Ron Yezzi © 2006

Moral Frameworks

 

Popular Moral Frameworks I

 

These first three moral frameworks--The Look-In-the-Mirror Principle, The Golden Rule, and The Publicity Principle--provide fairly simple tests by which to make moral judgments. This simplicity probably contributes to their popularity. Yet advocates of any one of them also would assert that the moral framework provides a constructive way of dealing with ethical situations in a way that calls upon widely shared moral feelings.
 

The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act in such a way that you can look at yourself without losing your sense of self-respect.

Assumption: Maintaining self-respect is one of our most treasured, or fundamental, values.

Explanation: The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle personalizes the issue of how to act by putting ourselves to a challenging, personal test involving self-respect. Instead of being able to shunt aside an action as not especially important morally or being able to excuse it as necessary because of the demands of "the real world," instead we must face up to what an action means in terms of how we think about ourselves. And since we want to think highly of ourselves, that is, to have a strong sense of self-respect or self-esteem, we are not going to engage in any action that lowers our opinion of ourselves.

Strengths:

·         The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle broadens the range of our moral judgments in that it forces us to take others' interests into account in a meaningful way. Yet the broadening does not rely simply on noble or altruistic appeals regarding the worth of other people. Rather it focuses upon how we think about ourselves in moral terms.

·         In a society where self-respect is a fundamental value, this is an effective way of getting people to act in a more morally positive way.

Weaknesses:

·         The Look-in-the-Mirror Principle will not be very effective in social groups where persons have a low sense of self-esteem or they are willing to sacrifice their sense of self-respect out of fear for other consequences. For example, if a person has to choose between maintaining self-respect and being able to keep a job, fear of losing the job may outweigh a lowering of self-respect.

·         Since what satisfies a sense of self-respect will vary from person to person, there will be no uniformity to actions and no reason to trust what someone else does in terms of self-respect. For example, vain persons may look into the mirror and be quite happy and satisfied with what they see even though they engage in actions that disgust others.

·         Some persons have such unreasonably high expectations and ideals so that looking into the mirror just makes them feel guilty and inadequate, whereas others have much lower expectations and ideals so that they can do just about anything with impunity.

·         What persons would like to do when looking at themselves in the mirror may seem unrealistic and unattainable in the real world--so that, while they may not especially like themselves and may even lose self-respect in the process, they will violate their own preferred rules in order to survive or to accomplish their goals.

 


The Golden Rule

The Principle Stated: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Assumption: We are capable of valuing others as much as we value ourselves.

Explanation: Some people describe this New Testament saying as the basic principle of social morality. In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to treat others as you want them to treat you. The Golden Rule personalizes the process of moral judgment by focusing upon our own conception of being treated well (which, presumably, all of us have) and then by requiring us to treat others according to that conception regarding ourselves. Consequently, It takes other persons' interests into account in a meaningful way without requiring us to go beyond our own notion of personal well-being.

Strengths:

·         In our dealings with other people, The Golden Rule requires no more of us than our own notion of how we ourselves deserve to be treated. Yet, at the same time, It manages to confer on other people the same status we place upon ourselves--thereby achieving a state of equal worth.

·         Human beings as a whole would benefit from greater acceptance of The Golden Rule.

Weaknesses:

·         Not everyone agrees that we can value others as much as we value ourselves.

·         Since persons differ in their expectations of how they want to be treated, there will be no uniformity to actions and no reason to trust some people's application of The Golden Rule. For example, persons who have come to accept the abuse they experience as a normal aspect of life will not see anything wrong in abusing others. Or persons inclined to reject assistance from others or from government will have no reason to assist others.

·         It may not be clear why a person should assign so much worth to others as The Golden Rule requires. Some people may think, by reason of special abilities or effort, that they deserve to be treated better than others.

·         Those with the view that human beings, including themselves, are aggressive and greedy by nature will turn The Golden Rule into "Do unto others before they do unto you."

 


The Publicity Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act in such a way that you would be willing to have your actions published on the front page of the newspaper the next day.

Assumption: People will guide themselves by the Publicity Principle even when it is unlikely that actions will be publicly known.

Explanation: The Publicity Principle provides a challenging personal test by requiring you to act only in ways where you are willing to take a forthright public stand. On the one hand, you need to believe strongly enough in the moral acceptability of an action that you are willing to make it public. On the other hand, you need to be willing to face any public scrutiny that publicizing the action produces. So there is a test of both the depth of your commitment and your willingness to face possible pressure from the public.

Strengths:

·         A willingness to take a public stand on an issue is a reliable test of what our real commitments are.

·         The Publicity Principle leads to taking other people's interests into account because doing so is more publicly acceptable.

·         A willingness to have other people know about what you are doing makes you think carefully about what you do. Presumably, you are not likely to want other people to see you as being a selfish, greedy lowlife.

·         Fear of what others will think once they know what you are doing is a powerful restriction on what a person is willing to do.

Weaknesses:

·         The principle would not be very effective, in practice, because much of what people do will never come under public scrutiny and thus most people will not have any great fear about public disclosure. In other words, the basic assumption here is untenable.

·         Since adequately ethical actions may give "the appearance of impropriety" to the public, you would have to refrain from acceptable ethical actions simply because of the shallowness of the public's judgment.

·         What the public would be willing to accept is a poor guide to what is right.

 

Popular Moral Frameworks II

 

The moral frameworks for this week--The Principle of Legality, The Lookaround Principle of Goodness and Justice, and Traditional Christianity--are a bit more complex than the "homier" frameworks from last week; yet they retain widespread popularity.
 

Principle of Legality

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to do nothing that is illegal.

Assumption: Laws are stated clearly enough for citizens to know what is allowed or forbidden.

Explanation: Laws are formalized, public rules that establish what actions are acceptable or unacceptable in a society. They provide a publicly known, clearly stated basic structure for the society. The Principle of Legality ties actions to this basic structure. By acting legally, you are acting in a way consistent with the society's acceptable norms for behavior.

Strengths:

·         Laws--as formalized, public rules--establish a common ground for the society, letting all citizens know what is expected of them morally.

·         Legality is a standard of moral acceptability frequently espoused and adhered to. Generally, there is a tendency for most people to abide by the law and to regard most laws as well-grounded morally.

·         The presence of laws makes possible institutionalized enforcement and punishment through the legal system. Unlike voluntary compliance or most ethical codes where enforcement is nonexistent or spotty, the Principle of Legality carries with it the power of the legal system to insure that people act in accordance with legal norms.

Weaknesses:

·         The statement of laws often is too general to provide people with clear, straightforward guidelines for action. So people often do not know what the laws require or they come up with loopholes that are legal, but not really acceptable morally.

·         There can be unjust laws--in which case the laws conflict with morally correct actions.

·         A law may exemplify the power of an interest group to enforce its will rather than a sound moral directive. So people can lose confidence in, or respect for, laws they think represent special interests rather than the well-being of society as a whole.

·         The legal system, especially in the business world, may be ineffective in controlling illegal actions

·         There is a widespread view that being moral is more than just a matter of acting legally.

 


The Lookaround Principle of Goodness and Justice

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to look around to see how other people are acting and then bring yourself into conformity with what others are doing.

