Philosophy - Education Scotland

Philosophy

Moral Philosophy:
Student Activities
Higher and Intermediate 2

7899

.

Summer 2000

HIGHER STILL

Philosophy

Moral Philosophy:
Student Activities
Higher and Intermediate 2

Support Materials

CONTENTS

• Introduction to Moral Philosophy
• Utilitarianism; information and activities
• Kantian Ethics; information and activities
• War - introduction to topic
• Utilitarianism and War
• Kantian Ethics and War
• Punishment - introduction to topic
• Utilitarianism and Punishment
• Kantian Ethics and Punishment

• Euthanasia - introduction to topic
• Utilitarianism and Euthanasia
• Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 1

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 2

NOTE TO TUTORS

These support materials have been designed to support the teaching of the
Moral Philosophy Unit at Int 2 and Higher. The materials have already
been used by one set of students and it is intended that the information
sheets and tasks can be given directly to students.

The materials deal with Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and their approach
to three issues explored by the unit – War, Punishment and Euthanasia.

The materials should be used to supplement other resources or as a basis
from which to start.

Various authors are frequently cited, giving their views on the specified
issues. This gives students a breadth of views without having to read all
the texts mentioned. It might be useful to look at some of the
supplementary texts and some of these texts are listed below.

General texts

Honderich, T Oxford Companion to Philosophy O U P (Oxford 1995)

Morton, A Philosophy in Practice Blackwell (Oxford 1996)

Osborne, R Philosophy for Beginners Writers and Readers Pub. (New York 1992)

Palmer, M Moral Problems. The Lutterworth Press (Cambridge 1991)

Thompson, M Philosophy: An Introduction Hodder and Stoughton (London 1995)

Warburton, N Philosophy: The Basics (edition 2) Routledge & Kegan Paul
(London 1995)

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 3

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 4

Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK

Moral philosophy is about making moral choices – about how
people decide what is moral / immoral.
Morality is concerned with ideas of right and wrong. Making a
moral choice is not like choosing something to wear; it involves
choices about how we should behave and the intentions behind
our behaviour. It involves what we and society see as the correct
values to have.

Think of some of the topics that might be covered under
“Moral Philosophy”

What is morally right is not the same as what is legally right
(although what is legal is usually thought to be moral too).

Think of something legal but, you could argue, is immoral

Think of something illegal but, you could argue, is moral

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 5

Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK

Moral philosophers look at the reasons behind decisions about
what is right and wrong and debate whether these decisions are
justified. This is important because if we don’t have good reasons
against murder, torture etc we don’t have any real justification in
condemning it.

Some people say that deciding what is right is merely a matter of
taste – like deciding between tomato and brown sauce on your
burger. This is something that is down to individuals to decide and
you can’t criticise their decision.

Others say there is more to moral decision -
making, that it makes sense to discuss and debate
decisions of this nature in a way that it does not
make sense to debate the taste of sauce
(obviously tomato is best !!!).

Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is a
matter of taste.

What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality
like this?

Think of an argument to support the idea that morality is more
than personal taste.

What are the possible consequences of dealing with morality
like this?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 6

Introduction to Moral Philosophy STUDENT TASK

Presuming that we can and should debate what is right and wrong,
there are many answers to the question of how we should decide
moral/immoral acts.

Write down as many ways of deciding what is right as you
can.

Which of the ideas do you think you agree with most? Why?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 7

Why should we be moral? STUDENT TASK

Before you came to this class, you have probably had to make at least one moral
decision. Perhaps you could have taken a chocolate bar from the canteen without
paying and not been caught, perhaps you promised to do something for a friend and
they seem to have forgotten and you have to decide whether to remind them.
Everyday you have to choose between what you want and the interests of others,
between your desires and rules you feel you should obey.

But why should other people matter, why shouldn’t we just suit ourselves?

Answers like ‘ because it is unfair to others’ don’t always work. Some people don’t
care about others. The answer ‘because the consequences will be bad for you’ might
not apply if there is no way anyone will find out. So why should we be moral?

Here is a story told by the famous philosopher Plato.

It is known as the

‘Myth of the Ring of Gyges’

Plato’s friend, Glaucon tells the story of a magical ring,
which allows the person wearing it to be invisible.
Glaucon says that if we had such a ring and could get
away with anything, we would do so. We would be selfish
if we could get away with it.

• If you had the ring of Gyges what would you like to
do?

• What ‘immoral’ acts might you commit if you knew
you would not be caught?

• Are there any things you still would not do even if
you would get away with it? What are they?

• Why would you not do these things?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 8

Moral Theories STUDENT INFORMATION

Why are they important?

Moral theories try to give us some way of deciding why actions are right or
wrong. Once we have underlying explanations about why things are right or
wrong we can use these reasons to decide on particular cases.

Generally, there are two different types of moral theories.

Teleological theories: Where moral judgements are based on the effects of
an act. You decide whether an act is good or bad by looking at its
consequences. This appeals to common sense, usually before people act
they think about what the outcome will be.
There are different opinions about what counts as good/ bad consequences.
Some people think the consequences are only good if they benefit the person
acting. Others think the consequences have to benefit more people than they
will harm.

Deontological theories: Disagrees with the idea that consequences are
important. In deontological theories whether an act is right does not depend
on the consequences. There are certain acts that are right or wrong no
matter what the consequences are.This appeals to the notion that there are
certain acts which are wrong even if they have a good outcome. Some people
think we can decide whether acts are right by looking at the motive behind
them. Others think that acts have to conform to rules for them to be right.

