Utilitarianism

Greatest Happiness Principle: action is right iff it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest
number

Not hedonistic

Properties of utilitarianism: act-centered; output-oriented; agent-relative

Objections:
1) calculation-heavy and dont have time
response: Mills response that we have our entire history to decipher
2) may promote evil
response: Right maker, decision procedure
3)too demanding
response integrity
enter John Harris survival lottery

CASE: DNR status (In what situations is it permissible for doctors to intervene with
patients decision)
Factors: Disrespect caused by patient (pain in part of the nurses)
Problem of time and expenses (could be used for other patients instead who have
higher chance of probability to survive)
Put into dnr status to satisfy happiness of the doctors, nurses if they have personal
inclinations and weight is pushing against them
Kantian Ethics
-rightness of an action is based on reason and intent
-importance of Good will -> duty. Must be motivated by duty. Anything that involves
personal inclinations has less moral worth
-maxim principle for making actions. Has two parts: action to do and reasons for
action
-following duty is like following a certain law; it is similar to be commanded. Thus
Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative
-maxims must pass the categorical Imperative. FUL is the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative. States that one must act in a way that one call also a will a
universal law.
-how to use FUL? Formulate maxim. Imagine world where maxim is universalized.
Look for contradictions.
-there are 3 possible contradictions (logical, teleological, practical)
-use practical contradiction because it looks for something that wont work instead
of looking for something that doesnt make sense
-explanation of HF and KE. HF- must never use humanity as MERE means.

KE- ideal world where ends work in harmony

-importance of self and mutual aid, not only avoid using others as mere means but
also recognize others as rational beings with own autonomy and own rational
maxims (justice and beneficence)
-paradox of deontology (murderer at the door example). HF does not permit us to lie
to murderer. Huge problem for kantians. So Korsgaard explained that Deontology is
actually a two level deontology. FUL works for non-ideal world. HF and KE are ideal
provisions.
Case: BATKID
No contradiction in FUL if give to charities such as Batkid ( to increase awareness of
cancer patients, I will donate to charitable organizations such as Make-a-wish)
No obvious contradiction, but end that increasing awareness is to preserve the lives
of people and achieve justice
Also, using kid as mere means though, violates HF.
Suppose there is nothing wrong and it is morally impermissible, better to donate na
lang sa mas nangangailangan that immediately furthers autonomy of those
vulnerable.
Virtue Ethics
-looks not for a principle. But explains good actions through character traits
-Eudaimonia-happiness, it is what humans should be looking for as an end
-Eudaimonia is important for attaining excellent life
-Virtues help attain Eudaimonia. Although these do not guarantee best kind of life.
They however are very helpful
-virtues cannot be taught. It must be treated as a habit to completely master it.
Might also require good fortune. (see MJ example)
-how do we know what is a virtue though? Aristotelian FRAMEWORK: virtue is a
golden mean between two vices.
Objections:
1. collapses to moral relativism
response: yes virtues are relative. However universal grounding
experiences arent. we can debate on which interpretations of virtue is
the best
2. does not tell us what to do:
response: wait what? U expect for decision procedure? We have a
decision procedure but is not a technical manual model. These types of
model destroy our identities as persons. Our decision procedure is a
developmental process, together with an exemplar.

3. Who are the virtuous? And the definitions are circular. We cannot
determine who can be our exemplar
Response: there are always better persons than us. And they are the
ones who can aid us in developmental process
4. Situationist challenge.
Right behavior is not a function of virtues but instead of situations
There are very rare virtuous persons if there are any.
We must just give up on notions of virtues because of the fundamental
attribution error
Response: what u observe is normal. There are fragmented people. We
can always work on building robust traits as long as these fragments of
virtues exist