Assumption: If the system as a whole is working properly enough, then what the vast majority of people are doing must be morally acceptable.

Explanation: For a system to survive--whether it is a company, a society, or anything else--it must be functioning effectively. Moreover, the system as a whole cannot function effectively without the vast majority of its components functioning effectively. This effectiveness requirement holds in ethical matters as much as it does in technological matters.
In the case of a company or some other social group then, its survival indicates that the vast majority of persons there are functioning reasonably effectively in a moral sense. So, by acting as others do, you will be acting in a morally acceptable way.

Strengths:

·         The explanation makes a lot of sense. Acting morally becomes a type of on-the-job-training just like any other training you get that requires imitating others' procedures.

·         The Lookaround Principle provides a fairly simple, quite common way of deciding the right way to act--without requiring each individual to agonize over, or to think deeply about, decisions.

·         The Lookaround Prinicple offers a good deal of self-protection, because you are not personally blameable if you just are doing the same as what everyone else is doing.

 

Weaknesses:

·         As they say, "The majority is not always right." So you cannot presume that what everyone else is doing is always morally acceptable. If you were working in a concentration camp exterminating Jews during World War II or working at a company where employee theft is widespread, you may well be conforming to what other people are doing--without the actions really being morally acceptable. Even if what others are doing is usually a good guide for action, this principle takes no account of unusual situations where doing the right thing means going against what everybody else is doing.

·         Even if the vast majority of persons in a company are functioning in a morally acceptable way so that the company as a whole is functioning effectively in a moral sense, you can find yourself in a much smaller unit where imitating co-workers leads to actions contrary to what most other people are doing. For example, when a company is convicted of "bid-rigging," you usually find these illegal actions confined to one group of the company's personnel.

·         The Lookaround Principle tends to produce the morality of the lowest common denominator, that is, the smallest number of moral rules or restrictions that everyone can agree on. Instead of trying to do the best you are capable of, you settle merely for what everyone else is doing, the lowest common denominator.

·         The Lookaround Principle promotes taking the easy way out instead of exhibiting the courage and willingness to make sacrifices that a worthwhile morality sometimes demands.

·         Likening imitation of others in moral matters to other types of on-the-job training seems to reduce morality merely to an amoral technical skill--as if deceiving a customer were no different from running the copy machine.

·         The norms established through the Lookaround Principle are subject to changing fashions without a stable moral foundation. Maximizing profits, serving consumers first, sexual harassment, health care benefits for all employees, affirmative action, top-down decision making, bottom-up decision-making, centralizing operations, decentralizing operations, upsizing, and downsizing become interests of the moment, gaining general acceptance for a time and then dissipating.

 


Traditional Christianity

Qualifications: Singling out Christianity rather than some other religion as a moral framework here should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Christianity as the foremost representative religion. Also, given the number of Christian sects, the explanation here cannot be interpreted as the official doctrine of Christianity.

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to place the spiritual values of Christianity before material values.

Assumptions:

·         There is a personal God who laid down moral guidelines for human beings, and there will be a final judgment whereby God determines whether human beings' immortal souls warrant eternal salvation or damnation.

·         The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, and Charity as a Virtue all exemplify the spiritual values of Christianity.

·         Persons ought to live for all eternity rather than just for material life on earth.

·         It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew, 4:4)

·         Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew, 19: 23-24)

·         "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (Paul, First Letter to Timothy, 6: 9-10)

Explanation: In so far as Christianity focuses upon spiritual over material values and an immortal soul (as a non-physical entity) has no use for material goods, there seems to be scant support for a Christian's accumulating material wealth. Moreover, the warnings in the passages from Scripture quoted above stress the dangers in pursuing material goods.
Nevertheless, most Christian churches do not condemn the accumulation of wealth and they do not expel the wealthy from their midst. Instead they stress the more positive message that those fortunate enough to possess material wealth beyond what they need have a duty to help the less fortunate.
There also are restrictions regarding the means and goals of everyday living that relate to business activities. For example, the Ten Commandments presumably forbid theft, deceit, pursuit of wealth through envy of one's neighbors, and putting the accumulation and enjoyment of material goods before service to God. So a practicing Christian will take care in business dealings such as the treatment of customers, wages, the working out of contracts, or the degree of profit.

Strengths:

·         Christianity promises eternal salvation with God and the satisfaction of a life with moral purpose.

·         With a sense of being empowered by God's guidance, Christians can act with the assurance that they are doing the truly right thing.

·         Christianity is a frequently advocated model for moral behavior in Christian parts of the world.

Weaknesses:

·         God, an immortal soul, eternal salvation, and human knowledge of the divine are matters subject to doubt.

·         No matter how high the ideals of Christianity, they are unrealistic in terms of what goes on in the contemporary world and persons pursuing these ideals in business are unlikely to prosper. Religion and business are largely separate realms; so you cannot transfer the rules of one to the other.

·         By stressing the values of eternal life, advocates of Christianity hinder the pursuit of valuable human goals on earth. For exampel, persons who acquire wealth through their own effort ought not to feel guilty about their accomplishments.

·         Since most people in the world are not Christians and the conversion of large numbers of people to Christianity is not imminent, this moral framework has limited appeal.

 

Free Market Moral Frameworks

 

This week's moral frameworks focus upon the free market as a basis for morality. The presentation begins with The Free Market Principle, a classic statement of how a free market is supposed to work. This framework, or a close approximation to it, is the theoretical model normally presented in capitalistic economic theory.
The other two moral frameworks, The Survival Principle and The Yuppie Principle, are variations on the classic interpretation of a free market (unacceptable variations to many free market enthusiasts). The 1980s film Wall Street aptly captures The Survival Principle in the character of Gordon Gekko and The Yuppie Principle in the character of Bud Fox.
 

The Free Market Principle

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to whatever you acquire through your own effort in a free market.

Assumptions:

·         Individuals are free, equal, rational persons pursuing their own self-interest. That is, they are free to act according to their own choices; this freedom is equally available to all participants; and they are using reason to determine what furthers their self-interest in their perceptions and actions.

·         There is fair and open competition. That is, individuals are competing with each other in circumstances where each has a fair chance to succeed--because no secret deals, preferences, deceptions, or information available only to a few give some an unfair advantage over others.

·         Supply and demand is the primary determinant of price. That is, the price of a product depends upon whether it is in greater or lesser supply (the greater the supply of the product available, the lower the price) and whether individuals acting freely want greater or lesser amounts of the product (the greater the demand, the higher the price).

Explanation: Advocates tout the free market as a way of providing opportunities for all people to get ahead through their own effort in a system that is basically fair. They see the free market as being consistent with our nature as human beings--the tendency to be competitive, to seek our own self-interest, to use our reasoning to advance our interests, to want to decide the direction of our lives for ourselves, and to require financial rewards as a motivation to enhance effort.
There is no presumption that people are noble or altruistic. Yet the system works to everyone's advantage in the long run because it encourages people to do their best. They will develop the skills necessary to compete, and the prospects of financial rewards motivate them to greater effort. This higher level of skills and effort, in turn, leads to the advancement of knowledge and technology, as well as to better, more efficient production. As a result, the standard of living rises for people in a society generally. Thus, by "an invisible hand," the pursuit of self-interest contributes to the greater well-being of all.