Teleological theories look forward and deontological theories look
backward to decide what is right or wrong. Some people believe in only
one type of theory but we quite often decide what is right and wrong
using both types of theories.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 9

Moral Theories STUDENT TASK

Decide whether these statements are teleological or deontological or
could be both. (Note that you do not have to agree with the statements).

1.

Drinking and driving is wrong. You only have to
look at the deaths it causes to see that.

2. I knew studying
was the right
thing to do – I’ve
passed all my
exams!

3. , FRXOG QHYHU JR WR ZDU 4.

EHFDXVH , WKLQN LW LV $OZD\V
ZURQJ WR NLOO WHOO WKH
WUXWK

5. “ Always obey your
superiors”

6. When I am older I
must not take sweets

from strangers

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 10

Moral Theories STUDENT TASK

,Q *URXSV««

Here are some moral dilemmas. For each one decide
• What you would do
• Why you would do this
• Whether your reasons are teleological, deontological or both

You come home one night to find your house on fire.
Your dad and his friend, a famous doctor who is
supposed to be close to curing AIDS, are inside. You only
have time to save one person.
Whom should you save?

Your friend tells you she has stolen the papers for the Philosophy
exam. You tell her that someone else has been blamed and is
being expelled for it. Your friend refuses to own up.
What should you do?

A man from your town decides to open a video shop that will sell mild
pornographic videos. As a moral philosopher, people are looking to
you to say whether this is acceptable or not. Some feel that it will
corrupt the young, others feel that people should free to choose what
they watch. The shop will provide much-needed jobs for the town.
What should you recommend?

You are on a cruise liner that is hijacked. The hijackers discover
that there is one passenger who has gone missing – your son. You
know that he has gone to try and alert the authorities on his
mobile phone. The hijackers find him and then tell you that
unless you kill him, they will kill him and 10 other people as well.
Should you kill your son?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 11

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

Utilitarianism states that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.

What does this mean? What is the ‘greatest good?’

This is explained by the 2 men who are the most famous advocates of
Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham “ Nature has placed
mankind under the
(1748 – 1832) governance of two
An Introduction to the Principles sovereign masters, pain
Of Morals and Legislation and pleasure.”

John Stuart Mill
(1806 – 1873)
Essay on Utilitarianism

“ Utilitarianism holds that 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.”

So for Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. Happiness for Utilitarianism is pleasure and the absence of
pain.

The idea that we ought to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number is called ‘ The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness principle’.

I’m not very happy
– I don’t really
understand what
this principle thing
involves

To fully understand –

we need more details so
read on!

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 12

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

7KHUH DUH ELJJHU LGHDV ZKLFK XQGHUOLH WKH *UHDWHVW
+DSSLQHVV 3ULQFLSOH :KHQ \RX SXW WKHVH WRJHWKHU \RX JHW D
EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZKDW WKH SULQFLSOH LV DOO DERXW

&RQVHTXHQWLDOLVP Can we
always tell
Consequentialism involves deciding whether an what the
action is good or bad by looking at the consequences consequences
of that action. If the consequences of the action are good will be?
then the action is a good one. If the consequences of the
action are bad then the action is a bad one.

+HGRQLVP

Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the only inherently good
thing and that pain is the only inherently bad thing. Acts which
bring about pleasure are good acts. Acts which bring pain are bad
acts.

NOTE
Utilitarianism is not exactly the same as Hedonism
because hedonism is all about getting your
own pleasure.
It is important in Utilitarianism to get
pleasure for as many people as possible
(happiness for the greatest number).

(TXLW\ Should babies
count equally
For Utilitarians the pleasure and pain of everyone is with adults?
equally important. Every person counts for one and
only one. If your happiness is increased by 10 by
doing something but the happiness of others is
increased by 100 if you do something else then
you should do the ‘something else’.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 13

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

:K\ VKRXOG ZH DLP IRU KDSSLQHVV"

Think about what you want out of life – Money? Fame?
A happy marriage? These seem reasonable hopes but
we could ask what we want things like these for?

We wouldn’t, HOWEVER, ask someone who said they wanted
to be happy in life –What do you want happiness for? We do
not feel the need to justify happiness in the same way that we
try to justify wanting money etc.

Happiness is something, which is worth having for its own sake.

JS Mill says that people think of happiness as a goal to aim for. When we look
at what people think is important we find that the reason they find these things
important is because they think they will lead to human happiness.
If you go along with this – the Utilitarian ideal of maximising the general
happiness seems a good way to decide what is the right thing to do.

What about aiming for a stable
society or stable families? Why
just aim for happiness?

Even if we do assume people do aim
for happiness - isn't it their own
happiness they want?
Utilitarianism doesn’t always let you
have it – you might have to sacrifice
your own happiness if it doesn’t fit in
with the happiness of the greatest
number.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 14

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

&DOFXODWLQJ KDSSLQHVV

Bentham’s hedonic calculus

For Utilitarianism to work – we have to be able to calculate and measure pain
and pleasure. If we can’t measure these then we can never know whether we
have brought about the greatest good for the greatest number (the aim of
Utilitarianism).

This seems like a difficult task – the experiences of pleasure and pain are very
complex. Many pleasurable experiences have some pain mixed in – so how
do we calculate the value of our experiences? To help us out Bentham brings
in his hedonic calculus.

