etc.
• Selecting a theory to solve particular problems.
• However, there is disagreement about which
theory is correct.
• Some philosophers propose that we address such
problems without considering a specific theory.

19. Review
• Value Theory: What is good in itself? What’s a
good life?
• Normative: Theory and principles of
right/wrong conduct.
• Metaethics: What is ethics? Made up or
discovered?
• Applied ethics: Those who live ethical
problems and try to resolve them.

20. DOING ETHICS WELL

21. Legality versus Morality
• Moral questions are distinct from legal questions.
• Of course, moral issues often have legal
implications.
• Child labor is morally unacceptable not because it is
illegal.
• Slavery was immoral even when it was legal.
• The Nazis did lots of immoral things that were legal.
• Producing and Selling cigarettes is legal. But is it moral?
So: It is unhelpful to determine whether something is
morally right or wrong by looking to the laws.

22. Expediency versus Moral Reasons
• Something to keep separate are moral reasons and
expediency.
• Expediency relates to our personal reasons for doing things.
• We use animals for food, clothing, research, entertainment
because it is convenient.
• When defending slavery, people used to cite the fact that it
supported the economy as a reason to keep it. It True, it
supported the economy. Those who benefited from slavery
such as traders or plantation owners found it convenient.
Convenience does not help us with the moral questions .

23. Prescriptive versus Descriptive Claims
• Another important distinction is between
descriptive and prescriptive claims.
• Christopher McDougall Born to Run (2009)
• Supporters of meat-eating often say that we are
meant to eat meat (nature?).
What does this tell us about whether it is right or
wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.

24. …A Challenge
Who are We to Judge?

25. MORAL RELATIVISM: the concept that morality is
relative.
Objectivism says that all people are under the
same moral principles. Moral principles are
objective.
Relativism says that societies decide what is
moral.
Who are we to judge?

26. • Moral Relativism does not say that in morality
anything goes.
• It does not mean there are no moral rules.
• Moral rules are relative.
• It states that what’s moral for a society could
be immoral for another.
• So there is no way to say that one society is
moral and the other immoral.
• Morality is relative to the particular society.

27. Who Are We to Judge?
• The Callatians, an Indian people, ate their
dead people, while ancient Greeks cremated
theirs. They viewed each other’s practice as
immoral. So moral relativism concludes that
morality is a matter of what peoples take it to
be.

28. But, is morality relative? It seems that people’s
beliefs differ, not moral principles.
Callatians believed their dead would continue
living if ingested. Greeks believed flesh could be
corrupted and so cremated the dead.
Often, peoples’ differences are not moral but
cultural.
Aabortion? Everyone agrees that murder is wrong.
We disagree over whether a fetus is a person.

29. Implications of Relativism

30. If relativism is true, you must admit
there was nothing wrong about Nazi
morality or slavery!

31. Think About it…
Those who fought against segregation
and slavery were moral reformers.
If you are a moral relativist, you cannot
praise moral reformers.
In fact, you should condemn them.

32. Those who try to better the moral
principles of a society try to change
the moral rules of that society!
Moral progress implies moving toward
an ideal, objective, moral standard.
But this is what relativism denies!
There is no objective morality.

33. Also, relativism says that the social
group you belong to determines
morality, right?
But ask yourself: to which social
group do I belong?
Answer: you belong to many
groups.

34. Finally, some might say relativism is
valid because we should have tolerance
and respect other people’s practices
and beliefs.
But, if we apply this principle
universally, then tolerance is ruled out
by relativism because you are not a
relativist but an objectivist.

35. Assessing Ethical Theories

36. In ethics we need to determine what makes
things right or wrong. Which theory is best?
A theory’s principles must provide a compelling
explanation of why certain things are right
while others are wrong.
Adequate ethical theory needs to satisfy
certain criteria. The more fully the theory
satisfies all these criteria the better the theory.

37. 1. Completeness: theory should be able to
address completely moral concepts. If the
theory leaves something out that must be
included, then that theory is faulty.
Hedonistic theories, don’t account for
justice.
2. Explanatory Power: The theory must give
us insight into what makes something moral
or immoral. It must help us understand the
difference between right and wrong.

