They seem the ideal couple, at least for a fairy tale:
Care Ethics They are very wealthy, have beautiful clothes, and
“Men and women are different when it comes to decision
making”
Thought Experiment
“A man’s wife is desperately ill and the man cannot afford the
medication she needs.
Should the man steal the medication?”
The Ethics of Care
 is a normative ethical theory that holds that moral
action centers on interpersonal relationships and
care/benevolence as a virtue.
 While consequentialist and deontological ethical
theories emphasize generalizable standards and
impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance
of response to the individual. Gilligan criticizes the
application of generalized standards as "morally
problematic, since it breeds moral blindness or
indifference
 The distinction between the general and the
individual is reflected in their different moral
questions: "what is just?" versus "how to respond?
 It seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues
and values which, proponents of care ethics contend,
are absent in such traditional models of ethics
Care Ethics
1. Persons are understood to have varying degrees of
dependence and interdependence on one another.
2. Individuals affected by the consequences of one's
choices deserve consideration in proportion to their
vulnerability.
3. Details determine how to safeguard and promote the
interests of those involved.
Feminist ethics and International Relations
 Feminist theories and that of ethics broaden the scope
of the predominantly masculine sphere of
International Relations.
 This is especially important for issues of the private
realm to take stage into the public which includes
issues such as children's rights, gender violence and
discrimination, gender relations in war torn societies,
and other similar issues which remain difficult to
appear relevant in the mainstream discussions of
ethics in international relations.
Conflict is a 'gendered experience'
 Care ethics discusses the importance of peacekeeping
operations keeping in check the differential impacts
of war on women, men, boys and girls in post
conflict society so as to not further marginalize the
most vulnerable groups of the population
 Currently, peacekeeping operations are heavily
masculine in the sense that security revolves around
the cessation of hostilities and disarmament.
 Peacebuilding operations must shift the focus from
solely disarming and cessation of hostilities against
gang members to social constructions of violence
against women, men, and children that is embedded
in societies broken apart by conflict.
Feminist Philosophy
 joins traditional philosophical concerns with the
political project of overcoming sexism and gender
bias within philosophy itself as well as in the wider
world.
The Paper Bag Princess
 The story begins when the beautiful princess
Elizabeth is about to marry a prince named Roland.
live in a castle. There is nothing that they seem to
lack. Unfortunately, a fire-breathing dragon destroys
the castle, burns all their clothes, and makes off with
Roland, whom he views as a tasty morsel
 Elizabeth decides that she has to save Roland.
Because all her clothes were burned by the dragon,
the only thing she can find to wear is an old paper
bag which she puts on, giving the book its title, and
sets off to save her beloved.
 Instead of force, Elizabeth uses a tactic that women
have traditionally been depicted as employing to gain
power over men: flattery. Elizabeth asks the dragon if
he is really the ‘‘baddest’’ dragon in the world and,
receiving an affirmative reply, asks him if he can
really burn whole forests. To show off, the dragon
burns up so many forests that he has no flame left
with which to burn her. Next, continuing her strategic
use of feminine wiles, Elizabeth asks the dragon if he
is the fastest dragon alive. To show her that he is, the
dragon runs so far and so fast that he collapses in a
heap, dead to the world. The dragon’s near-catatonic
state allows Elizabeth to enter the castle to free her
beloved Prince Roland
 Instead of showering Elizabeth with praise for the
intelligence and cunning she used to outwit her more
powerful adversary and save his life, Roland greets
her with a series of criticisms for her failure to adhere
to traditional notions of feminine beauty
 The Second Sex. De Beauvoir argues that the
character traits typically associated with women –
being a nag, using flattery, being seductive – are not
the result of women being inherently inferior to men
or having moral deficiencies in their character.
Rather, these traits are the result of the inferior
position to which women are consigned in a male-
dominated society. Because they have been relegated
to social positions with little power, women have
been forced to develop strategies for gaining power
and control over their lives.
 Elizabeth’s use of flattery to defeat the dragon
confirms de Beauvoir’s analysis. The dragon has an
inflated ego – a character trait that many feminist
philosophers associate with men who erroneously
assume that their powerful social positions are due to
their own superiority rather than to their gender.