He says there are certain things to think about which will help us calculate
how much pleasure/pain an experience gives us. We have to consider things
like:

• How intense the experience is
• How long it lasts
• Whether it will lead to similar types of experiences
• How many people will be affected

Can these types of Doesn’t it allow for pleasure
calculation work? that most people would see as
Can we compare the wrong – 10 sadistic guards
pleasure of winning at getting pleasure torturing 1
cards and the pleasure man? Their pleasure would be
of saving a life? allowed because it is greater
than his pain.
If it were found that a
mind altering drug would
make everyone feel
pleasure all the time –
wouldn’t it be OK to
secretly add this to the
water supply?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 15

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

&DOFXODWLQJ KDSSLQHVV

Mill’s higher and lower pleasures

Mill’s Utilitarianism is different to Bentham’s because Mill says it is not just
quantity of pleasure which matters – quality matters too. Mill believed that
some pleasures counted for more than others.

“ It is quite compatible with the principle of
utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of
pleasure are more desirable and more valuable
than others.”

Mill is trying to solve the problem of having to allow what most people would
see as unacceptable pleasures - the kinds of pleasures the sadistic guards
were experiencing. Mill could now say that the pleasure of torturing someone
has a much lower value than the pain felt by the victim, so it would not fit in
with Utilitarianism to allow the guards to torture the man.

Which pleasures are ‘higher’ and which ones are ‘lower’?

‘Higher’ - Intellectual pleasures such as reading, debating, learning

‘Lower’ – Physical pleasures such as eating,drinking and sex.

How does Mill justify this distinction?

1. Both animals and humans experience physical pleasures but the
pleasures of the intellect are what make us different to animals.

2. People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer the
intellectual ones.

Is 2 always true? Don’t some people seem to
choose the physical pleasures over the
intellectual ones?

How do we decide exactly, which are Higher/ Lower Pleasures?

Mill says we have to appeal to the views of what he calls competent judges.
These are people who have tried both types of pleasure. If they keep opting
for a certain type of pleasure then it must be a higher pleasure.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 16

Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK

Look at the list below. Which do you think are ‘Higher’ pleasures?

Which do you think are ‘Lower’ pleasures?
List them under the headings ‘Higher’ and ‘Lower’

Possible pleasures

Having friends Having money
Eating meat Playing chess
Listening to Mozart Going to a pop concert
Playing a sport Drinking champagne
Taking a walk Reading a novel
Drinking water Having power
Giving love Receiving love
Making love Taking revenge

Y Compare your list with others in your group.
Are they the same?

Y Try and list them according to what you think
Mill would say.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 17

Utilitarianism SSTTUUDDEENNTTTINAFSOKRMATION

So far, the Utilitarianism we have looked at has been Utilitarianism
which focuses on individual acts. It is often known as Act
Utilitarianism. There is, however, another kind of Utilitarianism.

RULE UTILITARIANISM

Instead of looking at every act to see whether it will bring about the
greatest happiness for the greatest number, Rule Utilitarians try to
find rules which will bring about the greatest happiness for the
greatest number and then just follow these rules.

There are two forms of Rule Utilitarianism - Strong and Weak.

Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Once the rules have been decided it is not
right to break them even when it might be
better in an individual case.

Weak Utilitarianism: There are special cases when breaking the
rules may be allowed.

See how much you can find out about rule
utilitarianism.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 18

Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK
8WLOLWDULDQLVP LQ 3UDFWLFH

7KLQN DERXW ZKDW 8WLOLWDULDQV EHOLHYH :KDW VKRXOG D
8WLOLWDULDQ UHFRPPHQG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ FDVHV"

John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his
mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team
will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water
and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks
very weak.
Should John drink the water or give it to his friend ?

Jerry is a kind person, always making time to discuss other people’s problems
with them. He is studying for his Highers and his results are very important to
allow him to get into University. It is his dream to go and study the Media and
hopefully get into TV. The evening before his Philosophy Higher (his favourite
subject) his friend Derek phones. He is upset because he has just discovered
that his girlfriend has been two timing him with another friend and he needs
someone to talk to. Jerry knows if he lets Derek talk, it will take up most of the
evening when he could be studying. But if he tells Derek to phone back
tomorrow then Derek will spend the evening being upset.
Should Jerry a) Tell Derek to phone back tomorrow?

b) Let Derek talk?

Her Granny has left Joanne a fortune. She has a well-paid job and lives
comfortably. Joanne has a cousin who is a single parent trying to raise two
children while working a badly paid job. Granny did not leave any money to
her because they had a disagreement about her boyfriend twenty years ago.
Should Joanne a)Keep the money?

b)Give the money to her cousin?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 19

Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK
8WLOLWDULDQLVP LQ 3UDFWLFH

Look at these cases. Think about what you
would do.

1.You work as a doctor. Two babies are brought in one night but

you only have one intensive care bed. Baby A is very ill and will
almost certainly die if he is not admitted to intensive care. Baby B
is less desperately ill.
You also know that Baby A has a rare genetic disorder which
means that if he survives he is likely to grow up to be an
aggressive psychopath. Most people with his condition murder or
rape. You know nothing about the genetic makeup of Baby B.
Which baby should you admit to intensive care?

2. You are in prison with an incurable disease and you will die

soon. You share a cell with a prisoner who will be in prison for the
rest of his life. He has no friends and no family. He is also
miserable and this will only get worse. He is too frightened to kill
himself although he has talked about his wish to die many times.
You have a poison which you could put in his food to kill him
painlessly and without being detected. The doctors would think he
died of natural causes.
Should you kill the prisoner?

