Analysis of the sample

Judgement

Deontic, Non-normative, Evaluative

  1. deontic
    obligatory义务性的，强制的（常用should, must, ought），做直接的判断（right, wrong），duty, unjust，祈使句
    eg. People have the right to watch the movies they want
  2. evaluative(评价性)
    做道德判断与评价（good, neutral, bad），better than, worse than, 通常判断的程度是可分级的
    eg. Most people are honest and kind, life is wonderful, a small pain is better than a great pain tomorrow, Bob is a good man
  3. non-normative
    具有强烈的情感色彩,主观色彩强烈
    eg. Everybody hates wars, I don’t think you should study too much, I firmly believe that you shouldn’t study too much, Some people say that Hitler was good

Differences of different branches

  1. Moral theory
    1. Answer general moral questions about what to do and how to be
    2. What makes action/things/person right and wrong
    3. 回答具体的伦理问题，应该怎么做，为何，如何评价各类行为
  2. Metaethcis
    1. Answer non-moral questions about morality
    2. 形而上学，探讨认知论与语义学问题，不聚焦于具体问题该分支从形而上学思考伦理问题，不聚焦于具体的问题，而是从从伦理学之外角度来思考道德实践（抽象的语义学，认知论问题）
  3. Applied Ethics
    聚焦于具体的道德实践问题，通常具有争议

Theoretical basis

Applied Ethics

Methodology

  1. Top-Down approach
    According to the Top-Down approach, we start with a general normative theory (e.g.,
    utilitarianism, deontologism, virtue theory…), and we apply the general principles to
    particular situations(从宽泛理论出发，寻找实际适用点)
    Problem:
    Application: What and how to apply a general principle
    Specification: Difficult to apply general principle without considering concrete conditions
    Reliability: Different theories conflict with each other, or conflict with moral intuition and social norms
    Circularity: Moral theoris receive confirmation from intuitions about specific situations

  2. Bottom-Up approach
    According to the Bottom-Up approach, we start with considering intuitive judgments, social agreements… about particular situations. We then compare to relevantly similar cases (comparative case analysis). Finally, we generalize to standards that cover all sufficiently similar situations. (在就具体事件形成了一定观点后，横向寻找比较示例，形成统一理论)
    Problem:
    Insufficiency: Particular cases can not determine the general theories
    Conflicting intuitions: There are cases that we can’t reach an agreement in social moral intuitions
    Risk of biases: can’t avoid biases in moral intuitions

  3. Reflective Equilibrium (John Rawls)反思平衡理论 1) start with the broadest possible set of moral judgements about a subject 2) build a set of principles that reflect such judgements 3) Search an equilibrium between general principles and particular judgements
    Problem:
    Coherence doesn’t guarantee justification
    Vagueness of the method

Bioethics

abortion

  1. JJ Thomson violinist case
    The Violinist case: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious famous violinist. The violinist has a fatal kidney problem, whose survival depends on his staying attached to your circulatory system.

    The point of the case and argument: In this situation, it is uncontroversial that the violinist is a person and has a right to life. Yet, Thomson argues, he does not have a right to use your body, and hence you have a right to unplug yourself. By analogy, we should also agree that a woman can terminate a pregnancy if she has been victim of rape (against her consent). As in the violinist case, the fetus’ right to life does not outweigh the woman’s right to control over her own body. In conclusion: even if a fetus were a person, with all of the rights we would confer to any other person, it would still be permissible to abort under certain conditions

  2. The potientiality argument
    The fetus has potiential to become a complete person, and killing a complete person is wrong
  3. Don Marquis’s argument
    Killing a person is not wrong in itself, but because it deprives that person of a future life
Cloning and genetic engineering

  1. YES
    A good argument from the point of view of theories such as NLT, but not very good from a consequentialist point of view(不同道德理论的冲突)
    A feeling of repugnance is no good reason to think that a practice is morally wrong.
    We are not merely the product of our genetic composition

  2. NO
    It is an act against nature.（反自然的）
    By cloning and modifying humans’ DNA we risk to end up in a dystopian world. （反乌托邦）
    Negative effects on the society.（考虑社会效益）

Animal ethics

  1. Core problem:
    Do animals have a moral standing?
  2. Different views:
    1. being a human being is necessary and sufficient for being something with moral standing
    2. A living thing
    3. rational being
    4. sentiment being
    5. has experiences and cares about moral standing

Distributive justice

  1. Domain: concerns rights related to the distribution of goods
  2. Moral theories to apply
    1. Utilitarianism
      1. A distribution of goods D is just if and only if D would because as high a utility as any alternative distributions(关注是否能把utility最大化)
      2. Problem:
        Utilitarianism seems to justify the inequitable justice models
        Against: The diminishing marginal utility of goods
        Problem:
        Equality has value itself, instead of being just being evaluated by the overall utility
        The different degree of pleasure varies in people, and Utilitarianism favors those who want more without considering the contributions
    2. Rawls’ theory of justice(egalitarian liberalism 平等的自由主义)
      1. Equal liberty principle: Society ought safeguard the greatest liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all others(捍卫每个人最大的自由)
      2. Difference principle: Spciety ought to promote an equal distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as incentives to benefit everyone and are open to everyone on an equal basis(初始财富的公平分配，再分配鼓励为全人类做出贡献)

  3. Nozick’s theory of justice(libertarianism自由主义)
    Just distribution means the distribution that reflects what people have legally earned.