38. 3. Practicability: how useful is a theory?
- Clear and precise moral claims. If the
theory’s principles are vague, then it isn’t
a practical theory: “don’t hurt people
unless they deserve it.” Vague.
- Moral guidance to ordinary people.
- Principles should not create conflict.
Imagine a friend lives in the US illegally.
Should you turn him in? A practicable
theory must be able to resolve your
dilemma.

39. 4. Moral confirmation: a theory must
give correct answers to moral
questions. Does it work? A theory is
morally confirmed if we have good
reasons to consider it true. This
criterion resembles the scientific
method. In science we begin testing a
theory’s hypotheses by experiment
and observation.

40. SOME WAYS NOT TO ANSWER MORAL
QUESTIONS, AND THE IDEAL MORAL JUDGMENT

41. Moral judgments and personal preferences
Some people like classical music; others do not.
This is disagreement in preferences. Moral
disagreements, disagreements over right or
wrong, are not the same. If I say abortion is
always wrong and you say abortion is never
wrong, then you are denying what I affirm. The
point: right or wrong require reasons. Cannot be
determined just by finding out about the
personal preferences of people.

42. Moral judgments and feelings
Some philosophers think words like
right and wrong are empty. This
position suggests it doesn’t matter one
way or the other. But morality matters.
So, one must not use personal feelings
to determine what’s right and wrong.

43. Thinking it is so does not make it so
This should be obvious: upon
reflection you might be surprised.
You might think same-sex marriage
is immoral, but when you reason
logically, you might arrive at the
opposite conclusion.

44. Irrelevance of statistics
Some people think that the more
people believe something, the truer
something is. Religious people may say
that God exists because the majority
of the world’s population believes in a
god. Clearly this is not true. If the
majority holds that capital punishment
is wrong, that doesn’t make it wrong.

45. The appeal to a moral authority:
Many people think that there is a
moral authority, e.g., a God.
However, appealing to such an
authority creates problems...

46. THE IDEAL MORAL
JUDGMENT
There are different concepts that an
ideal moral judgment must satisfy

47. Conceptual clarity: if someone
tells us that euthanasia is always
wrong we could not determine
whether that statement is true
before we understand what
euthanasia is. Concepts need
clarity.
–In the case of abortion, for example,
is a fetus is a person?

48. Information: We answer moral
questions by having knowledge of the
world. For example, in order to know
why eating meet is morally wrong, we
must know the facts: e.g. animals feel
pain and like us do not want to feel
pain. They are killed, Chopped up,
packaged, and sold. Many people
ignore, or want to ignore, these facts.

49. Rationality: must be able to
recognize the connection
between different ideas. The
best way is to use logic. Sally
thinks all abortions are morally
wrong, but she recently has had
an abortion. Sally is not being
rational or logical.

50. Impartiality: correct answer to moral questions
must be impartial. Impartiality is related to
justice: the principle that justice is the similar,
and injustice the dissimilar, treatment of similar
individuals, e.g. If causing suffering to humans is
wrong, but it is not wrong in the case of animals,
this is not impartial.
- we should not consider irrelevant
characteristics such as the color of the skin, the
color of hair, nationality, height, age, species, and
so on.

51. Coolness: the idea is that the more
emotionally charged we are, the
more likely we are to reach a
mistaken moral conclusion, while
the cooler or calm we are, greater
the chances that we will avoid
mistakes.

52. VALID MORAL PRINCIPLES
besides information, impartiality,
conceptual clarity, etc., ideal moral
judgment must be based on valid or
correct moral principles. Ideally, one
wants not only to make the correct
moral judgment but also to make it
for the correct reasons.

53. Criteria for evaluating moral
principles:
• Consistency: whatever principle let Sally to believe that all
abortions are morally wrong and yet have an abortion is
morally right, must be an inconsistent principle.
• Adequacy of scope: A successful principle is one that provides
guidance to different circumstances. So, the wider the
principle’s scope, the greater its potential uses, the narrower
its scope, the narrower its range of applications.
• Precision: What we want from an ethical principle is not to be
vague. For example if we are told we should love our
neighbors and we should do no harm we must also be told in
a clear way what love, harm, and a neighbor are supposed to
mean.