Strengths:

·         The Free Market Principle is consistent with many people's interpretation of human nature; and they believe that it produces the best life for most people in the long run in the most efficient possible way.

·         The Free Market Principle relies upon the claimed fairness of the exchange process itself to determine what is a morally acceptable result in business rather than expecting some individual(s) to lay down for everyone what is acceptable. For example, what a seller freely is willing to sell for and what a buyer freely is willing to pay determines a fair price for a product, without someone declaring on more questionable grounds what is a fair price. Similarly, what an employer offers and what an employee is willing to work for determines a fair wage.

·         The fairness of the system gives everyone an equal chance to succeed and also properly rewards personal effort and the willingness to take risks.

 

Weaknesses:

·         The assumptions underlying the Free Market Principle are questionable--since (1) People are seldom all free, equal, and rational; (2) People do not always act merely for selfish self-interest; (3) Fair and open competition is often thwarted through monopoly, conspiracy, deception, advantages of greater wealth and power, or differences in knowledge; and (4) There are numerous ways to control supply and manipulate demand to affect prices, such as controlling production or using advertising. To take just one example, an employee desperate for work to feed a family and competing with other similarly desperate workers is not a free and equal bargainer with a wealthy employer in determining a fair wage.

·         The Free Market Principle makes no allowance for the benefits of nobility or for the dangers of greed; and it tends to produce disaster and hopelessness (without relief) for the least successful competitors.

·         The principle tends to produce "boom-bust" cycles, with all the problems associated with instability--e.g. insecurity, hard times, distrust of others' intentions, the feeling that one has to make a "killing" while one can, and social upheavals.

 


The Survival Principle (A harsher variation on The Free Market Principle)

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to do whatever is useful to survive and succeed in business.

Assumptions:

·         The assumptions of The Free Market Principle are unrealistic, although the notion that any person can get ahead through one's own effort in a competitive world is sound.

·         This is a competitive, "dog-eat-dog" world where only the fittest survive.

·         Greed and aggression capture the essence of human nature.

Explanation: The Survival Principle dispenses with the elements of fairness that are assumed for the Free Market Principle to work. Life and the business world are not fair; but they do produce a competition where anybody can survive and succeed. Everybody is greedy and aggressive by nature; but not everybody is willing to make the extra effort that it takes to stand out from the crowd. What you need to prosper is a greedy-enough, aggressive-enough disposition to go a step further than others and to break the rules others are following, when this gives you an advantage.
You only need to look around for the most successful people in business to find the truth of the Survival Principle. They do not take prisoners and they do not believe in giving a guy a break. They do what is necessary to get ahead.

Strengths:

·         The Survival Principle doesn't require the unrealistic assumptions necessary for The Free Market Principle to work.

·         In so far as only the fittest survive, you achieve the best possible world in the long run.

·         The Survival Principle properly rewards superior people who know how to get ahead in life.

Weaknesses:

·         The assumptions underlying The Survival Principle are questionable--since this is not really "a dog-eat-dog" world where greed and aggression capture the essence of human nature. Human actions exhibit far too many exceptions to these claims for them to be true. For example, there are many acts of kindness, of sacrifice for others, and of respect for others. And people are quite capable of cooperating with others without taking advantage of them.

·         The consequences from application of The Survival Principle would be disastrous for the greater majority of human beings--since a relatively small number of people would achieve great success by taking advantage of everybody else and a pervasive attitude of both distrust and lack of concern for others would dominate the society.

·         Since the principle allows a person to do anything at all in business, it seems amoral instead of descriptive of what is morally acceptable.

 


The Yuppie Principle (A mild variation on The Free Market Principle)

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to do whatever everyone else is doing or wants to do in something like a free market, so long as no one really gets hurt.

 

Assumptions:

·         As long as everyone is making money and no one gets hurt seriously, there is no reason to be concerned about whether or not free market assumptions hold.

·         You do not need to have higher moral standards than the people working around you; and if you don't take advantage of a situation, someone else will.

Explanation: Central to The Yuppie Principle as a moral framework are the beliefs that (a) you can do very well for yourself without seriously hurting anyone else, and (b) you do not need to probe deeply into the moral significance of your actions. You are acquiring more and more of the best of everything--whether it be a better house, better clothes, a better car, a more exciting vacation--through your own hard work. And if you cut a few corners morally on the road to success, there is no need for major concern since the people you know are living fairly well and everybody seems to be cutting moral corners now and then. There is enough money to be made for everyone to do well through hard work.

Strengths:

·         The Yuppie Principle allows a person to pursue goals and get ahead in the business world without having to agonize over the morality of actions.

·         The Yuppie Principle produces the best of everything for people willing to put out strong, personal effort.

Weaknesses:

·         The Yuppie Principle lends itself to self-serving interpretations of what it means to hurt others; and the claim not to hurt others, often enough, is just a comfortable illusion.

·         The Yuppie Principle sets up a low standard of morality that is disguised by the shallowness of the thinking about morality.

·         Even when the notion, "If you don't do it then someone else will," is true, that does not make an action morally acceptable.

 

Two Basic Philosophical Moral Frameworks

 

The two moral frameworks this week, The Principle of Utility and Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, exemplify two basic, contrasting points of view of philosophers. The Principle of Utility expresses the views of the nineteenth century British philosophers Jeremy Benthan and John Stuart Mill; Human Dignity and Infinite Worth expresses the views of the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

 


The Principle of Utility

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to produce the greatest amount of good (or pleasure) and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people involved in an action.

Assumptions:

·         As a basic fact about human nature, we can assert that human beings always act so as to gain pleasure and to avoid pain.

·         Through experience, it is possible to weigh the various ways in which people get pleasure or pain from actions so that we can determine which actions are more likely to produce the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.

·         Human beings are capable of acting for the benefit of everyone involved in action rather than just for their own selfish interests.

Explanation: Advocates of the Principle of Utility (Utilitarians) propose that we decide how to act by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis to determine the effects of an action on all the people involved, in terms of pleasure and pain. We should act in such a way that we maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. Note that everyone involved has an equal right to have one's interests considered in the analysis. So we cannot give special preferences to our selfish interests, our own family, our friends, or our local interest groups.
The weighing of pleasures and pains can be a fairly complicated process--not a simple, quick, or crude one. For example, we may consider (a) long-range pleasures and pains rather than immediate ones, (b) differing intensities of pleasure and pain, and (c) qualitative differences in pleasures.
In applying the Principle of Utility, you need especially to avoid crude, shortsighted decisions. As an example of crude Utilitiarianism, someone might argue that a mob lynching a person who committed a heinous murder satisfies the Principle of Utility since the increase in pleasure of the many people in the mob far outweighs the pain experienced by the murderer. To be more careful in applying the Principle here though, we need to consider the long-range consequences of lynching. What are the consequences of allowing mob rule to administer justice? Does a criminal justice system with prescribed rules carefully followed, with courts, with both defendants' and victims' rights, and with due deliberation contribute more to the well-being of society as a whole than the highly emotional, spur-of-the-moment decisions of a mob? Does past experience with lynchings show the likelihood of grievous mistakes and miscarriages of justice that would put large numbers of innocent people in fear for their lives?