  4. What distributive justice is really about
    Equality V.S. Liberty

Environmental Ethics

  1. Important question:
    Whhther the environment’s values come from human?
  2. Branches:
    1. Antropocentrism 人类中心主义
      The environment’s value depend on the human’s need.
    2. Anti-antropocentrism 反人类中心主义
      Our duties to preserve the environment don’t depend on the needs of huamn, but on the intrinsic values and rights of nature.
      1. Individualism:
        Preserve the rights of individual (sentient) beings, such as animals.
      2. Holism:
        Preserve the entire species and whole ecosystems.

Engineering Ethics

  1. domain:
    The study of the decisions, policies, and values that are morally desirable in engineering practice and research
  2. codes of ethcis:
    Public safety and quality of service
    Conflicts of interest
    Unfair competition with respect to other engineers
    Fidelity to employer and client
    Rlationships between engineers, managers, and the market
    Social and environmental responsibilities
    Appropriate use and development of technologies
  3. Methodology: casuistic(诡辩的) method
    begin with particular cases – find typical examples – compare the differences and similaries – set provisional principles(临时的)
    Why: Multiple factors, Engineers need virtues more than rules
  4. Four considerations:
    Safety, Environmental protection, Consumer usefulness, Economic benefits

Safety and risk

The most important principle: protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance.

  1. When is a risk acceptable and when it isn’t? And what makes a risk acceptable?
    1. Safety= complete absence of risk
      Problem: it is neither attainable or affordable
    2. Safety= whatever risks people judge to be acceptable
      Problem: People often underestimate or overestimate risk
      Leads to relativism aabout risks
    3. A thing is safe, if were its risks fully known, those risks would be judged acceptable by reasonable persons in light of their settled value principles(风险充分了解，理性主体基于既有价值观做出抉择)
      Problem: Normal people have biased judgements about what counts as safe and when a risk is acceptable.
    4. A thing is safe if it doesn’t pass some threshold on risk(风险不超过阈值)
      What determines a threshold: cost-benefit analysis
      Problem: Too many factors involved, does not consider individuals and their rights
  2. Definition of risks
    1. Risk management: The risk of a hypotetical scenario is given by the expected disvalue of that scenario(风险由假定情况的损失决定)
    2. Statistical/probabilities: The risk pf hipothetical scenario is determined by how probable it is. The higher the probability, the higher the risk.(风险由发生的概率决定)
      Against:
      1. Legal practice: can’t punish a man without full evidence
      2. Even the same probability will result in different risk intuitions
      3. Checklist: Every possible way for a case to happen has low risks will result in the overall low risks
    3. Safety-based: The risk of a hypothetical scenario is determined by how modally close it is.(风险由与模型与现实情况的接近程度决定)
    4. Normalcy-based: The risk of a hypothetical scenario is determined by how normal its happening is.(风险由常态的接近程度决定)
  3. More approaches:
    1. Risk-pluralism: Combine these notions
    2. Risk-context-dependence: Adopt different approaches based on different conditions

Metaethics

Moral theory

Consequentialism

  1. General characterization:
    Evaluate entirely in terms of value of consequences
    • Common property:
    • Value-based theory:
      Value is the most fundamental normative notion(more fundamental than deontic notions and virtues) - Difference:
    • type of value: pleasure, wellbeing, freedom, life
    • How many fundamental values: pluralism(多元论) V.S. monism(单元论)
    • Universalism V.S. Non-universalism(是否考虑普遍结果)
    • Prioritarianism V.S. Non-prioritarianism(是否不同群体具有优先级)
    • Actual V.S. Expected consequence
  2. Act utlitarianism:
    1. Concept:
      • Maximize the value and minimize the disvalue
      • Monism and Welfarism: Admits the only value- Wefare
      • Universalism
      • Non-prioritarianism

    2. Principle:
      An action A is obligatory iff A would produce a higher leverl of utility.

    3. Branch: Classic Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism
      Welfare = level of hapiness, which constituted by experiences of pleasure and absence of the
  3. Problem:
    • Uncertainty and ignorance of the consequences of our actions
      Answer:
      1. Actual consequence: Objective rightness
      2. Expected consequence: Subjective rightness
    • Against our moral intuitions
    • Justify inequitable distribution justice models

Deontologism

  1. Core:
    Ethics is a matter of duties
  2. Types:
    • Duty-based
    • Rights-based
  3. Branches:
    1. Kantian Deontologism:
      There is only one, exceptionless norm(Categorical Imperative). It is always wrong to disobey wrong to disobery such norm, no matter what.
      1. Concept:
        Moral norms are norms of reason. These norms are valid universally for all rational agents.(将norm推至所有理性人范畴)
      2. Categorical imperative:
        Unconditionally valid and absolute. One must comply with them.

      3. Well-known formulations of CI:
        Act as is the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.
        Morality is grounded in the respect for all the rationals autonomy.

      4. Advantage:
        Highlight humanity, autonomy an drespect for others
        Moral duties independent of what we want and what we desire
      5. Problems:
        • too passive and limited
        • may derive conflicts between CI(Self improvement and promote happiness of others)
        • too abstract, indeterminate and vague
    2. Rossian Deontologism:
      There are many norms, each admitting possible exceptions
      1. Pluralism:
        • Several basic moral principles
        • These principles are fundamental, not derived from anything else
        • None of these principles is exceptionless
      2. Basic duties(Prima facie duties)
        Fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-maleficence
      3. Prima facie duties:
        When different duties conflict, follow your moral intuitions
      4. Advantage:
        • describe well the complexity of moral deliberation
        • intrinsic moral significance of personal relationship
  4. Advantages:
    • Deontologism is not so demanding
    • Fit better with concentional ideas about morality
    • Respects the personal the relational aspects of morality
  5. Problems:
    • Epistemological
      How can we one identify the true list of moral duties? And common explanations appeal to moral intuitions, common sense, rationality.
    • Dilemma:
      Whether too abstract or may need non-deontological criterion