Think about what a Utilitarian might recommend
What reasons would they give?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 20

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV

So what do you think of Utilitarianism? Is it a good way to decide what is
right and wrong?

Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?

Strengths

Natural – Pleasure and pain are real. They play a huge part in
our lives. Utilitarianism gives them a central role.

Everyone matters – It is not just concerned with how we feel. It
takes into account how others feel. This seems right and only
practical when talking about morality.

Balanced – The consequences of an action depend on the
circumstances of each case. Utilitarians don’t have to deal with
having moral rules which sometimes conflict, e.g. What if you
believe in the rules ‘don’t kill’ and ‘protect your family’ yet
someone is attacking your family? What do you do?
Utilitarianism avoids such conflicts.

Simple – Few ideas are actually involved – only the
consequences of an action matter and we only need to look at
whether these bring about pleasure/pain. It is much less
complicated than having to deal with the motives of actions and
peoples’ rights’ etc. These are things which other moral theories
focus on.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 21

Utilitarianism STUDENT INFORMATION

6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV

Weaknesses

Can we calculate pain/pleasure? – Can we really work out
how to get the most happiness for the greatest number? e.g. do
we need lots of people with a little happiness or slightly less
people who have more happiness?

Does everyone really matter? – What makes you happy might
not go along with what makes the majority happy. You might
end up being miserable all the time. Also Utilitarianism seems
to ignore an idea that most people accept – that we have
special responsibilities to particular people like our families.

Problem of Justice – Linked with the idea that some people
seem to matter less than others. An innocent person could be
punished for a crime if it would contribute to the greater
happiness – e.g.by deterring others.

Difficulties of Calculation – It is hard to predict the
consequences of some actions. It is also hard to tell when the
consequences stop. If you save a baby who then grows up to
be a murderer is this a consequence of your action?

Should we ignore rights/motives? – Do we want to say that
no one has the right to things like justice? Doesn’t the motive
behind an act count for anything?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 22

Utilitarianism STUDENT TASK

$ 8WLOLWDULDQ :RUOG

Think about what you know Would you like to live in a
about Utilitarianism and write Utilitarian world? Why/
down what you think a Why not?
Utilitarian world would be
like.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 23

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

Kant was a German philosopher (1724 – 1804)

and he looked at deciding what is right and wrong in

a different way from Utilitarianism. Kant was a

non-consequentialist. He did not believe that looking at

the consequences of an action was how to decide whether

it was right or wrong. KANT WROTE

‘Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals’

Let’s look at what this means…..

How do we decide what is right?
For Kant, you had to look at the intentions behind any act to see whether it was right
or wrong. Only the reason behind your actions would determine if it was right. Only
if your intentions were the right ones would you be acting morally. The consequences
did not matter for morality, what matters was the reason for acting.

Why do consequences not count?
Kant believed that the consequences of actions couldn’t be used to decide what was
right because consequences were not totally within our control. Kant believed that
being moral was something we did as rational human beings and was something
which applied equally to all such rational beings. If morality was the choice of
rational beings it hardly seemed fair to decide whether someone was acting in the
right way by looking at things they couldn’t control.

Think about a man who saves another from drowning and the man he saves then goes
and kills his family. If we were just looking at the consequences – the first man could
be said to have done something wrong, not right.

Even I can’t predict the
consequences of every
action!

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 24

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

If consequences don’t count what does?

We have already established that for Kant, the only way to decide what is right is to
look at why you are doing it. Kant says that the only reason which counts as a moral
one is to act out of duty.

What does this mean? What is it to act out of duty?

Acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the right thing to do,
not from any other motive.

What about acting out of courage,
or out of kindness, do these have
nothing to do with morality?

Why Duty?

If you were thinking about the right reasons for people doing something, duty is
probably the last thing you would come up with. You might suggest that it was
morally right to do something out of kindness or compassion but Kant doesn’t agree.
We need to find out why.

Think about the different natures people have. Some people are kind by nature; they
enjoy helping people and get pleasure from it. Other people find it harder to be kind.
It follows then that if what was right and wrong was decided by looking at whether
people acted out of kindness, some people would find it much easier than others
would. They would be more inclined to be kind. This means that being moral would
be a lot easier for some.

I love helping
people. I’m
lucky…

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 25

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

Duty versus Inclination

Kant thinks that duty is all-important because acting out of duty is totally under our
control. The nature that we have is out of our control. It is luck whether or not we are
naturally kind. Like the consequences of an act being out of our control, it hardly
seems fair to decide whether someone is acting in the right way by looking at things
they can’t control.

Won’t some acts fit in with being
kind and acting out of duty?

Yes - it will sometimes be hard to tell just from looking at what people do to tell what
their true motive is. Kant also points out that some acts fit with duty and self-interest
too

“ it certainly accords with duty that a grocer should not overcharge
his inexperienced customer.. but this is not nearly enough to justify
us in believing that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty..
his interests required him to do so.”

There is more that we need to find out about our duty.
Remember we said acting out of duty is acting only because you know that it is the
right thing to do, not from any other motive.

But what is the right thing to do?
Kant believes that there are underlying principles which make us act in certain ways.
These general rules are called maxims and there are maxims for morality.

