Rachels, Ch. 9: Are There Absolute Moral Rules?
1. HARRY TRUMAN AND ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE ON ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES
2. Truman: Dropping an atom bomb on Japanese cities--though it killed innocent men, women and children--was justified because it saved lives.
a. "He slept like a baby" after the decision!
3. Anscombe on absolute moral rules:
a. Killing innocents as a means to ends is murder (wrong)
b. "If you had to chose between boiling one baby and letting some frightful disaster befall one thousand people (or a million if a thousand is not enough), what would you do?"
i. And if you chose to boil the baby, should you "sleep like a baby?"
c. Prohibition on killing innocents is one inviolable rule (and there are many others)
d. Do not be tempted by hope of consequences.
4. CONSEQUENTIALISM AND NON-CONSEQUENTIALISM
5. Anscombe's view (and Kant's below) is a form of Non-Consequentialism
a. Some things may not be done no matter what (the consequences)
b. In contrast, consequentialists (e.g., utilitarians) say any moral rule may be broken if circumstances demand it
6. Non-consequentialism: Right acts are determined by factors other than the consequences
a. By motives, by doing what the good person does (virtue ethics), by considerations of justice, fairness, and equality, by respecting rights, by treating people as they deserve, by treating people as ends and not means only, by following moral rules that are universalizable
7. IMMANUEL KANT
8. Morality consists in following (absolute) rules (independent of consequences)
a. Kant thinks reason requires this
9. Hypothetical and categorical imperatives
a. An imperative tells you what you should do
b. Hypothetical imperatives tells you that you should do this if you want something else
i. E.g., If you to go to law school, then you should take the entrance exam
c. Categorical imperative: Tells you what you should do regardless of what you want; independent of any desires; do such and such period
i. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, which you can get out of by not having the desire they depend on
ii. Categorical imperatives require certain action whatever your desires are
10. For Kant, morality involves categorical imperatives
a. These are justified by reasons: binding on all rational agents simply because they are rational
11. 1st formulation of the "categorical imperative"
a. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law"
b. If the rule by which you act is one that you would be willing to have everyone follow all the time, then your act is permissible; otherwise not.
12. Kant's examples of non-universalizable imperatives
a. Making a false promise to repay a loan knowing that one can't repay
i. Can one universalize this? (No: you would not be willing to accept others making false promises to you)
b. Not giving to charity
i. Can one universalize this? (No: if one was in desperate need one would not want others to be indifferent to one's needs)
13. For Kant, right acts are ones that follow rules that are universalizable
14. Universalizable means
a. Not self-defeating
c. Consistently applied
15. Rules must not be self-defeating
a. If it is not possible that the rule of one's action could be universally followed (they are self-defeating), then one is taking unfair advantage of others
i. Butting in line is self defeating if universalized
ii. Lying is self-defeating if universalized
iii. False promise to repay loan is self-defeating if universalized
16. Rules must be reversible
a. Can't make exceptions to moral rules just for oneself
b. If you think it is right to do something to someone else, then you must think it would be right for them to do it to you (in similar circumstances)
i. If I think it is right to drink all your beer without asking you, then I must also think it right that you drink all my beer w/o asking me
ii. Charity: If it is right for me as a rich person to not give to a poor person, then I must think it right that if I was a poor person it would be right for rich people to give me nothing as well
17. Problem of which rule to try to universalize
a. Kant thought there was an absolute prohibition on lying because one could not universalize lying (for doing so would be self-defeating-no one would believe lies if there was universal law permitting lying)
b. But perhaps one can universalize "lying to save an innocent person's life"
18. Kant's argument from unexpected consequences and responsibility for the bad consequences of one's lies
a. The case of the inquiring murderer: A friend tells you he is going home to hide from a murderer. The murder comes and asks you if your friend is at home. Should you lie or tell the truth?
b. Kant says tell the truth
i. For you can't know whether or not your friend is really at home
ii. Avoid the known evil (lying) and let the consequences come as they may
iii. And if he is not at home and you lied and the murder found him outside his home, you'd be responsible (in part) for his death
c. Rachels’ response:
i. We often can know what the consequences of our acts will be
ii. Kant ignores that one is also responsible for the consequences of telling the truth as well as the consequences of lying
19. Argument against absolute moral rules: Cases of conflict in absolute moral rules
a. Sometimes moral rules conflict with each other and if they are absolute (exceptionless) we end up with a contradiction; one of them must have an exception (not be absolute)
b. Example: Dutch captains smuggling Jewish refugees to England were asked by Nazi patrol boats where they were going and who was aboard
i. Two rules
(1) Wrong to lie
(2) Wrong to facilitate the murder of innocent people
ii. A theory of morality that prohibits both absolutely is incoherent.
20. WHAT RACHELS SEES AS THE LASTING CONTRIBUTION OF KANT TO MORALITY
21. Violating morality is not only immoral but irrational
a. Morality and rationality are tied
b. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons (Rachels account of morality)
22. Good reasons are one's consistently applied
a. One can't think something is a good reason in one case and then deny it is a good reason in another case (that is relevantly similar)
i. If the full reason it is okay for me to have sex outside of marriage is because I love the other person
ii. Consistency then requires me to say that gay sex outside of marriage is okay too if the gay couple love each other
c. Reasons can't be accepted sometimes and not other times; they can't apply to others but not to me
23. Kant's mistake was to think that consistency implied absolute (exceptionless) moral rules
a. But it does not
b. All consistency requires is that if we advocate violating a rule in one case for a particular reasons (lie to save an innocent person), then we must be willing to accept that reason for violating the rules in other similar cases