54. Moral Theories

55. Consequentialism
Is the family of moral theories arguing that the
only the consequences of our actions matter
morally.
A consequentialist argue that morally right acts are
those that will produce the best outcome, or
consequence.
There are many different varieties of
consequentialist theories.

56. • State consequentialism:argues that the moral
worth of an action is based on how much it
contributes to the welfare of a state.
• Ethical Egoism: Right actions are those that
promote the greatest good for the agent.
• Utilitarianism: Right acts are those that
produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number.

57. Hedonism and Consequentialism
• Consequentialistic theories commit to a
definition of utility.
• Hedonistic theories regard
Pleasure/Happiness as utility and pain as
disutility.
• Hedonism views pleasure as the only good.
– Not all pleasures are good.
• Pleasure and happiness are not the same.

58. - Pleasure/Happiness are the ultimate good
- Different kinds of pleasures:
- Pleasure of creating art, thinking of morality,
vs. getting drunk, sex, food, etc.
- Intellectual pleasure are higher than physical.
- Higher pleasures more conducive to
happiness.
- “it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied.”
- Many people do not know higher pleasures
due to lack of education.

59. Act Utilitarianism
• Right actions maximize happiness/pleasure.
• everything we do is motivated by a desire to
maximize pleasure and minimize pain. – the
greatest amount of good for the greatest
number of beings.
• Why pleasure/happiness? Because that’s the
only thing that matter.
• What beings? All sentient beings.
• Act utilitarianism tells us what counts as the
right act—what we ought to do.

60. Which act ought we
carry out?
We assess an act by
following these aspects:

62. How we Proceed…
• First we identify the choices.
• Next we determine utility and subtract
disutility by considering 1,2,3,4.
• The outcome that leads to the greatest
overall utility is for act utilitarians the
morally right thing to do.

63. Mill
John Stuart Mill, argues: “He who saves a fellow
creature from drowning does what is morally
right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope
of being paid for his trouble.”
Therefore, Mill argues, our moral analysis should
ignore matters of intention.

64. Rule Utilitarianism
• Certain practices/core values such as promising can
generate consequences conducive to maximization of
utility.
• Rule utilitarianism defines a morally right rule or
practice as one that promotes overall utility.
• Principle of rules: a morally right rule is one that is
widely followed would promote greater utility than if it
did not exist.
• Principle of acts: a morally right act is one that follows
morally right rules. We have a moral duty to obey
those rules unless they come into conflict.

65. • Act utilitarianism: must decide by calculating
consequences case by case.
• Rule utilitarianism: based on experiences of
consequences, apply certain rules that
maximize utility.
• Hedonistic utilitarianism: maximize
pleasure/minimize suffering.
• Preference utilitarianism: maximize utility
based on people’s preferences. Each individual
preference is unique. But in the end the
aggregative satisfaction is the goal.
• True preferences vs. corrupt preferences.

67. Immanuel Kant

68. Immanuel Kant
• Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was one of the most important
philosophers ever.
• Made important contributions to science and philosophy.
• Argued that certain features of our minds structure our
experiences.
– For example, space and time, and cause and effect.
• So, our experience of the world is always filtered through our
senses: we do not have direct access to the world itself.
• Morality must be based on reason.
• Acting morally is acting rationally.
• Acting immorally is acting irrationally.

69. “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he
is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”
“Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.”
“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the
understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than
reason.”
“Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but
how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.”
“Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law
within me.”

70. The Good Will
• In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,
Kant offers as the starting point of morality the
good will.
• Our actions possess moral worth is and only if
they are the results of the good will.
• The good will is the only thing in the world that
can be considered good without limitation.
• Anything else, courage, money, etc., could be
bad.

71. • Suppose Instead of paying taxes, I keep my money and
spend it on a vacation.
• I get away with it.
• have I done something wrong or immoral? Many would
say yes!
• So has the person who cheated on her exam and got away
with it. So has the politician who intentionally lied to be
elected.