We can tell what are moral laws (maxims) by looking at something Kant calls

The Categorical Imperative

%H FRRO DERXW WKH ELJ
ZRUGV ² LW ZLOO VRRQ DOO
PDNH VHQVH

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 26

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

What is a Categorical Imperative?
A categorical imperative is a command, like ‘Go to your class’ or ‘Keep your
promises’. This command applies unconditionally.
There are commands, which are hypothetical imperatives. These have conditions
attached to them like ‘ Go to your class if you want to learn’ or ‘Keep your promises
if you want people to respect you’.

For morality, Kant says there is one Categorical Imperative. There are 2 main ways in

which the categorical imperative is stated.

“Act in such a way

“Act only on that maxim that you always treat
which you can at the same humanity… never
time will that it should simply as a means, but
become a universal law.” always at the same
time as an end."

Universal Moral law

The idea here is that you should only do things, which it would make, sense to apply
to everyone. You should only do things that you would make a moral law for
everyone. Kant uses the example of making promises. If you make promises you
don’t intend to keep this might be convenient for you sometimes but it would not
make sense to make this a universal moral law. It would not be good if everyone
broke their promises when it suited them. If everyone broke their promises when it
suited them then people would stop trusting each other when they made promises.

The idea that the universal law has got to make sense is very important. Kant does
not use the word ‘want’ in the quote above; he uses the word ‘will’. This means that
you rationally intend that it happen. It means that you have thought it through and
it makes sense. If you think back to Kant’s reasons for duty as the only proper motive
- he wanted to make sure that everyone had the choice to be moral – that they were in
control of what they did.

What kinds of things
would it make sense to
have as universal laws?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 27

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

Treating People as ends not means

The idea here is that you should not use people to suit your own purposes. You should
make sure that you are treating them as individuals who have their own lives to lead
and deserve respect.

Again Kant’s idea about people all having the chance to choose to be moral, to be in
control, comes in here. If people are being used then you are not giving them the
chance to be in control. You are not giving them the chance to act like rational beings.

Think about the little white lies
we tell people so we don’t hurt
their feelings – ‘No your bum
doesn’t look big in that’. Kant
thinks this is wrong because it is
not treating people as valuable
individuals, but is it?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 28

Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK

'HFLGH ZKHWKHU WKHVH FRPPDQGV FRXOG EH
XQLYHUVDO PRUDO ODZV 0DNH VXUH \RX KDYH
D UHDVRQ IRU \RXU GHFLVLRQ

D7DNHZKDW\RXZDQW
E%HSROLWH

F'HIHQG\RXUVHOIEXWQHYHU
VWDUWWKHILJKW

G/LHZKHQLWVXLWV\RX
H*LYHDOO\RXKDYHWRWKHSRRU

I1HYHUOLH
J$OZD\VNHHS\RXUSURPLVHV

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 29

Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV LQ 3UDFWLFH 'RLQJ \RXU GXW\

Think about what Kant believed about what doing your duty involved.
Where would Kant say your duty lies in the following cases?

John is stranded on a mountain with a friend. He has used his
mobile phone to phone for help but the mountain rescue team
will not be there for 6 hours. John has drunk half of his water
and his friend has none. John is thirsty but his friend looks
very weak.
Should John drink the water or give it to his friend?

A plane has crashed in the mountains with 26 survivors and 14
dead. The rescue attempt will take days. Food is running out. Do
the survivors have a duty to eat the flesh of the dead so that
they stay alive?

A group of 50 cancer patients are in a 6 month long drugs
experiment. 25 are given a new drug and 25 are given
vitamins. The patients don’t know which they are being
given. After 3 months there is a dramatic improvement in
those taking the new drugs but the doctor has to keep the
experiment going for 6 months for any drugs company to
accept the new drug.

Does the doctor have a duty to give the 25 patients on
vitamins the new drugs or should he keep the experiment
going?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 30

Kantian Ethics STUDENT TASK

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV LQ 3UDFWLFH

Look at these cases. Think about what you
would do.

1. You are a teacher who has taken a group of children to the

theatre. You sit upstairs. In the middle of the show, you smell
smoke and someone shouts ‘Fire’. When you and the children get
to the fire exit, you discover it is made of glass and can only be
opened from the outside.
There is a man standing in front of it, frozen in panic.
It flashes into your mind that you could use the man to smash the
glass and get out. This would save all the children.
Should you use the man as a sort of battering ram?

2. You are part of the government of a country at war. You have

managed to strike a deal that will end the war but it involves all
prisoners of war being killed. If you do not agree to this, the war
will continue.
Should you sign the deal?

Think about what a Kantian might recommend
What reasons would they give?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 31

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV

So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what
is right and wrong?

Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?

Strengths

No problem of consequences – You do not have to worry
about how to predict the consequences of actions, about
consequences, which you can’t foresee.

Motives matter – Think about the difference between the
person who makes promises because they are convenient and
the person who promises because the person wants to keep
them. We prefer the latter person.

We should act out of duty not just do what we want –
Making duty the important thing stops people assuming that
what they want is the best thing to do.

Justice matters – We cannot treat people badly in order to
bring about better consequences. There are things you can’t do
no matter what. Everyone has rights and has to be treated with
respect. This theory is universal and impartial.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 32

Kantian Ethics STUDENT INFORMATION

6WUHQJWKV DQG :HDNQHVVHV

So what do you think of Kantian Ethics? Is it a good way to decide what
is right and wrong?

Here are some of its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think the
arguments on one side outweigh the others?

Weaknesses

Are consequences totally irrelevant? – Is obeying the rule ‘Never
Kill’ what we should do even if we know killing one person will save
millions of people?
How can we tell what people’s motives are? –People can act in the
same way for many different reasons. One shopkeeper might be
honest to help his business, another might do it because he wants
to help people, and another might do it for both these reasons.