Varieties of Utilitiarianism: Advocates of the Principle of Utility tend to define themselves as either rule-utilitarians or else act-utilitarians. Rule-utilitarians hold that the Principle of Utility establishes general rules that serve as guides to action. Act-utilitarians hold that one must apply the Principle of Utility to the particular action at hand to determine the correct course. What does this difference between them mean? With respect to stealing, a rule-utilitarian argues that the Principle of Utility establishes a general rule against stealing whereas an act-utilitarian argues that one must apply the Principle to the specific circumstancs to decide whether or not stealing is wrong. In the case of a person stealing food from a supermarket to prevent one's family from starving, a rule-utilitarian would criticize the action as a violation of the rule against stealing, whereas an act-utilitarian would at least consider the person's special circumstances in judging the action.

Strengths:

·         The Principle of Utility offers a sensible way of deciding upon social policy in a society where there are many competing interests.

·         There is an inherent equality in the Principle, since it takes everyone's interests into account. Even though some persons may get more pleasure than others in the end-result because the greatest good for the whole favors them, each person gets equal consideration in determining the greatest good.

·         As persons become more used to cooperating with others in social groups and become more aware of the need for cooperation to solve common problems, they become more appreciative of the value of the Principle of Utility.

Weaknesses:

·         The assumptions are questionable because (1) people need not act only in terms of pleasure and pain, and (2) it is not possible to determine what truly produces the greatest amount of pleasure and least amount of pain for the greatest number, except in relatively trivial situations.

·         The Principle of Utility would lead us to do actions that we know to be wrong, since it requires us to mistreat individuals for the sake of the common good. Basic moral notions such as the right to privacy, the right to private property, the right to direct one's life as one sees fit can be overridden by an appeal to the Principle.

 


The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth

The Principle Stated: You ought to act so as to recognize the dignity and infinite worth of every human being.

Translations of the Principle (in the form of a moral law):

·         You ought to act so that the rule governing your action can be willed as a universal law for all rational beings. Thus, you cannot make a lying promise unless you can will it as a universal law that everyone make lying promises.

·         You ought to treat other rational beings as ends-in-themselves rather than as means to serve some other purpose. In other words, you ought not to exploit other persons. (Note: Meaning of Exploitation - You are exploiting someone if you use that person to serve your self-interest without proper regard for the person's own best interest.)

Assumptions:

·         Human beings possess a basic dignity and infinite worth, because as rational beings they are able to act according to the recognition of a moral principle. In other words, their ability to function as moral beings entails their dignity and infinite worth.

·         The preservation of a genuine morality, that is, one that commands all rational beings in the same way without exception or possibility of error, requires that moral decisions and moral worth depend upon doing the right action with the right intention rather than upon the consequences of the action.

Explanation: According to the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, you cannot sacrifice the worth of human beings for the sake of money, convenience, or others' welfare. Such actions place a finite worth on human beings. Since each human being possesses infinite worth, no collection of benefits to others can outweigh that worth. To take advantage of a customer's ignorance or a worker's desperate need for employment are denials of their infinite worth.
You should decide upon the right course of action through rational consideration of the basic moral law (in either of the translations given above). Rationally, the moral law specifies a single, correct action that holds for everyone without change over time. For Immanuel Kant, a lying promise is a contradiction (it is the assertion of a promise that is not really a promise because the person is lying); and no rational person could will a contradiction as a universal law for everyone. Likewise, a lying promise exploits one person for the sake of another. Even in the case of food needed for your survival, you still are exploiting someone else if you acquire the food by promising to pay for it later, knowing that you will never do so.
Moral decisions and moral worth depend upon acting with the right intention, that is, acting from a sense of duty toward the moral law. You should do the right thing and not worry about the consequences. In Kant's view, judging an action by its consequences opens the door to too many different interpretations of the morally correct way to act--so that we end up with a lot of different opinions rather than a common morality.

Strengths:

·         The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth seems to express our highest, noblest ideal regarding what human beings are. So we would like to accept it ourselves and have other people accept it as well.

·         The Principle sets up a single moral standard for everyone to abide by all of the time, with no exceptions for special people or special circumstances.

·         The Principle is based upon reason rather than whims, inclinations, desires or consequences, all of which are so changeable as to make a common moral standard impossible to achieve.

Weaknesses:

·         Moral situations are too complex to be governed by a single moral law that allows for no exceptions and no changes because of time or circumstance. There can be situations, for example, where lying is the morally correct action.

·         Moreover, no matter how powerful our reasoning, a single moral law will not always lead to a single, clearcut course of action. Morality is not reducible to mathematical-like certainty.

·         Most people will find the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth to be impractical, no matter how noble it seems at first glance. They will not bind themselves to the Principle when they see the overwhelming majority of other people not following it. In addition, inclinations, desires, and consequences are such fundamental factors in moral considerations that people will not abide by their elimination.

·         While human beings possess great worth, it is impractical to assign them infinite worth. Thus, although we may like to think that money is irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, we often make practical decisions that place financial costs ahead of saving lives. For example, because of the enormous costs involved, we not build overpasses at every intersection of a road and railroad tracks in order to prevent all the deaths due to collisions between vehicles and trains.

 

Deeper Justifications of the Two Philosophical Moral Frameworks:
An Overview

 

The presentation of moral frameworks--especially with respect to assumptions, explanations, and listing of strengths and weaknesses--provides opportunities for evaluation. In presenting a framework however, the originators usually make a much stronger case in terms of reasoning and evidence than appears here.
To make you more aware of these deeper justifications for moral frameworks, we will examine the Two Basic Philosophical Moral Frameworks in much more detail. We will see (a) how they present what they take to be strong evidence for a moral framework, so strong that you have to overcome the evidence to disagree with the framework; and (b) how they meet potential objections to their frameworks. So there will be Evidential Arguments for a Moral Framework and Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to a Moral Framework.
Once you work through these deeper justifications, you should better understand both how you also may give deeper justifications for your own moral claims and how moral frameworks can go beyond simple personal opinions.

Bentham's and Mill's Principle of Utility (Detailed Version)

(Note on Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the arguments in support of the Principle of Utility here are based upon the writings of John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarianism, in particular. Some of the explanations are taken from, or based upon, my Philosophical Problems: The Good Life.)

Jeremy Bentham describes the Principle of Utility this way:

By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever; and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.

By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if that part be the community in general, then the happiness of the community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual. (from Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

Given any proposed action, the Principle of Utility, often called "The Greatest Happiness Principle," asserts that we ought to take into account the interests of all those involved in the action--whether it be one person, a small group, or even the society as a whole--and then that we ought to maximize the happiness or pleasure.
Note well that the interests of all those involved should be considered. Accordingly, we are obligated not to give preference to our family, our friends, a special interest group to which we belong, our community, or our nation. For example, in dealing with a pollution problem caused by a local industry, we cannot base our judgment of what to do solely upon possible consequences for workers at the plant or even for the local community as a whole (if the pollution causes problems for people outside the local area). Likewise, government or society generally cannot simply ignore the consequences for workers at the plant. The objective is always to take everyone's interest into consideration and then to maximize the pleasure or happiness as best we can. Although the Principle of Utility takes everyone's interests into account, remember that the maximization of happiness for the greatest number does not guarantee a total absence of pain--since the pain of some may be overridden by the greater pleasure of many others.