72. But…
• Suppose I return from my vacation and, as a result, I am a
better father, worker, and citizen.
• Suppose the person who cheated on her exam graduated
and went on to being a great teacher who helped hundreds
of underprivileged children get into good schools.
• Suppose the politician who lied to be elected made great
contributions to his country. Do these positive outcomes
make up for what they have done?
• Still wrong?

73. • Some people would say that if the consequences of my
actions lead to the good, then the intention does not count,
or can be forgiven.
• Immanuel Kant would disagree because an act is right
only if it proceeds from a good will.
• A good will is the steady commitment to do our duty for
its own sake.
• He developed a theory of morality that can answer the
hard question of how to determine right from wrong.
• That’s quite an achievement!

74. Let’s just see…
• How do we justify our moral conduct?
• Typically 4 ways come to mind:
1. What if everyone did that?
2. How would you like if I did that to you?
3. The end justifies the means.
4. God prohibits it.

75. Consider 1: What if everyone did that? That is, if
everyone did X, disastrous results would occur. So X
is immoral.
Common argument against homosexuality: If
everyone did that, the human race would die out.
Consider priests or couples who don’t want children or
the celibate.
It would follow that celibacy, priests, and childless
couples are immoral! But that can’t be right.
So, 1. is not a reliable way to test the morality of our
actions.

76. Consider 2: How would you like if I did that to
you? That is, the golden rule—we should treat
others as we would like to be treated.
But consider masochists who love to be hit.
Imagine: Tell a masochist: “Hey, treat me as you
would like to be treated!”
The masochist: “Oh, wonderful! I will hit you,
then, since I would like to be hit.”
What about the fanatic? Terrorists believe so
strongly in their cause that they are willing to blow
themselves up!

77. • The golden rule would permit immoral acts. The
reason is that the golden rule depends on a
person’s desires.
• The morality of hitting people, or any other act,
should not depend on a person’s desires. What if
you have the wrong desires?
• So the golden rule is not a reliable principle to
determine the morality of our actions.

78. • What about 3?: The end justifies the means. This is
utilitarianism: An act is right if it produces the best
consequences.
• Cheating on your test could be right if it leads to the best
consequences.
• Kant disagreed: Cheating is immoral, regardless of the
consequences.
• How can that be right? What kind of a moral principle is
one that gives importance to the end results rather than the
motive. If what’s important in morality is the end results,
then one would be justified to do immoral things, like
lying, cheating, killing, torturing. So this is not a reliable
principle.

79. • Perhaps 4: God prohibits it. This is the divine
command.
• Religions disagree on morality—often the same
religion!
• There are thousands of them. Which one is right?
• Worse: Acting right out of fear of God’s
punishment?
• What kind of morality is that?
• What if one is not religious at all?
• Religious morality is not reliable.

80. The Universalizability Principle
• Kant understood these difficulties and proposed a solution:
the universalizability principle.
• And it goes like this:
• UP: An act is morally permissible if, and only if, its
maxim can be universalizable.
• What is a maxim: The principle that you follow when you
choose to act the way you do. For example, if you decided
to cheat on your ethics exam, your maxim might be,
“I will cheat on my ethics exam so that I will be able to
graduate this year.”

81. Maxim
• Notice that a maxim has two components:
1. A statement of what you are about to do, “I will cheat on my ethics
exam.”
2. The reason why you want to do it, “I will be able to graduate this year.”
• According to Kant we all act on maxims. These are the rules we live by.
• Vey important: We all have maxims. Sometimes I ask people why they
act the way they act and they say, “I don’t know!” But that’s
impossible. At some level, we all follow certain principles. If we don’t,
then our actions are random. Moral decisions are not random.
• Kant believed that the only consistent way to assess the morality of our
actions is to determine whether our actions follow universal maxims
based on reason.

82. • For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do
with the end results. Rather, it has to do with our
intentions, i.e., the motive behind our actions.
• People often do the same thing but for different reasons. I
dive into a river to rescue another from drowning because
I was offered money to do it. You do it because you
believe it to be the correct thing to do.
• Kant would say my action was not moral because it was
motivated by money. Conversely, he would praise you
because you acted from a sense of duty—a good will.
Actions are right only if they proceed from a good will.
• In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are
determined by duty, and duty is determined by reason.

