2014Marek Vácha

Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life is evil.

Albert Schweitzer

HedonismWhat should I do to live a succesful life?(hedoné = pleasure, bliss)

ultimate goal of all our actions is pleasure

among human values pleasure is the highest and pain the lowest

actions which increase the sum of pleasure are right, and what increases pain is wrong.

optimization of calculus of pleasure and displeasure Aristippus of Cyrene

(435 – 355?)

An action is good when it maximises the amount of pleasure, leading to the minimum amount of pain.

The Epicurean formula for happiness

The Epicurean formula for happiness is to maximise pleasure while minimising risk. Do not make emotional commitments. Seize

the day and harden yourself against a darker tomorrow.

So not pledge your life in marriage or suffer the burdens of bearing children. There is only one life, so there is no point in foreclosing your options or spending your time raising the next generation, for by the time your investment bears fruit you may no longer be here to see it.

The Epicurean formula for happiness

Do not get involved in public life: it is stressful and creates envy.

Do not spend too much time on others: they seldom repay your efforts.

Get used to solitude. Do not ask what life is for. Live it day by day. And

when it become burdensome, end it at a time and place of your choosing.

This is a sane response to a universe without meaning. But it is also the symptom of a civilisation in advanced decline.

Sacks, J., (2011) The Great Partnership. God, Science and the Search for Meaning. Hodder & Stoughton, London. p.34

The Epicurean formula for happiness

the material world is all there is we are temporary concatenations of atoms

which we split apart when we die. we have no souls there is no life after death we are here, we live, we die and cease to

be unsurprisingly, they had no interest in

the concepts of right and wrong Sacks, J., (2011) The Great Partnership. God, Science and the Search for Meaning. Hodder &

Stoughton, London. p.34

Utilitarianism"greatest good for the greatest number"

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

Utilitarianism

Combination of four principles principle of consequences principle of hedonism principle of tolerance social principle

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian believes in ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number.’

The more people who benefit from a particular action, the greater its good.

Utilitarianism"greatest good for the greatest number"

„Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.“

(Jeremy Bentham)

(1748 – 1832)

Jeremy Bentham

„The blackness of the skin is no reason why human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.“

(Bentham, J., (1948) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Laurence J.LaFleur, ed. New York, 311)

Jeremy Bentham

The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?

(Bentham, J., (1948) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Laurence J.LaFleur, ed. New York, 311)

The cruelty to people, whose nervous system is the most refined, is worse than cruelty to lower forms of life, but this is a quantitative difference only.

The time will come, when humanity will extend its mantle over every thing which breathes.“

Utilitarianism

it is the consequences of human actions that count

The principle of utility defines the meaning of moral obligation by reference to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people

Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory of ethics. Consequentialist theories judge the rightness (or wrongness) of an action, by what occurs as a result of doing something.

Utilitarianism"greatest good for the greatest number"

" . . . actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.„

(John Stuart Mill)

(1806-1873)

Utilitarianism

principle of consequences „The end justifies the means“

principle of hedonism greatest happiness of the greatest number of

people

What is happiness?

when highly motivated research scientist work to the point of exhaustion in search of new knowledge, they do not appear to be seeking a professional happiness

J.S.Mill: such persons are motivated by success, recognition, or money ( which all promise happiness)

Recent utilitarian philosophers: there are also diverse set of values other than happiness: knowledge, health, understanding, deep personal relationship etc.

Utilitarianism – treating „non-human animals“

„Pain is pain, whatever the species of the being experiencing it.“

while it might be possible that the pleasure of meat-eating (if great) might exceed the suffering of the animal (if slight, for example, because the animal was reared with great care and killed painlessly) few people buying meat from supermarket can guarantee that such a condition existed.

so according this line of reasoning we are morally obliged to adopt vegetarianism (Peter Singer)

(Mepham, B., (2008) Bioethics. An Introduction for the Biosciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 162)

Utilitarianism – treating „non-human animals“

but if it was established that millions of peoples´ lives (farmers, slaughtermen, butchers, restaurateurs, waiters, beef-burger eaters) would be seriously upset by a ban on meat production, does that mean killing animals for meat would suddenly become ethical?

(Mepham, B., (2008) Bioethics. An Introduction for the Biosciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 163)

Hedonistic utilitarianism pleasure and happiness are good things, while

pain and suffering are bad things we want to avoid

BUT: many people prefer to live a life with less happiness and perhaps even more pain and suffering, if they can thereby fulfil other imporatant preferences. they may choose to strive for excellence in art,

or literature, or sport...

Preference utilitarianism the right act is one that

will, in the long run, satisfy more preferences than it will thwart

we weigh the preferences according to their importance for the person holding them.

(Singer, P., Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective. Bioethics 17, nos. 5-6 (2003): 526-41.)

Critique of Utilitarianism

Critique of Utilitarianism

the question is, whether human actions are to be judged right or wrong solely according to their consequences.

what if the greatest number find the greatest happiness in things that are plain wrong, like prejudice in a racist society, or violence in a lynch mob?

Sometimes we have to do the right thing even though it makes people unhappy!

Sacks, J., (2011) The Great Partnership. God, Science and the Search for Meaning. Hodder & Stoughton, London.p. 158

Critique of Utilitarianism

If a surgeon, for example, could save two innocent lives by killing a prisoner on death row to retrieve his heart and liver for transplantation, this outcome would have the highest net utility (in the circumstances), but the surgeon´s action would be morally indefensible.

(Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F., (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, p. 150)

Case Report

A five-year-old girl has a progressive renal failure and is not responding well on chronic renal dialysis. The medical staff is considering a renal transplant, but its effectiveness is „questionable“ in her case. Nevertheless, a clear possibility exists that the transplanted kidney will not be affected by the disease process. The parent concur with the plan to try a transplant, but an additional obstacle emerges. The tissue typing indicates that it would be difficult to find a match for the girl. The staff excludes her two siblings, ages two and four, as too young to provide a kidney. The mother is not histocompatible, but the father is compatible and has „anatomically favorable circulation for transplantation.“

Case Report

Meeting alone with the father, the nephrologist gives him the results and indicates that the prognosis for his daughter is „quite uncertain“. After reflection, the father decides that he will not donate a kidney to his daughter. His several reasons includes the fear of the surgery, the uncertain prognosis for his daughter even with a transplant, the slight prospect of a cadaver kidney etc. The father then requests that the physician „tell everyone else in the family that he is not histocompatible“. He is afraid that if family members know the truth, they will accuse him of failing to save his daughter when he could have. He meintains that truth-telling would have effect of „wrecking the family.“

The physician is uncomfortable with the request, but after further discussion he agrees to tell the man´s wife that the father should not donate a kidney „for medical reasons“.

Utilitarian Approach

probable consequences the potential effectiveness is questionable and the prognosis

uncertain there is a slight possibility that a cadaver kidney could be

obtained the girl probably die without a transplant, but the transplant

offers a small chance for survival the risk of death to the father from anesthesia is 1: 10 000 or

1: 15 000 nevertheless, because the chance of success is likely

greater than the probability that the father will be harmed, many utilitarians would hold that the father is obligated to undertake what others would consider a heroic act that surpasse obligation.

The Problem of Truth telling

„Even under the guise of benevolent deception, the idea of not telling the truth to patients is rather suspect. The suggestion is that the individual is not strong enough to tolerate the truth, or more time is needed to prepare the patient for an unpleasant fact. Unfortunately, this lack of truth telling leads to a slippery slope, for while it gives comfort to the one individual, it teaches all others involved – for example family members, friends, housekeeping staff, and hospital volunteers – that health care practitioners lie to their patients. When these others become sick themselves, they remember the previous deception and feel they cannot rely on the word of the professionals.“

(Edge, R.S., Groves, J.R., (2007) Ethics of Health Care. 3rd ed. Thomson Delmar Learning, NY, p.62)

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Deontological ethics Categorical Imperative maxim

Critique of Pure Reason

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

Kant's moral theory is deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination.

The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise.

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

Of course, human agents also have subjective impulses—desires and inclinations that may contradict the dictates of reason.

So we experience the claim of reason as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way, or an imperative.

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

Kant held that morality is derived from rationality, not from experience, and that obligation is grounded not in the nature of man or in the circumstances of the world but in pure reason

These universal truth applied to all people, for all times, in all situations

Human minds works the same way, regardless of who you are, where you are, or when you are.

categorical imperative categorical = without any exception

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

categorical imperative universal application (i.e., binding on every individual) unconditionality demanding an action

we must always treat others as ends and not as means only

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby

you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

we must be willing for the rules we set for ourseleves to become a „law of nature“ we must be willing to have such rules apply

universally

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

The essence of immorality, is to make an exception of myself by acting on maxims that I cannot willfully universalize.

It is always wrong to act in one way while wishing that everyone else would act otherwise. (The perfect world for a thief would be one in which everyone else always respected private property.)

Immanuel Kant(1724 – 1804)

"formula of the end in itself" as: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."

Criticism of Kant

1. The exceptionless character of Kant´s moral philosophy makes it too rigid for real life. Real-life situations are so varied that it is impossible to create rules that can guide us in all circumstances

2. it is often the spirit of law, rather than the letter, that provides the arena for rational decisions

3. even though animals feel pain and pleasure, they have not any independent moral standing since they are not rational beings.

utilitarianism the end justifies the

means hodnota jednání

závisí výlučně na následcích jednání

deontology an act in itself would

be either right or wrong; it could not be both

hodnota jednání závisí výlučně na způsobu jednání

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle: not „What ought I do?“ but What should I be?“

An American medical Association code in effect from 1957 to 1980 urged the physician to be „pure in character and … diligent and conscientious

in caring for the sick.“

Virtue Ethics

aretaic ethics (arete = excellence; virtue) it is not only important to do right thing but

equally to have right disposition, motivation, and traits for being good and doing right.

personal character and moral habit are more important than a particular action

without the foundation of individual character to motivate action, the action-based systems seemed more mental gymnastics than basis for morality

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle: „The moral virtues, then, are produced in us neither by nature nor against nature. Nature, indeed prepares in us the ground for their reception, but their complete formation is the product of habit.“

Virtue Ethics

people become morally virtuous similar to the way in which people acquire other excellences and skills, such as driving car or playing golf, tha is, through practice good drivers are not born, but instead

daevelop the skills and instincts necessary to act intuitively while on the road

an honest person tells the truth automatically a generous person is inclined to share things

with others

Virtue Ethics

the virtue of courage has two opposites - cowardice and foolhardiness it is possible to have too much fear or too little

Virtue Ethics

virtue = mean between two extremes not every passion has a mean: there is no

mean of murder

Virtue Ethics

An American medical Association code in effect from 1957 to 1980 urged the physician to be „pure in character and … diligent and conscientious

in caring for the sick.“

Critique of the Virtue Ethics

virtue ethics provides little, if any, guidance for actions

even kind, honorable, compassionate beings often do not know the right thing to do

man behavior consequences

Aristotle

virtue ethics

Kant

deontology

Bentham, Mill

utilitarianism