Elizabeth’s triumph over the dragon shows that
flattery can be successfully employed by a less
powerful person as a means of overcoming unjust
domination by a more powerful opponent. The
dragon’s susceptibility to her flattery indicates his
flawed character, not hers
Feminist Philosophy
 social roles and the depiction of them in popular
media including fairy tales – are gender-biased.
 In a society, people have many different roles.
 Some have to do with their jobs, such as being
teachers, administrators, lawyers, doctors, politicians,
factory workers, police officers, etc. But people also
are parents, husbands and wives, children, amateur
athletes, etc. Feminists believe that social roles are
gender-biased, that they are not distributed equally
among women and men.
 For example
o the better-paid and more prestigious jobs
have generally been biased in favor of men,
with less well paid and less prestigious ones
having a greater proportion of women.
 For many years, their battle cry was, ‘‘59¢ to every
man’s dollar,’’ because a woman was paid on
average 59¢ for doing the same job that a man did for
 $1. Feminists demanded equal pay for equal work
and, to a certain extent, they succeeded in getting that
for which they wished.
 The economy is not, however, the only arena in
which feminists have been active. Because they want
to alter gender oppression wherever it exists, they
have also been concerned with how popular culture –
films, music, books, etc. – perpetuate gender bias in
social roles.
 Fairy tales exhibit gender bias, as do virtually all
arenas of popular culture. The stereotypical roles of
‘‘damsel in distress’’ and ‘‘knight in shining armor’’
are paradigmatic examples of this. Think of all the
dichotomies that this distinction exemplifies:
woman–man, weak–strong, passive–active.
Problem with Care Ethics?
 Is it a woman’s “nature” to be caring?
o This could be divisive socially, politically,
etc.
 While some feminists have criticized care-based
ethics for reinforcing traditional stereotypes of a
"good woman" others have embraced parts of this
paradigm under the theoretical concept of care-
focused feminism.
Social Contract Theory
 When you make an agreement of some significance
(e.g., to rent an apartment, or join a gym, or divorce),
you typically agree to certain terms: you sign a
contract. This is for your benefit, and for the other
party’s benefit: everyone’s expectations are clear, as
are the consequences of failing to meet those
expectations.
 Contracts are common, and some influential thinkers
in the “modern” period of philosophy argued that the
whole of society is created and regulated by a
contract.
 Two of the most prominent “social contract theorists”
are Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke
(1632-1704). Their essay explains the origins of this
tradition and why the concept of a contract is
illuminating for thinking about the structure of
society and government.
The State of Nature
 The state of nature is a concept used
in moral and political philosophy, religion, social
contract theories and international law to denote the
hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people
might have been like before societies came into
existence.
o Philosophers of the state of nature theory
deduce that there must have a time before
organized society existed, this presumption
raises questions like “what was life like
before civil society?” “how did government
emerged from a such a starting position?”
“what are the hypothetical reasons for
entering a state of society by establishing a
nation state”.
 In some versions of social contract theory, there are
no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it
is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In
other versions the opposite occurs: the contract
imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail
their natural rights.
 Hobbes argued that natural inequalities between
humans are not so great as to give anyone clear
superiority; and thus all must live in constant fear of
loss or violence;
 so that "during the time men live without a common
power to keep them all in awe, they are in that
condition which is called warre; and such a warre as
is of every man against every man".
o Called by Hobbes as: the war of all against
all
 In this state, every person has a natural right to do
anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's
own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short"
- Everyone is almost similar, we are not that far apart
when it comes to abilities. Nobody is clearly more
superior than the other or at least superiority is not
that great. Knowing that we are not far apart, we
have the capacity to steal, rape, or kill another
person whenever we wish. Because of that we are
always living in a constant fear. In a warre against
all.
Theory of Justice
 Social contract theory held that the natural state of
human beings was freedom. There were no rights
before, just freedom. Freedom to do as you wish. But
that human beings will rationally submit to some
restrictions on their freedom to secure their mutual
safety and benefit, not subjugation to a monarch, no
matter how benign or well intentioned.
o We would rather have our freedom
restricted than our life annihilated. We
would rather submit to a higher power than
will all keep us in order, secure our lives,
and properties.