Is duty the only correct motive? – People save lives because they
are brave or because they are compassionate. Kant says that these
motives don’t matter for morality but in real life people find these
emotions very important. You can’t totally ignore human emotions
or it will make morality inhuman.

What happens when duties conflict? - How do we decide
between 2 acts which count as moral or when we only have a
choice between 2 immoral acts? What happens if we act to do our
duty but this will break another duty that we have e.g. if it is always
wrong to break promises and always wrong to lie, what happens if I
have to lie to keep a promise?

Some immoral acts are OK under Kant’s theory – Telling a
contract killer where his victim was would fit with the universal law
always to tell the truth.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 33

:DU STUDENT INFORMATION

¶%HLQJ RQ WKH IURQW OLQH LQ D
ZDU LV OLNH EHLQJ RQ WKH
VFHQH DW D WHUULEOH
DFFLGHQW RQ WKH PRWRUZD\·

‘If you are a soldier, you have
to control your fear. You have
to try not to think about the
deaths. You just think about
doing your job.’

The twentieth century has seen the largest and bloodiest wars in history.
Since 1945 there have been hundreds of wars all over the world. It is
estimated that nearly 30 million people have been killed using
‘conventional’ (non-nuclear) weapons.

The average death toll from armed conflict is put at between 33,000 and
41,000 a month from 1945.

Is killing in war any different to other types of killing? Some people think that it
is less morally wrong to kill in war – because you might be fighting for your
country, or you might be fighting an aggressor. Some people think it is more
morally wrong to kill in war because of the sheer number of deaths involved.

Questions to think about….

• Do you think war can be justified? If so when?
• Would you be prepared to fight for your country?
• What questions (if any) would you ask before you would fight?
• In what circumstances (if any) would you be prepared to die for your

beliefs – in a war against another country, in a war within your own
country, in a revolution?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 34

:DU STUDENT INFORMATION

War can be defined as:

‘Armed conflict between 2 or more groups or countries’

This definition covers many different types of war. There are world wars and
local wars, conventional wars and nuclear wars; there are civil wars and
religious wars, to name but a few.

When talking about war you must note that there are
these different types of war. You must be clear about
what kind of war you are discussing.

Even if you concentrate on a ‘simple’ case of ‘conventional’ war between
2 countries, there are different moral issues to think about.e.g.

i) Is the government justified in committing the country to war?
ii) Once the war has started should you participate?
iii) Questions about the possible use of chemical, biological and

nuclear weapons.

How would you feel if you were
called up to fight in a war

a) You thought was just
b) You thought was unjust

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 35

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU STUDENT INFORMATION

For a Utilitarian to decide whether
war is right or wrong, they have to look at
whether it will fit in with the Greatest Happiness
Principle.

Utilitarians will only be for war if it will increase the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The greatest happiness principle and the issue of war

Look back at your notes on the ideas that underlie Utilitarianism.

• Utilitarians will look at both short and long term effects of a war. They will
consider things like the pain and deaths, loss of relatives, the misery of being
invaded, future freedom and peace. Everything depends on whether the benefit
will outweigh the pain of those killed, injured and bereaved.

Underlying Idea = Consequentialism

• Utilitarians will look at the pain, which will be brought about by a war. They
will try to calculate whether the actions of war will bring about more of an
absence of pain than not going to war would.

Underlying idea = Hedonism

• Utiltarians will not see the killing of ‘innocent’ men, women and children as
any worse than the killing of soldiers. The term ‘innocent’ in war is usually
applied to civilians. It would only be worse in Utilitarian terms if the
consequences were worse. This might well happen because the killing of children
etc might decrease the morale of the soldiers fighting.

Underlying Idea = Equity

Could Rule Utilitarians think 36
a rule against war was
justified?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2)

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU STUDENT INFORMATION

Nuclear War

Although a Utilitarian has to
consider the effects of war before condemning war,
we can say that they would be against nuclear war.

Why? - The use of nuclear weapons would inflict pain out of all proportion to
the military, political, social advantages to be gained by its use. We now have
enough weapons to destroy all life on earth and obviously this would not fit
with the greatest happiness principle. Even if, however, the nuclear war was
not on such a global scale, the terrible effects of even one nuclear bomb will
always far outweigh the benefits.

Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent

What does this mean? - This is the idea that if one country has the same
number or more weapons than another country, this will frighten the other
country enough to stop them attacking first.

The MAD system - We have a system where we can detect a nuclear attack
but cannot stop it. All we can do is attack back and ‘achieve’ Mutually Assured
Destruction.