83. You’re with Kant or with the Utilitarian
• If you agree with the utilitarian, you would have to say
that those who intend to do evil, but end up doing good,
do the right thing, which seems inconsistent.
• But if you agree with Kant, you can consistently say that
those who intend to do evil are acting immorally,
regardless of the outcome.
• Kant’s view supports our belief that those who have good
intentions, even if their actions result in something
undesirable, they are acting morally and they should be
praised for their actions.
• Also it makes morality depends on our maxims, which we
can control.

84. Universalizability
• So the morality of an action depends on its maxim. But how
does it work, exactly?
• Kant proposes this procedure:
• STEP 1: Formulate your maxim clearly: State what you intend
to do and why.
• STEP 2: Imagine a world in which everyone lived by that
maxim.
• STEP 3: Then ask, “Can the goal of my action be achieved in
such a world?”

85. • If the answer from STEP 3 is “yes” then the maxim is
universalizable, and the action is morally permissible. If the
answer is “no” then the maxim is not universalizable, and thus
the action is not morally permissible.
• He is not concerned about whether or not acting on a maxim is
conducive to the best consequences or if God approves of it.
He asks whether we could achieve our goals in a world where
people uphold our maxims as universal moral laws.
• Kant argued that this procedure enables us to reliably
determine whether or not our actions are morally consistent
and fair.

86. Don’t believe me? Try!
• Supposed you question your civic duties.
• Your maxim might be, “I will pay my taxes to support the
police and firefighters.”
• Can I universalize this maxim?
• Let’s test it. Imagine a world in which all citizens acted on my
maxim. Would I be able to accomplish my goal? Yes.
• In fact, if all citizens pay taxes, the police and firefighters will
be supported. Thus, using the universalizability test, we can
determine that we have a moral obligation to pay taxes.

87. Try Again
• Suppose after a picnic in the park, I say, “I will pick
up my trash to keep the park clean.”
• If all park visitors picked up their trash, then the
park would be always clean; that is, if everyone
acted on this maxim, I would be able to accomplish
my goal to keep the park clean.
• Since this maxim is universalizable, we know that
we have a moral obligation to keep the park clean.

88. And Again:
• Suppose you owe money to Joe and if you don’t pay
him back he will break your arms and legs. No one
will lend it to you because you have bad credit. I’m
your last resort. You come to me and promise you
will pay me back, though you don’t actually intend
to. You have made a lying promise.
• Are you justified in making a false promise? Let’s
test it: your maxim might be something like this:
Whenever I need a loan, I will promise to repay it
even if I don’t intend to do so.

89. • Is this maxim universalizable? Let’s use Kant’s procedure:
imagine a world in which everyone lived by your maxim. Could
you achieve your goal in such a world?
• Obviously not. Your maxim would be self-defeating.
• If your maxim becomes a universal law, then no one would
believe such promises, and so no one would be so crazy as to lend
you money—and Joe would mess you up every time!

90. Test Your Maxim
• Another example: Suppose you refuse to help others
because you are selfish. Your maxim might be “I will not
do anything to help others in need unless I have something
to gain from doing so in order to advance my own
interests.”
• But once again, if this were a universal law, you would not
be able to accomplish your goals because at some point in
your life you will need the help of others, but because they
follow your maxim, they will turn away from you.

91. • So according to the universalizability principle, we can
test any maxim. If the maxim turns out to be self-defeating
then it is morally impermissible.
• Self-defeating means that acting on our maxim would not
enable us to accomplish our goals.
• What follows? Acting morally is equivalent to acting
rationally. And acting immorally is acting irrationally.
Our moral duties are actions according to reason.
• But is Kant right about this? What about those people who
are perfectly rational but just refuse to comply with the
right maxims? Imagine a person who understands that
what he’s about to do is immoral but does not care. Is he
irrational?

92. • Suppose this person reasons as follows:
• People have a reason to do something only if doing it will
get them what they want.
• Acting according to one’s moral duties often fails to get
people what they want.
• So people sometimes do not have a reason to do their
moral duty.
• If people lack reasons to do their moral duties, then
violating their duties is perfectly rational.
• Therefore, it is perfectly rational to violate one’s moral
duty.
• But according to Kant if you have reasons to do
something, then whether you like it or not, you must do
it, even if you suffer as a result.