(1) Evidential Arguments for the Principle of Utility

Argument (1A) - The Need for a Moral Principle Based upon Pleasure and Pain

It is a fact of human nature that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the fundamental sources of all motivation in our actions. A careful examination of any action will reveal this role of pleasure and pain. Therefore, since this desire to get pleasure and avoid pain is so fundamental to our nature as human beings, we must regard the pursuit of pleasure to be desirable, and thus good. Accordingly, the fundamental principle of morality must include the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

Argument (1B) - The Social Feelings Justification for the Principle of Utility

Although human beings by nature have strong selfish feelings, they also possess a "powerful natural sentiment" to live in unity and harmony with others. That is, they possess strong "social feelings" as part of human nature as well. As civilization develops, we can expect this role of social feelings to increase. And since these social feelings support acceptance of the Principle of Utility, we can expect the Principle of Utility to become an increasingly accepted as the fundamental principle of morality.

Argument (1C) - The Equality Justification for the Principle of Utility

As civilization develops, there is increasing acceptance of equality as the basis for social organization. In other words, there is increasing recognition that everyone has a right to equal treatment and to have their interests treated equally with everyone else's. Since the Principle of Utility is the best way of treating everyone equally, the acceptance of equality promotes, and leads to, acceptance of Utility as the fundamental principle of morality.

Argument (1D) - The Group Identification Justification for the Principle of Utility

When human beings cooperate in groups, they tend increasingly to identify their own interests with the interests of the group as a whole. That is, they move away from purely personal interests in favor of adopting the group's interests. Thus, they increasingly take others' interests into account instead of merely their own personal interests. But taking others' interests into account is basic to the Principle of Utility. Therefore, as civilization develops and human beings find themselves cooperating in more and more social groups, they will tend to accept more and more Utility as the fundamental principle of morality.

Argument (1E) - Social Institutions and Support for the Principle of Utility

Social institutions--for example, education, religion, government, and the family--continually promote the rejection of selfish feelings and the acceptance of social responsibility. Consequently, acceptance of the Principle of Utility has the weight of social institutions supporting it. As social institutions have greater influence on human actions then, there will be increasing acceptance of Utility as the fundamental principle of morality.

(2) Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to the Principle of Utility

Argument (2A) - The Likelihood of Deciding the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People

Objection: No one is capable of determining what constitutes the greatest amount of good, or pleasure, for the greatest number of people--because this is a complex matter difficult to deal with in itself and subject to all sorts of different opinions.
Countering Argument: Since most actions do not involve large numbers of people, the problem of determining the greatest good is not as complex as it first seems. Even if an issue is complex, the Principle of Utility still is more workable than any other moral principle, because it provides an experiential test, namely, the evidence of pleasure and pain as experienced by human beings, as the measure of right and wrong. In the process of living, we gain valuable experience in successfully gauging pleasures and pains. While our judgments of pleasure and pain may not be infallible, they are sufficiently successful that the Principle of Utility is workable.

Argument (2B) - The Role of Rules as a Way of Expediting Application of the Principle of Utility

Objection: Given the number of actions they typically engage in, persons do not have the time to weigh each one carefully in terms of the pleasures and pains involved, as the Principle of Utility requires.
Countering Argument: Human beings have sufficient past experience to establish rules, based upon the Principle of Utility, which serve as guides for actions without our having to make decisions anew all the time. Thus, for example, we can establish on Utilitarian grounds the rule that stealing is wrong and can then follow this rule rather than having to determine the precise pleasure and pain for all persons involved whenever an occasion for stealing arises. Thus, by making use of rules, we expedite application of the Principle of Utility.
Rules may require improvement with further experience. In that sense, they are not absolute.Yet they generally provide a reliable guide for action and they are subject to some modification if experience warrants a change.
At times, rules also may require exceptions. John Stuart Mill's position on lying is instructive here:

... it would often be expedient, for the purpose of getting over momentary embarrassment, or attaining some object immediately useful to ourselves or others, to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity, is one of the most useful, and the enfeeblement of that feeling one of the most hurtful, things to which our conduct can be instrumental; and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth, does that much towards weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion, which is not only the principal support of all present social well-being, but the insufficiency of which does more than any one thing that can be named to keep back civilization, virtue, everything on which human happiness on the largest scale depends; we feel that the violation, for a present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent expediency, is not expedient, and that he who, for the sake of a convenience to himself or to some other individual, does what depends on him to deprive mankind of the good, and inflict upon them the evil, involved in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each other's word, acts the part of one of their worst enemies. Yet that even this rule, sacred as it is, admits of possible exceptions, is acknowledged by all moralists; the chief of which is when the withholding of some fact (as of information from a malefactor, or of bad news from a person dangerously ill) would save an individual (especially an individual other than oneself) from great and unmerited evil, and when the withholding can only be effected by denial. But in order that the exception may not extend beyond the need, and may have the least possible effect in weakening the reliance on veracity, it ought to be recognized, and, if possible, its limits defined; and if the principle of utility is good for anything, it must be good for weighting these conflicting utilities against one another, and marking out the region within which one or the other preponderates. (from Utilitarianism)

There is a strong rule against lying. Yet exceptions may be made when withholding information might prevent someone from doing serious harm or might spare someone additional grief when they are least able to cope with it. Mill insists however that any exceptions must be few enough that they do not destroy the rule against lying.

Argument (2C) - Avoidance of Crude Utilitarianism

Objection: The Principle of Utility would lead to actions that we clearly recognize as being morally wrong. For example, the Principle would justify (require) humiliating one person if this provides a greater amount of pleasure for other persons who happen to be present. Yet we know that such humiliation would be wrong.
Countering Argument: This is a very crude interpretation of Utilitarianism. There is no reason to think that the humiliation would produce a greater amount of pleasure for other persons. Even if they actually enjoyed someone else's being humiliated now, they would experience the painful anxiety of knowing that they themselves may be later victims of similar humiliation. Moroever, the long-range consequences of enjoying someone else's humiliation are likely to be detrimental to themselves and others. For example, their lack of sensitivity to a person's pain here probably will show itself later in their causing further pain to others and they will suffer themselves for their lack of sensitivity in terms of the way other people will treat them.Accordingly, we should expect that the Principle of Utility would forbid the humiliation in the situation presented, once we consider the Principle carefully.

 

 

 

Kant's Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth (Detailed Version)

(Note on Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the arguments here are based upon Immanuel Kant's Foundations of the Metaphyics of Morals. Some of the explanations are taken from, or based upon, my Philosophical Problems: The Good Life.)