 So people willingly consent to transfer their
autonomy to the control of a sovereign so their very
lives and property will be secured.
 In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls introduced a
universal system of fairness and a set of procedures
for achieving it. He advocated a practical, empirically
verifiable system of governance that would be
political, social, and economic in its effects.
Justice (The Republic)
What is justice?
- Plato’s protagonist – Socrates.
Plato: justice was good in its own sake
Cephalus: justice means living up to your legal obligations
and being honest
Socrates: defeats this formulation with a counterexample:
returning a weapon to a madman.
- A crazy person with a machete, who accidentally
dropped it. Fulfilling your obligations – you have to
return it because it is not yours.
Polemarchus: justice means that you owe friends help, and
you owe enemies harm.
- ‘Yung friend mon a pag may kaaaway gusto niya
buong group kayo awayin din ‘yung same person.
Socrates: We are not always friends with the most virtuous
individuals, nor are our enemies always the scum of society.
Thrasymachus: is nothing more than the advantage of the
stronger.
- Trying to delegitimatize justice. Justice is the
unnatural restraint in our natural desire to have
 more. Justice is just a convention imposed on us & it
does not benefit us all to adhere to it.
Tripartite Theory of the Soul
- Why would there be different parts of the soul?
o According to him, it would be impossible for
a person to simultaneously to desire
something yet at the very moment be averse
with the same thing (like you want to
commit a crime but still averse to it).
For Plato, the soul can be divided into 3 parts:
1. Appetitive
2. Spirited
3. Reasonable
- From the guardians is where they will pick the
philosopher king. According to Plato, philosophers
should be king or kings should be philosopher
because philosophers has the wisdom & temperance
that can rule the people.
- According to Plato, the reason must always rule
above the spirit or the appetite or else it will be like a
charioteer being driven by the forces rather than the
other way around.
Justice
 Plato identifies political justice as harmony in a
structured political body.
o He is trying to show that individual justice
mirrors political justice.
 An ideal society consists of three main classes of
people—producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans,
etc.), auxiliaries (warriors), and guardians (rulers)
 a society is just when relations between these three
classes are right.
 Each group must perform its appropriate function,
and only that function, and each must be in the right
position of power in relation to the others.
 Rulers must rule, auxiliaries must uphold rulers’
convictions, and producers must limit themselves to
exercising whatever skills nature granted them
(farming, blacksmithing, painting, etc.)
o If they are good with farming then stick to it
& don’t do anything else.
 Justice is a principle of specialization: a principle that
requires that each person fulfill the societal role to
which nature fitted him and not interfere in any other
business.
The justice belonging to a city and
The justice of a particular man
- For Plato, justice cannot be a virtue because it is
contrary to wisdom. Justice is actually a virtue of the
soul w/c means the health of the soul. Therefore, it is
good for you.
The Principle of specialization
 states that each person must perform the role for
which he is naturally best suited and that he must not
meddle in any other business.
 “Justice is really a result of the structure of the soul.”
ADDITIONAL NOTES
1. Since a city is bigger than a man, he will proceed upon the
assumption that it is easier to first look for justice at the
political level and later inquire as to whether there is any
analogous virtue to be found in the individual.
2. To locate political justice, he will build up a perfectly just
city from scratch, and see where and when justice enters it.
3. The carpenter must only builds things, the farmer must only
farm. Behind this principle is the notion that human beings
have natural inclinations that should be fulfilled.
Specialization demands not only the division of labor, but the
most appropriate such division. Only in this way, Socrates is
convinced, can everything be done at the highest level
possible.
4. the “healthy city”
because it is governed only by necessary desires. In the
healthy city, there are only producers, and these producers
only produce what is absolutely necessary for life.
Luxurious city
Once luxuries are in demand, positions like merchant, actor,
poet, tutor, and beautician are created.