• Utilitarians would be against having a nuclear
deterrent.
Michael Palmer says that Utilitarians would condemn
using nuclear weapons as a threat for other countries
because in order for the threat to work, there has to be
a real possibility of using them. Utilitarians, as
pointed out above, would not agree with their use.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 37

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG :DU STUDENT INFORMATION

BENEFITS PROBLEMS

Common feeling. Looks to the short Calculating Consequences . it is very
and long term consequences of going difficult to tell exactly what the
to war and will only consequences of war will be. Did they
agree with war if the consequences foresee the atomic bomb being used in
will create greater happiness. People World War 2? Would not going to war
usually only go war to really be worse? Often the true results are
create better circumstances. not known till years later.
It is also very demanding in the sense that
Rules. Once committed to war, consequences have to be continually
Utilitarianism allows monitored in what is an ever changing
for rules of war having to be obeyed. situation with new decisions having to be
Although Utilitarianism involves made all the time – should ground troops
looking at cases go in? Should we use one nuclear bomb?
on their merits, its concern with Will this lead to retaliation?
consequences will not allow killing
that is disproportionate to the benefits What should the rules of war be? It is
it will bring. easy to have humanitarian rules which
The rules that Utilitarians will allow don’t stop your military campaign e.g.
are also rules that will make sense to a don’t bomb hospitals, but it is harder for
lot of people. Utilitarians to make rules which do stop
some military actions. Again weighing up
This is what RB Brandt says in the possible consequences is the
‘Utilitarianism and the Rules of War’. difficulty here.
He says that
J Glover point this out in ‘Causing Death
“people both impartial and rational and Saving Lives’
would Breaking the Rules. There will be some
choose rules of war that would cases however rare, where breaking the
maximise expectable utility”. rules would suit Utilitarian principles
better than not breaking them and this
might allow acts people see as immoral –
e.g. killing children.

Rule Utilitarians could avoid this
criticism with the idea that it will
always be better overall to keep rules
of war even if in individual cases they
should sometimes be broken.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 38

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG :DU STUDENT INFORMATION

For Kantians to decide
whether war is right or wrong, they
have to look at whether it will fit in with the
Categorical Imperative.

On the whole, war does not seem to fit in with the 2 different forms of the
Categorical Imperative, so the Kantian will probably be against it.

The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of war

Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative. Why might war contradict the
Imperative?

• Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be
universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.

Going to war cannot be a universal moral law because thousands, if not
millions of innocent people would die.

• Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which
are moral are those which allow people to act as rational human beings. They have
to be respected and valued.

Going to war does not treat people as ends because their country could be
using soldiers as a means to win the war.

Nuclear War

As Michael Palmer points out in ‘Moral Problems’,
the possible non-combatant casualties of a nuclear war could run into millions. This
involves the death of innocent people and the Kantian principles above are against
that. The Kantian would therefore be against nuclear war.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 39

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG :DU STUDENT INFORMATION

BENEFITS PROBLEMS

Common feeling. The Kantian idea that What counts as innocence? In war it is
we should never kill innocents fits well often said to mean ‘currently harmless’
with the common idea that no matter but in modern warfare it is hard to
what there are certain people who decide whom this includes. What about
the mechanics who service the
have to be protected and certain things technological weapons? What about the
we should never resort to. factory workers who produce them?
T. Nagel in ‘ War and Massacre’ prefers What about the people who support the
the idea of never killing innocents government who declared war - are they
because it is always morally wrong truly ‘innocent’? What about child
rather than because it has bad soldiers?
consequences, as a Utilitarian might
say. Breaking the Rules. Never breaking the
rules might allow atrocities which are
Rules. Once committed to war Kantian far worse than breaking them.
ethics Provides clear and unbreakable
rules.They fit in with the traditional T. Nagel points this out in ‘War and
rules of war: that killing should be for Massacre’.
military objectives and not
disproportionate to the aim. Intentional Conflict of Duties. The CI gives no
killing of innocents is not allowed guidance about what to do when we
either. These rules are not subject to have to choose between 2 immoral acts
consequences like Utilitarian rules and this might be a common scenario in
might be. war e.g. killing an enemy soldier who is
about to find a group of hiding children.
This is a conflict between the duty of not
killing and protecting the innocent.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 40

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT INFORMATION

$FFRUGLQJ WR WKH 2[IRUG (QJOLVK GLFWLRQDU\ D FULPH LV ¶DQ RIIHQFH
SXQLVKDEOH E\ ODZ·
,W FDQ DOVR EH GHILQHG DV ¶VRPH XQSOHDVDQW FRQVHTXHQFH WKDW D VWDWH
LPSRVHV IRU WKH YLRODWLRQ RI D OHJDO ODZ· -RVHSK *UFLF

(YHU\ VRFLHW\ KDV ODZV EXW SHRSOH DUH QRW SHUIHFW DQG WKHVH ODZV DUH
VRPHWLPHV EURNHQ )RU VRFLHW\ WR UXQ VPRRWKO\ ZH QHHG WR WU\ DQG
PLQLPLVH WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKDW WKLV KDSSHQV 2QH ZD\ WR GR WKLV LV
XVLQJ SXQLVKPHQW 7KLV VRXQGV VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG HQRXJK EXW QRW HYHU\RQH
DJUHHV DERXW ZKDW IRUP SXQLVKPHQW VKRXOG WDNH $ ORW RI WKH
GLVDJUHHPHQW FRPHV IURP WKH IDFW WKDW SHRSOH GR QRW DJUHH DERXW ZKDW
SXQLVKPHQWV DUH WU\LQJ WR DFKLHYH

Why Punish? Reasons from the Past.