Immanuel Kant associates a dignity and infinite worth with every human being that requires our obedience to a moral law.
What is this moral law, or categorical imperative? According to Kant: We should always act so that the rule governing our action can be willed as a universal law for all rational beings. The following example aptly illustrates his use of the categorical imperative:

Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself: Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty this way? Suppose, however, that he resolves to do so, then the maxim of his action would be expressed thus: "When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it although I know that I never can do so. Now this principle of self-love or of one's own advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare; but the question now is, Is it right? I change then the suggestion of self-love into a universal law and state the question thus: How would it be if my maxim were a universal law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such statements as vain pretences. (from Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)

A lying promise cannot be willed as a universal law because it is a contradiction and therefore meaningless. Promising sets up an obligation to act in a certain way; but the lying negates the obligation. As further examples of using the categorical imperative, Kant discusses the obligation to develop our talents and to help others in need as well as the obligation not to commit suicide. He is convinced that this single moral law is sufficient to guide our actions and that reason assures its unambiguous application in the varied affairs of life.
Kant also offers an alternate statement of the categorical imperative--one that emphasizes the infinite moral worth of each human being and forbids the exploitation of one human being by another. Always treat rational beings, whether yourself or others, as ends-in-themselves and never merely as a means to serve some other purpose. This alternate statement has attracted a good deal of attention in the twentieth century because of the frequent attribution of moral wrongs to exploitation. We exploit other persons when we use them as means to serve some purpose without consideration of their best interests. For example, the insurance salesperson who preys upon the fears of the elderly to sell them unneeded insurance is exploitative. Exploitation is a serious problem; but its meaning requires careful consideration. Thus actions to mutual advantage, it should be noted, need not be exploitative since they may take into account the best interests of everyone involved. (Actions to mutual advantage however have questionable moral worth since Kant regards only actions willed for the sake of duty to have moral worth.) Note also that the alternate statement of the categorical imperative asserts that it is possible to exploit oneself. Forgoing reason in order to submit to our inclinations constitutes self-exploitation. For example, committing suicide is forbidden because we thereby deny our infinite worth in ending our life out of a desire to end our misery. We cannot use ourselves as a means in this way.
The moral worth of acts in accordance with the categorical imperative must be judged entirely with respect to the motive, or intention of an act and not with respect to its consequences, according to Kant. This stress on intentions can lead to judgments quite alien to some common ways of thinking. Consider the following example: Someone comes up to you, gun in hand, and asks, "Where did your brother go?" From Kant's standpoint of the categorical imperative, you cannot consider the consequences for your brother if you tell the truth. Instead, if the person expects you to tell the truth, you are morally obligated since no rational person can will lying as a universal law--that is, since lying is contrary to what we mean by communication, no rational person can willingly communicate a lie and still obey the categorical imperative. Of course, having settled this first moral question, whether you should lie or not, you then must turn to a second one--whether or not you should stop this person from killing your brother--and must apply the categorical imperative again. So you cannot simply tell the truth and then turn away with no further concern.

(1) Evidential Arguments for the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth

Argument (1A) - The Need for a Moral Law

Genuine morality is impossible without a moral law--that is, a principle that commands rational beings universally (without exception) and necessarily (without the possibility of error). Without a moral law, different persons judge right and wrong differently according to their particular circumstances--thereby creating a situation where a discussion of any common morality is impossible because values become relative to anyone's personal, or subjective, judgment.

Argument (1B) - The Need for Reason in Morality

Morality must be based upon reason because (1) only reason can allow us to act as moral agents in terms of a rational principle and (2) only reason can enable us to escape our subjective inclinations (personal appetites, desires, and emotions) so that we can obey a moral law. Regarding (1), lower animals do not have a morality and do not act as moral agents because they lack the reasoning necessary to grasp, and act in terms of, a moral principle. Regarding (2), reason can be a common basis for universal, absolutely certain judgments that go beyond our subjective inclinations. For example, reason can establish that a lying promise is a contradiction, a truth to be recognized by every rational person.

Argument (1C) - The Need for Intention and Duty to Determine Moral Worth

The only guarantee that an action has genuine moral worth is the assurance of an intention to obey the moral law out of a sense of duty, out of respect for the law itself. The intention to do one's duty, not the desire for personal gain, must be the basis a morally worthy action. For example, we should treat others honestly because duty requires this, and not because we gain some personal advantages by so acting. Thus no moral worth accrues to the business person who treats customers fairly out of the conviction that such treatment is the best business practice in the long run. Although this person acts in accordance with the moral law, the person is not acting from a sense of duty but rather is trying to protect and assure profits.

Argument (1D) - The Irrelevant of Consequences in Determining the Morality of Actions

Moral actions cannot be based upon consequences, because examining experiences to assess consequences makes a moral law impossible. Only reason, functioning independently of experience, is capable of upholding a moral law, which must be the basis for morality. Reason, for example, can recognize a contradiction that is evident to all rational persons; consequences based upon experience, on the other hand, are subject to differing interpretations depending upon the vagaries of experience or the kinds of consequences (such as short-range or long-range ones) focused upon.

(2) Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth

Argument (2A) - Reassertion of the Irrelevance of Consequences

Objection: The gun-in-hand example shows why the morality of an action depends upon the consequences. If you tell the truth to the person with a gun, you are engaging in a grievous moral wrong because it is likely that your innocent brother will be murdered. Any theory of morality that requires you to ignore the significance of this consequence is unacceptable.
Countering Argument: Morality requires a rule that is rationally clear and unambiguous, that is, a moral law like the categorical imperative. Morality based upon experience is variable and therefore subject to all sorts of different interpretations, exceptions, and self-serving judgments. The fact that the gun-in-hand example would lead to a potentially harmful consequence, the murdering of your brother, (a potentially harmful consequence because there is still the possibility of preventing the murder after you answer truthfully) should not distract us from the problems associated with dependence upon consequences in making moral judgments. As soon as we ask, "Consequences for whom? and For how long?" we enter into muddy moral waters--a relativity of values and hence a breakdown of morality because everyone can judge consequences differently. On the other hand, recognizing, on the basis of reason alone, that lying contradicts the meaning of communication is rationally clear and unambiguous.

Argument (2B) - The Irrelevance of Human Imperfection

Objection: Human beings are incapable of acting solely from a sense of duty, independently of all self-interest; and they are incapable of forgoing all attention to their personal inclinations and to consequences in making moral judgments. So Kant presents a theory of morality so unrealistic that it no one can follow it.
Countering Argument: What clearly is necessary for morality is a moral law based upon reason. Whether or not human beings actually live up to the requirements of morality does not affect that necessity. So human imperfection is no excuse for changing morality. Human beings must strive to attain actions in accordance with the moral law out of a sense of duty, even if they never fully succeed.

Argument (2C) - The Rational Clarity of the Categorical Imperative

Objection: What the categorical imperative requires is not always clear, since more than one course of action can be consistent with it. For example, in deciding about the morality of abortion, the judgment would depend upon whether or not a fetus possesses dignity and infinite worth, and there is no clearcut way of deciding this in terms of the categorical imperative. Different persons would decide differently, each giving a carefully rational explanation.
Countering Reply: Given that morality is based upon reason, there is a conclusive way of settling every moral problem in terms of the categorical imperative. Yet, in practice, there is no guarantee that persons always will have the experience to know when to apply it or will have sufficient reasoning ability to recognize a conclusive answer. All we can do, in practice, is make the best effort we can to apply it correctly.