93. Hypothetical or categorical
• Kant makes an important distinction to explain why the
argument just given above seems valid.
• He explains the distinction between hypothetical imperatives
and categorical imperatives.
• When we test our maxims, as you recall, we ask whether the
goal of our action can be achieved; we ask if a certain maxim
will get us what we care about. But not all maxims are of the
same nature.
• Hypothetical imperatives tell us what we need to do in order to
achieve our personal goals. For example, if I want a big job, I
must get a college degree, and if I want to lose weight I must
eat better, and so on. In order to accomplish such goals I have
to do what is needed, and not doing so will be irrational.

94. • But if I decide not to get a big job or not to lose weight? If
my desires change, then it is no longer rational for me to
follow certain maxims. These commands of reason
depend entirely on what I want.
• But not all rational requirements are like these!
• There are categorical imperatives. They do not depend
on what I care about. They are categorical because they
apply to everyone who possesses reason.
• This is why Kant does not regard animals as moral
agents—because animals are ultimately driven by their
wants and instincts and not by reason.

95. • Categorical imperatives are not based on what I want. So
one could never change her mind about the commands of
categorical imperatives. Doing so would be always
irrational. Consequently, we must obey these commands
even if we don’t like it.
• Remember what Kant says about the golden rule? It is not
reliable because it depends on our personal desires.
• Today you desire to help, tomorrow your desire might
change. Kant: when you feel like helping you do
something nice, but it’s not right because you acted from
your personal feelings.
• But what kind of morality is that? A morality that relies
upon our personal feelings is unreliable and inconsistent.
Therefore, right moral duties must categorical
imperatives.

96. The Formula of Humanity
• Holds that the rational being is “the basis of all maxims of
action” and must be treated never as a mere means but
always as an end. What this means is that all rational
beings should never be exploited for personal gain.
• What makes a being rational? Freedom and his free
capacity to understand the importance of the moral law. A
rational being can do the universalizability test and
enforce duty.
• A Martian who is capable of freely reflecting and acting
on maxims is rational.
• Animals cannot do that.
• Also small children, the senile, people with severe
mental disabilities (the so-called “marginal cases”) are
not rational!

97. Autonomy
• Also, Kant’s proposes the idea of moral autonomy:
• All rational beings have authority over their actions.
Rather than political leaders, priests, or society.
• Kant argues that it is the will that determine its
guiding principles for itself.
• Rational beings, thus, are self-governed.
• Kant calls this autonomy.

98. The Kingdom of Ends
• All maxims must harmonize with the Kingdom of Ends.
• This means that we should act in such a way that we may
think of ourselves as “a member in the universal realm of
ends”.
• So our maxims (the ways we live by, the rules we act on)
must harmonize with all individuals who are included in
the Kingdom of Ends.
• These are rational beings.
• And consequently, we have a direct moral duty to the
citizens of the kingdom of ends.
• This also means, for example, we do not have direct
moral obligations to treat animals nicely.

99. Direct vs. Indirect duty
• Direct duty means that if I lie to you, for example (and you are a
rational being according to Kant’s specification) I wrong you directly.
• Indirect duty means that if you are not rational and I do something
wrong to you, I do not wrong you directly.
• For example, I do not have a direct moral obligation to treat a dog
nicely. If I kick a dog and hurt him severely, I do not do anything wrong
to the dog. I don’t owe him anything.
• If, however, it is your dog that I kicked, then I did something wrong to
you, the owner, but not the dog.
• So I have a direct duty to you but indirect duty to the dog.
• Kant says: “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his
dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of
animals.”
• What about people with Alzheimer’s, dementia, severe mental
disabilities, small children? Do we have direct or indirect moral
duties to them? We’re left in the dark.