5. All of this wealth will necessarily lead to wars, and so a
class of warriors is needed to keep the peace within the city
and to protect it from outside forces. The producers cannot act
as our warriors because that would violate our principle of
specialization.
These warriors, whom he calls “guardians.” It is crucial that
guardians develop the right balance between gentleness and
toughness.
Guardians should be spirited, or honor-loving, philosophical,
or knowledge-loving, and physically strong and fast.
6. Philosophers form the only class of men to possess
knowledge and are also the most just men.
Their souls, more than others, aim to fulfil the desires of the
rational part.
Philosopher-Kings, Either kings should be philosophers or
philosophers should be kings.
Different Kinds of Justice
 Retributive Justice: People should get what they
deserve either in reward or punishment, regardless of
the consequences
 Distributive Justice: The distribution of good and
bad on a just and fair basis
 Reward: Something given or received for worthy
behavior
 Punishment: The act of penalizing someone for a
crime, fault, or misbehavior – a penalty for
wrongdoing
Definition of Key Terms
 Utilitarianism (results theory): The act of rewarding
or punishing based upon the results of the act and
whether or not it brings about the greatest good
consequences for the greatest number of people
 Restitution (compensation theory): The act of
compensating victims for harm or wrong done to
them
  Retribution (deserts theory): The act of giving
people what they deserve, regardless of the
consequences
Rewards and Punishment in Relationship to Justice
 Reward and punishment are both aspects of
distributive justice
 Elements of justice:
o Treatment of human beings by other humans
o Past rather than future events
Rawls Theory of Justice
[We must put ourselves in] The Original Position
• the parties select principles that will determine the
basic structure of the society they will live in.
[In order to do that they must be under the] Veil of Ignorance
• The choices one makes is made behind a veil of
ignorance, which would deprive participants of
information about their particular characteristics:
their ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially,
Conception of the Good (an individual's idea of how
to lead a good life).
• This forces participants to select principles
impartially and rationally.
• Our guiding principle is “Justice as Fairness”.
- Rawls: ensure that the least advantage is benefitted
and not hurt or forgotten.
- Self-interested rational persons behind the veil of
ignorance are given the task of choosing the
principles that shall govern the actual world.
- Rawls believes that he has set-up an inherently fair
procedure. The principles that will be chosen by
means of this procedure would be fair principles. A
self-interested rational person behind the veil of
ignorance would not want to belong to a race,
gender, or sexual orientation that turns out to be
discriminated against.
John Rawls’ Principles of Justice
- People in the original position will tolerate
inequalities only if the jobs that pay more aren’t
assigned unfairly. Ex. If you are a high school
graduate, you won’t mind if somebody with a PhD
will become the dean of a college. But if you are
someone with MD, JD, etc. and the position will not
be given to you (mapupunta siya to someone na mas
less ‘yung credentials just because he/she is not
flawed) just because you are black, gay, &
handicapped…
- Inequalities are allowed only if they arise through
jobs that equally talent people have equal
opportunity to get.
1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right
to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties
for all.
2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities
should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest
benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to
offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality
of opportunity.
- The liberators will only tolerate inequalities that benefit the
worst off. Since as far as they know they might be the worst off
this maximizes the quality of their worst possible outcome.
The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that
it is assumed that under the veil of ignorance, under original
position, people will be risk-averse. This implies that everyone
is afraid of being part of the poor members of society, so the
social contract is constructed to help the least well off
members.
The first principle–often called the Liberty Principle — is
very Kantian in that it provides for basic and universal respect
for persons as a minimum standard for all just institutions. But
while all persons may be morally equal, we also know that in
the "real world" there are significant differences between
individuals that under conditions of liberty will lead to social
and economic inequalities.
The second principle–called the Difference Principle –
permits such inequalities and even suggests that it will be to
the advantage of all (similar to the utility principle), but only if
they meet two specific conditions. Thus the principles are not
strictly egalitarian, but they are not laissez faire either. Rawls
is locating his vision of justice in between these two extremes.
may reasonably assume that the "least advantaged" have the
greatest needs and that those who receive special powers
(hinted at under "social inequalities") also have special
responsibilities or burdens. However, the merit principle that
the use of special skills should be rewarded is also included in
the Difference Principle.