 

 

 

Further Moral Frameworks I

 

This week's moral frameworks build upon the previous ones. The Avoidance Principle combines prohibitions from several previous frameworks, while the Community Principle is a variation on the Principle of Utility.
 

The Avoidance Principle (A Negative Approach)

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to avoid illegality, greed, and exploitation.

Assumption: Avoiding these three immoral conditions is enough to produce morally acceptable behavior.

Explanation: If we examine the ways people are victimized by others, particularly in business-related matters, we are very likely to find illegality, greed, and/or exploitation to be crucial elements in producing the victimization. (As a simple test, you may want to consider some actions you consider reprehensible in business to find out how much merit attaches to this claim.) It follows that avoidance of these three conditions eliminates victimization thereby producing morally acceptable actions.
According to the Random House Dictionary, greed is "an excessive or rapacious (predatory) desire, especially for wealth or possessions." The greedy person never has enough and often takes unscrupulous measures to gain more. Often we interpret greed in terms of paradigm cases of greedy persons--for example, Scrooge in A Christmas Carol or Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life or Gordon Gekko in the film, Wall Street--that is, really extreme cases of greed. But greed can become a problem whenever worthwhile values are sacrificed for the sake of acquiring more wealth or affluence. So greed can be more pervasive than people are inclined to grant, especially with respect to themselves.
"We exploit other persons when we use them as means to serve some purpose without consideration of their best interests. For example, the insurance salesperson who preys upon the fears of the elderly to sell them unneeded insurance is exploitative. Exploitation is a serious problem; but its meaning requires careful consideration. Thus actions to mutual advantage, it should be noted, need not be exploitative since they may take into account the best interests of everyone involved" (from Ron Yezzi, Philosophical Problems: The Good Life).

Strengths:

·         The Avoidance Principle provides goals to strive for in terms of actions generally regarded to be morally unacceptable.

·         Instead of getting into the complicated question of deciding all the positive goals to be achieved, the Avoidance Principle focuses upon the worst actions to be avoided and thereby produces real moral progress.

Weaknesses:

·         Although extreme greed and exploitation are considered morally unacceptable, a certain amount of greed and exploitation is so characteristic of the human nature that we cannot expect to ban them completely; but then we find it difficult to decide where to draw lines that establish when greed and exploitation become unacceptable.

·         There are too many self-serving ways by which to interpret "avoidance of illegality, greed, and exploitation" so that the Principle becomes ineffective. Thus, people find loopholes or excuses to evade the laws; they seldom admit to being greedy themselves (although they may accuse others of the vice), and they will interpret exploitative situations as being mutually advantageous to all parties.

 

 

 


The Community Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act so as to preserve and enhance the well-being of the community.

Assumptions:

·         A society is not merely an artificial aggregate of individuals; rather it is a natural entity, a relatively self-sufficient community arising to better provide the basic necessities of life and continuing for the sake of a good life, common to all its members (from Aristotle).

·         For the most part, human beings develop through the social conditions under which they live; and, given supportive social conditions, people can act in cooperative harmony instead of being selfish and competitive.

Explanation: The Community Principle can be interpreted as a variation on the Principle of Utility. Whereas the Principle of Utility serves the common good viewed as a collection of individual interests however, the Community Principle serves the common good viewed as a unified, harmonious whole. There is a stress on communal cooperation (in contrast with the competition of free market principles). Trust, friendship, loyalty, good will, compassion, and mutual sensitivity to everyone's needs become the model for social interaction.

Strengths:

·         Cooperation, trust, friendship, loyalty, good will, compassion, and mutual sensitivity are extremely worthwhile human values.

·         The Community Principle takes one away from the "winners-losers" phenomeon of a competitive free market.

·         The most well off must act to benefit the least well off, thereby helping the disadvantaged and those in need and promoting greater allegiance to the well-being of the society as a whole.

Weaknesses:

·         The utopian dream of a happy, harmonious community is misleading because it ignores the value of struggle and risk in life. Moreover, the Community Principle tends to be unrealistic in terms of the way people generally act in some areas of life, particularly in business.

·         Competition with the hope of winning and the threat of losing is necessary to motivate people to accomplish more and to prevent stagnation. Moreover, it is not clear why the most well off (the "winners" in a competitive environment) are obligated to benefit losers and the least well off.

·         Application of the Community Principle encourages creation of governmental bureaucracies that are ineffective and merely perpetuate themselves and their special interests under the guise of serving the common good.

 

Further Moral Frameworks II

 

The final two moral frameworks, The PSR Principle and The Moral Person Principle, are positions constructed by your instructor (the first from his Practical Ethics, and the second from his Philosophical Problems: The Good Life).
 

The PSR Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act so as to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality.

Assumptions:

·         Power is the capacity to control oneself and/or the external environment. Satisfaction is the experience of fulfilment (most often realized as pleasure). It may occur as the fulfilment of a desire, the completion of an intended activity, or the exhibition of a natural or acquired skill. Reality is the awareness of the way things are.

·         Power, satisfaction, and reality are the ultimate human values and are derivable from human nature itself.

Explanation: Given any human action, we can analyze it in terms of power, satisfaction, and reality as the ultimate values a person strives to realize. That is, we can examine how each of these value factors leads the person to act one way rather than another. Moreover, in striving to realize these values, a person is trying to maximize them as a totality.
To take a simplified example, suppose that you are contemplating a surprise party for a friend. Why might you go ahead with the party? In terms of power, you are aware of the power you have to bring about the party and the power to delight your friend this way. In terms of satisfaction, you are aware of the pleasure to be experienced by you in bringing about the party and being there, the pleasure your friend will experience, and the pleasure of the other persons at the party. In terms of reality, you need to produce all the conditions necessary for a surprise party (such as invitations, a place, the method of surprise, refreshments, etc.), and you are aware that most people like surprise parties. Accordingly, you may go ahead, with the party as a maximization of power, satisfaction, and reality. On the other hand, if you know (as a matter of reality) that your friend has an extreme dislike for surprise parties and does not enjoy them at all or that the party will keep the people attending from prior, more important commitments, then you have reason to deny that going ahead with the surprise party maximizes the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality.
Analyzing actions in terms of the attempt to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction and reality provides a means for understanding why actions occur and for testing them to determine whether or not there is a successful maximization. Accordingly, moral decisions are subject to a factual quest rather than being unexaminable. The quest may be difficult, especially in complex situations; yet it provides a promising way of evaluating judgments.
When applying the PSR Principle in complex situations, one has to give special attention to the requirements of reality--especially as a way of avoiding too selfish an interpretation of the Principle. Frequently, it is reality that leads to our seeing the need to go beyond selfish interests.

Strengths:

·         The PSR Principle incorporates (subsumes) within it many values human beings regard to be worthwhile.

·         Since any human action expressing a moral value can be understood in terms of the attempt to maximize power, satisfaction, and reality, some objective measure of a person's action becomes possible because you can test the factual correctness of the attempted maximization.

Weaknesses:

·         Frequently, the PSR Principle is too general and situations are too ambiguous to determine what maximizes the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality.

