Introduction to Philosophy, Lecture 7: Normative Ethics

I want to introduce you to three theories of normative ethics. Even though some of the content of this lecture may feel intuitive, at times simplistic, I'm eager to hear from you how thinking through an ethical theory helps you question what might otherwise be taken for granted.

That thinking, to be sure, starts with a "vibe." You hear the word "Utilitarianism" and it just sounds useful. Notions of "utility" float in the air; you must be productive. You're thinking about productivity, after all, and who is more productive than a theorist who thinks about productivity?

Utilitarianism's "principle of utility"–maybe you could say "slogan"–is "the greatest good for the greatest number." –"Isn't that what we do all the time?" you ask. "Aren't we trying to do as much good for as many people as possible?"– Well, no, we're not. Sometimes this is because we have a lot to learn before we can really do good for others. I like to say education is your responsibility to your community partly because it clarifies that you have to prepare in order to do the work. I remember a parent snapping at their kid "you don't do anything for anyone else." But that kid was barely allowed to leave the house, the parent hated going places, and the parent themselves actively avoided meeting anyone, let alone credible adults who served as guides for community building. How was the kid supposed to learn to do more for others? You can't just be selfless or generous. It requires more than motivation, though that's necessary. You need knowledge and practice beyond one's immediate home. You'll recall someone rather famous saying that doing good things for your friends and family is easy.

Utilitarianism entails actively looking for opportunities to maximize the good and maximize the number of people who receive that good. Feeding the hungry often? Hugely utilitarian. Saying people ought to work in order to eat? Extremely anti-utilitarian, if not outright immoral and cruel, unjustifiable even by the strictest standards of virtue. Deregulation means more people can use air travel? Great: net benefits all around, lots of goods being had. Deregulation coupled with trickle-down economics? Probably anti-utilitarian for a number of reasons. If the rich are consistently allowed to get richer, it doesn't even matter if the wealth trickles down (it doesn't, btw). Wealth at some point is sheer political power. The politician must go to the billionaire; the billionaire simply by being has access and entitlement the rest of us can't conceive.

With Act Utilitarianism in particular, you're aiming to be "chaotic good," to use a Dungeons and Dragons term. You want lots of people to benefit in some way so that way it creates a "pay it forward" situation automatically. For example, let's say you buy books for prisoners (on this note, check out the Inside Books Project). Not only do the prisoners get something that can help keep them sane during a brutal lockup, but it lessens the burden on their families. With that burden lessened, opportunities arise for more good in the world.

You might be wondering why the world is in such dire shape if this ethical theory is out there. I'm just going to be blunt: the world is surviving in spite of itself. You have to see the looks on people's faces when I mention I give to charity. You can tell in a number of cases that the thought never crossed their mind. People really believe that being the manager at work bragging about the new Altima and yelling at everyone for the pettiest reasons is making the trains run on time. In fact, it's doing the exact opposite. It not only makes life tough for people, but it opens the door for genuinely corrupt people to use rules against all the rest of us. There's pollution everywhere–you don't need to be an environmentalist to see that ripped up tires and trash and refineries and endless concrete jungle aren't healthy–and a few are benefiting heavily from this with regard to their wallet.

Utilitarianism emerged in 19th century Britain as a way of attacking moral strictness. This strictness had direct implications in terms of who ruled. If you're attacking poor people for not working, for example, that lends itself immediately to a ruling class that doesn't work but never has to worry about being called out on that. Utilitarianism leans toward an idea motivating most who are trying to combat poverty now: just give people money. When you've got organizations which are notorious for spending all the money they get on fundraisers, you're better off giving someone immediately in need the money. Just as importantly, "the greatest good for the greatest number" was an immediate argument for universal suffrage, the marginalization of aristocratic power, rights for women, even rights for the colonized. Utilitarianism and democratic practice go hand-in-hand.

There's more to say. I'd like to talk about how the "hedonism" of utilitarianism is about quantifying pleasure so that way data can be collected on how policies work or don't work. I'd like to talk about how this is an idea which gives birth to a more robust notion of social science. But I believe it's important to note that your education can be an exercise in "the greatest good for the greatest number" and let you meditate on that.