1. that certain rights and freedoms are more important
or 'basic' than others".[2] For example, Freeman
argues, Rawls believes that "personal property" –
personal belongings, a home – constitutes a basic
liberty, but an absolute right to unlimited private
property is not.
2. his principle maintains that "offices and
positions"[7] should be open to any individual,
regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity
or sex. It is stronger than 'Formal Equality of
Opportunity' in that Rawls argues that an individual
should not only have the right to opportunities, but
should have an effective equal chance as another of
similar natural ability
3. The Difference Principle regulates inequalities: it
only permits inequalities that work to the advantage
of the worst-off. This is often misinterpreted
as trickle-down economics; Rawls' argument is more
accurately expressed as a system where wealth
"diffuses up".[9] By guaranteeing the worst-off in
society a fair deal, Rawls compensates for naturally
occurring inequalities (talents that one is born with,
such as a capacity for sport).
Rawls’ First Principle
The basic liberties for all citizens:
 Political liberty (right to vote and be eligible for
public office).
 Freedom of speech and assembly.
 Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought.
 Freedom regarding your own person.
 Right to hold personal property.
 Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as these are
understood under the rule of law.
Rawls’ Second Principle
 Holding positions of authority and offices of
command open is clear enough.
o For example, no hereditary positions.
o No exclusions based on gender, race, etc.
o No “tests” based on wealth or property.
 Arranging social and economic inequities so that
everyone benefits is less clear.
o However, Rawls provides the framework for
thinking about this – original position and
veil of ignorance.

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are
as outraged as those who are.” - Benjamin Franklin
Divine Command Theory
Nonconsequentialism
 Nonconsequentialist theories claim that consequences
should not enter into our moral judgments.
 Actions are to be judged right or good in accordance
with other criteria (intuitions, divine command, etc.).
 Believe that there are or can be rules to guide our
moral judgments independently of their
consequences. How these theories differ is in terms
of how they establish the rules to be followed.
Divine Command Theory
 Morality is based not upon the consequences of
actions or rules nor upon self-interest or other-
interestedness but rather upon something higher than
these mere mundane events of the imperfect human
or natural worlds.
 It is based upon the existence of an all-good being of
beings who are supernatural and who have
communicated to human beings what they should do
and should not do in a moral sense.
 In order to be moral, then, human beings must follow
the commands and prohibitions of such a being.
Criticisms
1. Lack of Rational Foundation for the existence of
some supernatural being
2. What validity are the rules if a person does not
believe in such an entity?
3. If we are to accept the existence of such a being and
its commandments, how can we be certain we are
interpreting them correctly?
4. How can we prove that any supernatural being is
morally trustworthy?
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
- Imagine you are a pharmacist with ill motives. You
want to murder someone using poison. However, you
misfiled the prescription which healed the patient.
Can this be evaluated as praise-worthy?
o But if the opposite happens (your intention
is to heal but the patient dies) – clearly, the
consequences is negative. Do you want your
actions to be called as blame-worthy.
(NOTE: This is still under non-consequentialism)
Deontology
 Is the normative ethical theory that the morality of
an action should be based on whether that action
itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather
than based on the consequences of the action [like
Utilitarianism].
o The rules will bind you to your duty. As a
duty-based ethics, it is something that we
are obligated to by the categorical
imperative. A universal rule for all of
humanity for a universally just society.
Immanuel Kant
 Born on April 22, 1724.
 Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher who
represents the ethical view of Deontology or Duty
Ethics
Duty Ethics
 is something that we are obligated to by
the Categorical Imperative. In other words, it is
something that that we can see as a universal rule for
all of humanity necessary for a morally just society.
Aims & Methods of Moral Philosophy
 The most basic aim of moral philosophy in Kant’s
view, to “seek out” the foundational principle of a
“metaphysics of morals,” which Kant understands as
a system of a priori moral principles that apply the
Categorical Imperative to human persons at all times
and in all cultures.
- Kant believes that certain types of actions like
murder, theft, lying are absolutely prohibited.
