Philosophy 2700F/G Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Mental Reservation, Consequentialism, Signify
17 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Week 10: March 20th, Tuesday
Inquiring Murderer criticism:
You imagine that you are in your home one evening. Your friend drops by, saying that they are
being pursued – presumably without justification or cause – by someone who wishes to kill them.
They beg you to let them seek refuge in your home. You oblige. Some time later, the murdered
aies at ou house to iuie aout the heeaouts of ou fied. He asks: Ae ou haouig
ou fied? Kat sas i this ase that ou ae oliged to tell the truth (i.e. you are expected to
ase es o o, ad aot use etal eseatio – this is because, we have to presume, you
would otherwise be using the murdering as a mere means for the purpose of avoiding an
inconvenience to you or your friend.
Technically, there is a conflict here: beneficence to your friend vs. treat the murderer as an end
Kant thinks there can never be an irresolvable conflict when it comes to morality – presumably, there is
always a correct answer for these dilemmas.
- Kant agrees with the idea of acting in self-defence – in that case, you are not using the other
person as a mere means. So you could use the justification of self-defence in this Inquiring
Murderer scenario.
- Kant also supports capital punishment – this suggests that he believes that at some point,
people lose their right to moral legitimacy (they can no longer be treated as rational beings). In
this ase, it ould also e oluded that the udee has o ight to the tuth.
*I think that since the murderer is not able to agree with the value of humanity in his
victim, it is likely that he himself has no rational nature or humanity – thus he himself now
become equivalent to non-human beings, and can be treated as relative/subjective
The common-sense view, to man, is that of ouse ou should lie! Kat thiks this is og Note:
Kat appeas to e eisig oo sese. Kat addessed this ojetio i O a “upposed ‘ight to lie
fo Philathop – he concludes that the obligation of telling the truth is still more important.
- He reiterates his commitment to absolutism:
o To e tuthful i all delaatios is theefoe a saed oad of easo pesiig
uoditioall, oe ot to e estited a oeiees.
o In addition, he says that in lying no wrong is done to the murderer himself; rather, the
lie is og, eause i lig a og is doe to huait i geeal: fo i lig I
otiute to it eig the ase that stateets i geeal ae ot [to e] elieed.
o He also says that, say you do lie to the murderer and he leaves. Additionally, your friend
also leaves out the back door, and coincidentally meets the murderer – in this case, you
ae also alog ith the udee otiutig to the fieds ude.
*This is somewhat like a consequentialist ie; ut ol patiall sie he doest
believe you are responsible for the consequences when you tell the truth – in that
ase, if ou fied dies eause ou told the tuth, Kat alls it a aidet
Week 10: March 22nd, Thursday
W.D. Ross – The Ethics of Prima Facie Duties
Pia Faie is Lati fo at fist glae, o iitiall it sees to e… ut ‘oss sas that see to e is
isleadig; aodig to hi, the udoutedl ae
- Ross says that both Kant and the utilitarians oversimplify the moral life
o Both assume, wrongly, that there is only one basic moral principle (i.e. they are monists)
o However, there are a plurality of [basic moral] principles (i.e. Ross is a pluralist)
- Contra Kant, these are not absolute – they admit to exceptions, based on cost/benefit analysis
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
- Contra the utilitarians, there is more than one relation in which we stand to others
o Utilitarians agree that there can be exceptions to moral principles; they also admit to
some exceptions to even utilitarian principles
o However, they think that people have only one relation with those around them – as
possible benefactors, or possible beneficiaries
o Ross thinks that there are many possible relations – mother/child, teacher/student, etc.
Each of these relations signify different duties
o ‘oss thiks that thee is a highl pesoal haate of dut
Ross argues for what he calls a plurality of prima facie (a.k.a. pro tanto) duties. The view follows this:
- It is fine to lie in some cases (contra Kant), as would be the case in the Inquiring Murderer
- It is fine to tell a small lie to promote some great benefit
- It is not fine to lie however, to produce only a small (or personally beneficial) good (contra Mill)
Even when Kant and Mill get the right answer, Ross suggests that they get it for the wrong reasons:
The common-sese ie is that: oall poise-keepig… should oe efoe eeolee,
but that when and only when the good to be produced by the benevolent act is very great and the
promise comparatively trivial, the act of beneolee eoes a dut 9
E.g. Say you promised someone to meet them for coffee. But on your way there, you see an accident
happen. Staying and helping the victims will make you unable to keep your promise (to meet that
person). So should you break your promise and help the victims? Or should you ignore the accident and
keep your promise?
- Mill would say that it would be better to help the accident victims because it would promote
better outcomes (more happiness)
- Kant would say that it would be better to help the accident victims because you must treat
humanity as an end, in which case you are not treating the other person merely as a means
- But Ross would say that you must help the accident victims because it becomes your duty, since
your promise for coffee is very trivial relatively
Ross argues that there are five prima facie duties:
1. The duty of fidelity: the dut to keep oes poises ad to tell the tuth ou hae a dut to
live up to the expectations that you raised in others)
2. The duty of reparation: the duty to repair your character if you have committed a wrong
ad est o oes o peious ats. Fo , ou said o did soethig to aise aothe pesos
expectations of you – so you have to live up to it. For 2, you said or did something wrong – so you have a
duty to repair or make-up for that harm
3. The duty of gratitude: ou etu soeoes good deed toads ou, ith a good deed
3 rests on the previous acts of others [towards you]. If someone does something good for you, you have
a moral obligation (more than before) to do a good deed for them – this person should now become a
priority for your good actions (above others)
4. Duty of beneficence: aiize pleasue, itue desiale oties, justie oes happiess
should be proportional to their virtue), and knowledge
*He ist sue aout hethe o ot people hae a dut to poote thei o pleasue o
happiness – at one point he thinks we do have such a duty; but later he changes his mind
5. Duty of non-maleficence: duty to not harm; more fundamental and more morally obligatory
than the duty of beneficence
* If ou at help soeoe, at least dot hut the – mom
4 and 5 are general duties that individuals should carry out for those around them
There were initially 7 duties in total; but some of them can be collapsed together. So you have 5 overall
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
You imagine that you are in your home one evening. Your friend drops by, saying that they are being pursued presumably without justification or cause by someone who wishes to kill them. They beg you to let them seek refuge in your home. Technically, there is a conflict here: beneficence to your friend vs. treat the murderer as an end. Kant thinks there can never be an irresolvable conflict when it comes to morality presumably, there is always a correct answer for these dilemmas. Kant agrees with the idea of acting in self-defence in that case, you are not using the other person as a mere means. So you could use the justification of self-defence in this inquiring. Kant also supports capital punishment this suggests that he believes that at some point, people lose their right to moral legitimacy (they can no longer be treated as rational beings).