This is a trickier moral theory to explain. "Deontology" is from the Greek and means something like "the study of duty." For myself, I like to imagine what various theories are reacting to. Utilitarianism is a statement against strict moral standards which punish as opposed to empower. I feel like the moral climate was centered around a nobility which needed to be countered. When Kant introduces deontology in 18th century Prussia, there are strict moral rules, but they stem from metaphysical systems which say all ethical duties come from God. How to argue for the primacy of conscience? How to explain that free individuals, not just clergy, can make moral rules we ought to take seriously?

Kant wants rationality itself to obligate us. He arrives at the categorical imperative, which is roughly this: for anything you want to do, think about the principle behind it, then think about everyone else acting on that principle. Do the consequences make sense? Can your reasoning be elevated to the level of a "universal law?"

You'll note that this can overlap with the "principle of utility," but it definitely breaks from "the greatest good is the greatest number." It is centered on duty and obligation. Take lying for example. "The greatest good for the greatest number" can certainly tolerate lies. Maybe they're good in the short-term and lead to even better effects in the long-term, ones that stem from, say, avoiding thorny situations earlier. However, if you think you want to lie, deontology wants you to picture a world where everyone lies all the time using roughly your reasoning. Obviously there will be out of control instances. If you lie in order to protect someone who is stealing a small item, what exists to prevent someone from using that reasoning to protect someone stealing any item? Who determines worth?

If deontology seems too strict, it is so on purpose. Kantian thought does seem to aim at secular moral perfection in a world which wants to say moral perfection can only be had through religion. The perfection, it should be noted, is not simply its own endgame. For example, Kant has an essay called "Perpetual Peace" where he says that nations have to stop lying to each other, that secret treaties are a huge no-no. A little more than a hundred years after this essay the world collapsed into the First World War because of various alliances, some public and others private. It turns out when you insist on higher moral standards for individuals that you can build a serious basis for international law.

Moreover, Kant formulates the categorical imperative in other ways. One formulation is particularly beautiful: "Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means." Nowadays, we don't just have people who use others. We have people who genuinely believe they are acting in the best way when they use others. That the only thing is using or being used. It hurts my brain to think about this because I have to consider that I've known a lot of people who believe this. Treating others as ends in themselves–treating humanity as something to be achieved–is the fundamental duty. Deontology has incredible virtue in highlighting that. A number of reactionary thinkers rant about Kant, and often I think the rants are unhinged because he's right.

Finally, I'd like you to be familiar with virtue ethics, which has a long lineage we have forgotten. People would kill each other not that long ago if they felt an affront to their virtue. That might not be the most distinguished lineage to have, but it points to the near disappearance of the word virtue. Then again, I feel like everyone is into anime because anime often addresses a world where honor and virtue matter. Where who you say you are is of the utmost importance.

There are a lot of aspects to virtue ethics which we believe are intuitive but actually aren't. Note, for example, how it depends on a different conception of human reason than utilitarianism or deontology. Utilitarianism gives you a principle with which to test your actions. Did they provide "the greatest good for the greatest number?" Reason, in this case, asks that you test your actions. You should be able to adduce data and if you didn't actually provide "the greatest good for the greatest number," you try again. It's like you're running a scientific experiment or building a technology. Deontology asks you to find principles which are certain. You must be certain that the duty you have taken on does not created warped obligations. Deontology is asking you to find what is truly reasonable.

Virtue ethics in the Aristotlean sense depends on identifying a mean. The mean is the virtue. Too little courage? You're a coward. Too much courage? You're rash. Courage itself is the mean. Too little generosity? You're stingy. Too much generosity? You're profligate. Generosity is the mean. See what is being asked of reason here: it is not an exact science. Rather, you're accounting for your actions relative to the situation. Did you give when people needed? A lot? And you're still doing ok? Then you're generous even if you gave a bit more than others would say you should have.

I'd like you to think about what virtues our society needs. Where are we excessive or deficient? Where do we need to come back to a mean which would constitute a moral legacy? What do we want to model for the future? I'll suggest one virtue we could practice right now. The excess is complete shamelessness, saying "I can't be any better, but at least I'm honest," and then doing/saying/thinking horrible things. The deficiency isn't a lack of shame, but rather hiding from everyone and everything, imagining the whole world is against you and ready to judge. The mean? The virtue? Authenticity.