100. Problems

101. • Well, Kant argues that if my maxim can be
universalizable, we are guaranteed that acting upon it is
always right, and thus morally permissible.
• But it seems as though we can act on universalizable
maxims and still do wrong:
• When a thief robs a bank to gain money, Kant can show
that the thief is acting irrationally because in a world in
which everyone robbed banks, banks would run out of
money. And consequently, the goal of the thief could not
be achieved. But what if the thief’s goal is to put the bank
out of business? Well, strangely enough, if everyone acted
on the thief’s maxim, the thief’s goal could be achieved.
So Kant’s principle would permit bank robbery, but that’s
wrong!

102. • Consider Hitler’s maxim: “I will destroy all non-Aryans to
achieve an Aryan world.”
• Can Hitler’s maxim become a universal maxim? Let see:
Imagine a word in which everyone lived by that maxim.
Could Hitler accomplish his goal? Yes! If everyone
destroyed all non-Aryans, the world would be populated
only by Aryans; and thus Hitler’s goal could be
accomplished.
Remember that the universalizability principle says: An act
is morally permissible if, and only if, its maxim can be
universalizable.
It follows that Hitler’s act is right, which is spectacularly
absurd!

103. But wait! What about the Kingdom of
Ends?
• The Hitler’s maxim could be universalized, all right. However,
it violates the formula of humanity: “the rational being is the
basis of all maxims of action”
• This means that we must treat other rational beings never as
means to our ends, but as ends-in-themselves.
• Hitler’s maxim violates this principle because it requires that
everyone treat non-Aryans as means to the accomplish a non-
Aryan world.
• But what about people with Alzheimer’s or dementia? Could
one exterminate them all?
• After all, marginal cases are not rational beings.
• Fair enough: perhaps we—and not the principle or Kant—are
mistaken. Maybe we’re formulating the wrong maxim?
• But it gets worse!

104. • Suppose you must lie to save someone’s life: during the
Holocaust, you are hiding some Jews in your basement. A
group of Nazi soldiers knock on your door and ask, “Are you
hiding any Jews in your house?” Should you lie or tell the
truth? Ask Kant, who would reason as follows:
• We should act only on those maxims that can be universalized.
• If you lied to the Nazis, you would be following the maxim, “I
will lie to advance my personal interest.”
• But this maxim could not be universalized because a world in
which everyone lied to advance their personal interests, people
would stop believing one another, and then it would be
impossible to lie. So your goal could not be achieved.
• Therefore, you must not lie to the Nazis.

105. • What just happened?! Kant told us that we must never lie, not
even to protect the lives of innocent people!
• If Kant is right, then whether we like it or not we must never
lie—even in such a situation. “By a lie, a man... annihilates
his dignity as a man.”
• But is he right?
• Here is the problem: Why should you ask whether it is
permissible to lie? Why should you phrase your maxim like
that? Who decides? Perhaps you should phrase it this way: “I
will avoid telling the truth when doing so would save
someone’s life.” Or this way: “I will avoid complying with
criminals to prevent the death of innocent people.” Now these
maxims would not be self-defeating. Imagine a world in which
everyone lived by them. We all want that, don’t we? We hope
that everyone would live by these maxims.

106. Kant was confronted by this objection and responded in an essay
with the title “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic
Motives” (1797). His argument can be stated as follows:
• We are tempted to make certain exceptions. But when we do it
we are reasoning like the utilitarian—we assume that the end
justifies the means. However, we cannot possibly know what
the consequences of our actions will be.
• Suppose that the Nazis hear a noise coming from the basement.
They go downstairs and kill all the Jews who are hiding
there—and they also kill you for lying to them.
• So making exceptions to rules might be unexpectedly worse
than following them. That’s why we should never try to
determine the morality of our actions on the basis of their
consequences.

107. • The problem with this argument. Sometimes we can know what the
consequences will be. We do that all the time: We lock doors and shut
windows to prevent burglars from entering our apartments; we don’t tell a
friends that he is a terrible singer to avoid hurting his feelings.
• Even if we don’t know the consequences, avoiding the truth with the
intent to save people’s lives is worth the risk. Lying by omission instead
of commission.
• It is what any individual with moral integrity would do. After all, Kant
was concerned about consistency and fairness.
• Being fair often requires that we break rules: Lying to the Nazis to protect
innocent people’s lives is fair (the right thing to do).
• That seems to be the point of Kant: Do the right thing for the right reason.
If I lie because it is convenient to me, surely I am doing the wrong thing.
But if I lie to save people’s lives, it would seem that I do what is right and
for the right reason.