Primitive Society: Crime was an insult to the Gods and
the Gods had to see that it was being dealt with.
Social solidarity: Some people think that punishing
crime brought society together.
To keep the poor down: Some people thought
punishment was imposed by the ruling classes to make
sure they kept their privileges.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 41

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT TASK

/RRN DW WKH W\SHV RI SXQLVKPHQW FRPPRQO\ XVHG WRGD\ DQG
GHFLGH ZKLFK RQHV \RX ZRXOG UHJDUG DV DSSURSULDWH LQ WKH
IROORZLQJ FDVHV

COMMON PUNISHMENTS CRIMES

)LQHV DUDSH
3ULVRQ E IRRWEDOO KRROLJDQLVP
&RPPXQLW\ 6HUYLFH F GHDWK E\ UHFNOHVV GULYLQJ
7DJJLQJ G GRPHVWLF YLROHQFH
3UREDWLRQ H EXUJODU\
&DSLWDO SXQLVKPHQW I PXUGHU
J FKLOG DEXVH
K EODFNPDLO
L PDQVODXJKWHU

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 42

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT INFORMATION

The Aims of Punishment

,Q WRGD\·V VRFLHW\ SXQLVKPHQW LV FRPPRQO\ VDLG WR KDYH SXUSRVHV 0RVW
VHQWHQFHV KDQGHG RXW WR RIIHQGHUV DUH D PL[WXUH RI VHYHUDO RI WKHVH

Read the 5 main aims below and then look back at the punishments you
recommended for different crimes. Which aims are covered by each
punishment?

c PROTECTION: To protect society from someone’s anti–social

behaviour.

c RETRIBUTION: If someone does something wrong then they

should receive a punishment which fits the crime.

c DETERRENCE: Seeing that people are punished from crimes will

put other people off committing a similar crime. It will also
(hopefully) stop the criminal doing it again.

c REFORM: The punishments should be of a kind that will make

the criminals become responsible citizens.

c VINDICATION: Punishment must be given when people break

the law so that the law will be respected.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 43

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT INFORMATION

The Ultimate Is it morally
Punishment right for me to
sentence
someone to

A just society is recognised by most
people as one that gives its citizens
the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. It has also been
accepted for centuries that those individuals who violate this right must pay
the ultimate penalty.

Arguments for Capital Punishment

• Society must protect civilians and those who fight crime, from people who
can’t control their violent impulses.

• Anyone who has taken a life deserves to have his or her life taken. This is
justice.

• The death penalty is the only sort of deterrent that some criminals will
understand.

• Some criminals much prefer to be executed than to spend the rest of their
lives in jail.

Arguments against Capital Punishment

• There have been miscarriages of justice. Innocent people have been
hanged.

• The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Murders are still
committed in places with the death penalty.

• It is a violation of the sanctity of life, which the state is supposed to protect.
• It could make convicted terrorists into martyrs.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 44

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT TASK

Read the following quotes about
crime and punishment. What do
you think? Why?
Have your say but be
prepared to justify your
answers!

How can the law be fair? How do
you fine a person who can earn
more in a week than the average
guy earns in a whole year?

“Prisons are academies where (Former Home
the apprentice criminals can Secretary.
learn their trade” Douglas Hurd.)

The Dalai (Punishment) – the methods used only
Lama. create more problems, more suffering,
more distrust, more resentment, more
division. The result is not good for
anyone.

&ULPLQDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH 8. EHJLQV
DW DJH EXW KRZ FDQ WKLV EH ULJKW ZKHQ
\RX KHDU RI ROG SHRSOH EHLQJ DWWDFNHG E\
FKLOGUHQ RI DQG "

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 45

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

The Utilitarian theory of punishment favours the idea of deterrence.
This is the idea that punishing the criminal will send a message to those
who are thinking about committing a crime, a message that committing
the crime would be a bad idea. Punishing a criminal will hopefully deter
criminals from committing crimes.
This theory has two parts to it:
1. SPECIFIC - To prevent the actual criminal who is being punished from

committing crimes again.
2. GENERAL - As a warning to potential criminals.

In ‘An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation’ Bentham talks
about punishment. He says ….

If it ought at all to be admitted, Hopefully this
it ought to be admitted in as far punishment
as it promises to exclude some will prevent
greater evil. others from
trying it…

The idea of deterrence is not the only aim of punishment which fits in with
Utilitarianism. Joseph Grcic points out that Utilitarians believe that punishments like
prison sentences should be an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate the criminal so
that he/she can contribute to society (Reform). .James P. Sterba says that
Utilitarianism also fits in with the idea that we have to protect society from anti social
behaviour (Protection) and that we have to use punishment as a way to make sure that
the law will be respected (Vindication).

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 46

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

Where does the Utilitarian view come from?

The Greatest Happiness Principle

For Utilitarianism an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.

* Remember that happiness for the Utilitarian is pleasure and the absence of pain.

* Remember that the results of any action have to be good and Utilitarians decide
about this by looking at the 3 underlying ideas of the GHP

• CONSEQUENCES: Decide whether an action is good or bad by looking at the
consequences. If you punish criminals are the consequences likely to be good?
The pain of actual punishment, that fact that it deters them and others, keeps
society safe, makes sure the law is respected.

• HEDONISM: The idea that pleasure is the only inherently good thing and pain
the only bad thing. Will punishment result in more happiness and less pain? You
have to look at the pain of the criminal versus the happiness of society. When
they are protected from criminals will the crime rate go down because people are
deterred from committing crimes?

• EQUITY: The pleasure and pain for everyone is equally important. Look at the
effect on those involved in the specific crimes the criminal, the victim/ their
family.

This explains the Utilitarian view of what the limits of punishment should be but it
doesn’t explain why they think punishment is a good idea in the first place.

Punishment in itself seems to
be evil – it increases pain.
How can this be justified?

Remember that Utilitarians have to look at a wide range of consequences to decide
what to do and they argue that the good consequences of punishment will outweigh
the bad. Punishment itself is not a good thing, it is only good for the consequences it
brings. It is a necessary evil.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 47