·         Fixing upon power, satisfaction, and reality as the ultimate values is questionable since there are other equally worthy candidates for ultimate values, such as love and compassion.

·         The PSR Principle tends to breed selfishness--since individuals look to power, satisfaction, and reality primarily as it affects themselves.

Application of the PSR Principle requires consideration of a number of ways that power, satisfaction, and reality can enter into a situation. For some sample applications that exhibit the usefulness and complexity of analyses in terms of the PSR Principle, click on the link below:

 

Sample Applications of the PSR Principle

Below you will find two sample applications of the PSR Principle, taken from Ron Yezzi, Practical Ethics (Mankato: G. Bruno & Co., 1993). The samples here should help you in approaching application of the PSR Principle to any assigned scenarios Both sample applications deal with filing tax returns where the filer can pay or save $1000. in taxes--depending upon whether one files an honest or a dishonest return, respectively. In each case, the filer would be applying the PSR Principle to justify the decision. Your instructor maintains that the honest return applies the PSR Principle more adequately here. For the purposes of understanding the PSR Principle however, both applications show some of the usefulness and complexity of judging a situation in terms of an attempt to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality. In the tables that follow, the dishonest return analysis appears first.

A Dishonest Return

 

Power

Satisfaction

Reality

(1) $1000 additional income increases buying power.

(1) Greater buying power increases satisfaction.

(1) Government probably would not discover my cheating.

(2) If I get away with it, then government has less control over me.

(2) It feels great to "put something over" on the government.

(2) Although government needs tax revenues and uses money for worthwhile purposes, considerable amounsts of money are spent on projects I disapprove of.

(3) I am showing that I can "get away" with something.

(30 This is a nice way of "getting back" at the government.

(3) Compared with the total taxes I pay, the $1000 is proportionately less than the proportion of government revenues wasted on projects I disapprove of.

 

(4) I enjoy being able to keep more of what I earned.

(4) I earned the money, not the government.

 

(5) I enjoy paying the government what it actually deserves of my earnings.

(5) Although considerable revenue would be lost if everyone shorted the government by $1000 or more, I know that everyone will not do so and thus my $1000 is insignificant.

 

(6) It is nice to know that I am not being overly scrupulous when facing the hard realities of life.

(6) I pay quite a bit of money in taxes even without the $1000.

 

 

(7) If the cheating is discovered, I can always claim that an unintended oversight occurred, and thus any penalty will be a minor one.

 

 

(8) The tax laws are basically inequitable with all sorts of loopholes for wealthy people able to afford expensive tax lawyers.

 

 

(9) My not paying the $1000 is, in effect, a type of taxpayers' revolt.

 

 

(10) Temperamentally, I am not suited to making a public effort to change inequitable tax laws; and there is not much likelihood of success anyway.

 

 

(11) In the past, I probably paid more in taxes than I should because of ignorance of legitimate deductions.

 

 

(12) The government does not really expect a completely honest return and sets rates accordingly.

 

 

(13) I am appraising the power and satisfaction involved here.

You should be able to see from the table above how the filer is using the various elements related to power, satisfaction, and reality to justify filing the dishonest return.

 

 

 

 

 

Now check out the analysis for an honest return:

An Honest Return

 

Power

Satisfaction

Reality

(1) Filing an honest return is an exhibition of self-control.

(1) There is satisfaction in being able to exhibit self-control.

(1) I am aware of the analysis for the dishonest return.

(2) $1000 increases the power of government to accomplish worthy goals.

(2) There is satisfaction in the awareness of having obeyed the law.

(2) Government probably will not discover my cheating.

 

(3) There is satisfaction in knowing that many government expenditures serve worthy purposes.

(3) I cannot determine my earnings apart from social conditions, including those made possible through governmental action.

 

(4) I can take pride in giving a correct financial accounting to the government.

(4) To expect government to function perfectly, without wasting money, sets too high a standard and overlooks the hard realities of life.

 

(5) There is satisfaction in the awareness of not compromising my integrity for a relatively insignificant amount of money.

(5) Since government depends upon tax revenues to carry on its social functions, failure to pay taxes is an attack on the basic structure of society.

 

 

(6) If government wastes money or spends it on harmful projects, I can most effectively benefit myself and society by agitating for change--by lobbying or even civil disobedience or revolution under some circumstances.

 

 

(7) If disrespect for the tax system rather than elimination of inequities prevails, then wealthy persons have the most enhanced opportunies to reap windfalls at the expense of society generally.

 

 

(8) Big cheaters and the powerful thrive on the temperamental disposition to be publicly uninvolved with social concerns.

 

 

(9) I cannot expect to enjoy benefits from government without accepting responsibilities in return--including paying taxes.

 

 

(10) I cannot expect government to increase spending for worthy goals while, at the same time, approving the filing of dishonest tax returns.

 

 

(11) Cheating on tax returns is more personal dishonesty for the purpose of personal gain than a taxpayers' revolt.

 

 

(12) Even if everyone does not cheat by $1000, the total losses due to cheating (including that of the big cheaters) can be a considerable sum.

 

 

(13) Cheating on tax returns demoralizes persons submitting honest returns, thereby lowering communal confidence and allegiance in the society.

 

 

(14) I am appraising the power and satisfaction involved here.

Widespread agreement that the honest return analysis applies the PSR Principle more adequately than the dishonest return analysis may require more discussion than presentation of the tables themselves.

 


The Moral Person Principle

The Principle Stated: You ought to act so as to be a moral person--that is, one exhibiting sensitivity, knowledge, character, and cooperativeness.

Assumptions:

·         Sensitivity is emotional appreciation (empathic understanding) of the experiences of oneself and others. Knowledge is intellectual awareness of the requirements of moral action. Character is the determination to act in accordance with the dictates of sensitivity and knowledge. Cooperativeness is the willingness to work with others constructively in the pursuit of worthwhile goals.

·         Human beings are capable of cultivating these four qualities.

Explanation: The Moral Person Principle rests more on cultivating favorable moral qualities, or virtues, in human beings rather on laying out the rules of correct action. Rather than saying that you should not cheat your neighbor, this Principle relies on the notion you will not cheat your neighbor if you possess the qualities of sensitivity, knowledge, character, and cooperativeness.
In considering future actions, a person should strive to bring the four qualities to bear in the situation. Likewise, in reviewing past actions, a person can consider whether or not there was a lack of sensitivity, knowledge, character, or cooperativenes. And in judging others actions, we can examine to what degree the four qualities were present or absent.

Strengths:

·         The Moral Person Principle focuses on desirable traits crucial in making ethical decisions without confining yourself to any specific course of action.

·         By functioning according to the Principle, you probably will make the right sorts of ethical decisions.

Weaknesses:

·         The Moral Person Principle is so vague as a rule that people will not know how to act or will apply the Principle in a self-serving way.

·         Since people vary in the degree to which they possess these traits and are not likely to admit to, or work on, deficiencies with respect to them, the Moral Person Principle will be ineffective in bringing about more moral actions.

 

Return to Home Page

Questions? ronald.yezzi@mnsu.edu

Last updated 8/18/11