108. Okay, are you done? No, There’s More
• For Kant, once we have identified the correct maxim, we
have an obligation to act on it—whether you like it or not.
• Suppose you are in the hospital recovering from an illness.
I come to visit you and you are delighted to have some
company.
• You thank me for coming and I say to you I’m just doing
my duty.
• I’m not visiting you because I love you or I feel
compassionate, but rather because I have a moral duty to
do it—a categorical one.

109. • You would be very disappointed.
• I am doing the right thing, but something’s missing.
• Furthermore, who’s going to motivate me?
• At one point my duty will be something that I don’t want
or don’t enjoy doing.
• Well, Kant says you would be irrational.
• Okay, but who cares?
• Kant’s ethics leaves us with a bunch of impersonal,
objective, legalistic rules.

110. Conclusion
• Kant believed that we must follow absolute moral rules
dictated by reason, which he called categorical imperatives.
• These rules, according to Kant can never be broken—there can
be no exceptions.
• Breaking rules = acting irrationally.
• But which rules are we to follow? Well, those that pass the test
of universalizability.
• Unfortunately, the most telling problem is to decide how to
formulate, how to phrase, our maxims.
• It is not entirely clear, for example, why my maxim should be
“It is okay to lie” instead of “I will do whatever is in my power
to save the life of other rational beings.”
• Kant certainly did not give us a clear way to determine this.
• Consequently, it is difficult to defend the idea of absolute
moral rules. And so Kant’s theory seems fatally flawed.

111. Virtue Ethics
Aristotle
Born 384 BCE
Stagira, Northern Greece
Died 322 BCE (aged
approx. 62)

112. Virtue Ethics
• Emphasizes the role of one's character and the
virtues rather than rules or duty.
• Rather than right actions, virtue ethics prefers
noble, admirable, virtuous actions.
• No rule can tell me to do the right thing. I must
use my practical wisdom to guide my virtues to
determine correct action in a given situation.

113. • A virtue is an excellent trait of character; a
disposition, well entrenched in its possessor—
not a habit such as being a coffee-drinker.
• To possess a virtue is to be a certain sort of
person with a certain complex mindset.
• An honest person is not simply one who
practices honest dealing and does not cheat.
• The honest person recognizes internally that
lying is wrong (depending on the
circumstances).
• The honest person is one who feels repulsed at
the idea of lying or cheating. Compare to one
who does not cheat because it is against rules).

114. Virtues
• Prudence
• Compassion
• Generosity
• Benevolence
• Wisdom
• Justice
• Courage
• Temperance

115. • Aristotle argued that moral virtues are means
between two corresponding vices, one of excess
and one of deficiency. For example: courage is a
virtue found between the vices of cowardliness
and rashness.
Rashness Courage Cowardliness
|_______________|______________|

117. Practical Wisdom
• Given that good intentions are intentions to
act well or “do the right thing”, practical
wisdom is the knowledge or understanding
that enables its possessor, to act well, in any
given situation.
• It characteristically comes only with
experience of life.
• Confers upon the individual the capacity to
recognize relevant features of a situation as
more important than others, and make a
decision based on the virtues.

118. Eudaimonia
• Eudaimonist virtue ethics is the view that
virtues are traits necessary to eudaimonia.
• eudaimonia is standardly translated as
“happiness” or “flourishing” Each translation.

119. • Whatever has a natural function, the good
resides in the function.
• Its natural end determines the natural function of
a thing.
• For Aristotle, there is an end of all the actions
that humans perform, which we desire for its
own sake: Flourishing.
• Eudaimonia is a property of one's life when
considered as a whole.
• The best life is one of excellent human activity.
• An excellent human being is one who exercises
the virtues in accordance to reason.

120. Feminist Ethics/Care
• Women see morality differently from men.
• Motherly care.
• Kohlberg stages.
– Medicine dilemma. Would it be right to steal a
medicine that you cannot afford but will safe your
life?
Men tend to respond in legal/obligation terms.
Women prefer compassion.

121. This is the end!
What are your
Questions?