Ethical frameworks
The big three
- consequentialism (act so as to maximize outcome)
- deontological (act in accordance with duty/rules)
- virtue (act as an ideally virtuous/flourishing person)
. . .
Pragmatism is a framework inspired by science: test and see what works best in practice
given the context (Tucker 2018,
p. 276). (This is distinct from the underappreciated context and consequences of your scenario.)
Consequentialism
Given some value (e.g., happiness of yourself, of others, of everyone, etc.) “the ends
justify the means.”
Utilitarianism is the most popular, and recommends actions that “most increase the total
amount of happiness and decrease the total amount of pain in the world” (Gronholz 2014).
There’s also consequential egoism (maximize your utility), altruism (maximize
others’ utility), and maximizing the features of other ethical systems.
Utilitarianism
Suppose your friend, on her deathbed, makes you promise to spread her ashes in the Rocky
Mountains. After her death, you realize it would be much more convenient to simply flush her ashes
down the toilet. You would save a lot of time and money, and no one would be harmed. (Gronholz 2014)
Do you spread the ashes?
- What if your friend’s mother finds out what you did?
- Perhaps you could be a rule consequentialist: follow rules that, when followed, lead to
good consequences.
Deontology
We have an obligation, as rational beings, to act in accordance with the rules of reason,
especially other rational beings.
Categorical (universal) imperative
1st formulation: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law.
2nd formulation: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time
as an end. (Chapman
2014)
Trolley problem??
Do you throw the switch, push the man, or do nothing?
How would a utilitarian and Kantian respond to this question?
. . .
- utilitarian: throw the switch or push the man, no difference
- Kantian
- 1st formulation: throw the switch because “save lives when possible” could be a universal
law;
- 2nd formulation: can NOT push the man because that’s using him as a means to an end.