- The rightness & wrongness of an action does not
depend on consequences but whether they fulfill our
duty.
What is an Imperative?
 An imperative is a command
o Ex. “Pay your taxes”, “Stop kicking me!”, &
“Don’t kill animals!”
The Categorical Imperative
 Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of
morality, and he referred to it as
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
 the Categorical Imperative determines what our
moral duties are.
MORALITY AND IMPERATIVES:
Question: What does it mean for one’s duty to be determined
by the Categorical Imperative?
 These commands are unconditional.
 It is categorical in virtue of being applied to everyone
under all circumstances without any reference to an
end we might achieve.
 Applies to all in the category without exception.
 Kant’s term for the “Moral Law”
o he implies that it is an obligation binding of
all moral agents without exception.
 This amounts to something like:
o “DO THE RIGHT THING!”
Question: How does one come to know WHAT the right thing
is in a given situation?
Categorical vs Hypothetical
 HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE (If-Then)
o these imperatives as a command is
conditional given our relative desires
o it requires us to exercise our will in a certain
way given we have antecedently willed
an end.
e.g.
 “If you want to go to Law school, study philosophy
in college.”
 “If you want to have good grades, then study hard.”
 “If you are thirsty then go and drink water.’
There are some hypothetical imperative that looks like a
categorical imperative.
 “Don’t smoke!”
o It may look categorical
o But it is really hypothetical imperative
 The Form of the imperative:
o If you want to avoid: lung cancer, mouth
cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and
prematurely wrinkled skin, Then don’t
smoke.
The Formulations of the Categorical Imperative
What is the connection between morality and categorical
imperative?
 Morality must be based on the Categorical
Imperative because morality issues a command. You
cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to
you.
 Kant offers formulation of the Categorical Imperative
to help us figure out what our moral duty is.
THE FIRST FORMULATION:
 “Act only according to that maxim whereby you
can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
o The command states that you are not
allowed to do anything that you yourself
will not allow anyone else to do it as well.
You are NOT allowed to make exemptions
for yourself.
o Ex. If you expect other people to keep their
promises, then you have to keep yours too.
o It commands that every maxim that you act
on must be such that you are willing to
make it the case that everyone always act on
that maxim when similar situations.
o Ex. If you wanted to lie to get something you
wanted, you have to be willing to make it the
case that everyone also lies to get what they
wanted. But if this were to happen, no one
will believe you or anyone else for that
matter. So the lie will not work & you will
not get what you want. If you willed that
your maxim of lying should become a
universal law, you will actually thwart
(prevent someone from accomplishing
something) your goal. Thus, it is
impermissible to lie according to the
categorical imperative.
o When you act, you must make sure that the
maxim that you are acting on is something
that you also will to become a universal
law. The maxim you are acting on – you
should also be alright with it if everyone did
the same.
- TL; DR: if you are going to do something make
sure that if other people did it to you, you will be
okay with it.
What is a Maxim?
 A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act.
 You can make a maxim that can only benefit your
family or to other people.
For Example:
“I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity
each year rather than spend it playing DOTA”.
“I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit my
family”
The Categorical Imperative
What if there was a rule that everybody should do these
things?
- Pirate movies (entertainment industry will go
bankrupt)
- Pollute the environment (“it’s just me, isa
lang/ngayon lang” – but what if everybody does the
same?)
- Spread fake news (defeats the purpose of news)
SECOND FORMULATION OF CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
 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.
o What do you mean to use someone as a
means?  You involve them in a scheme of
action to which in principle they could not
consent. You are reducing other people to
mere instrument.
o There are times when people are voluntarily
to be used for a completion of an aim (eg,
soldiers that risk their lives to keep us safe).
o TL; DR: Using other people to achieve
something/for your benefit!!!
o What about the means that we employ in our
everyday life? (eg, buying street foods from
a street food vendor)
 Poses a question “are you using
the vendor as a means to get street
food?”
 Actually, in transactions wherein
people exchange money for goods
– people actually use each other as
means. But, NOT AS A MERE
MEANS… because each person
assumes the other as acting out of
his motives & is not just a thing to
be manipulated. Because if that is
not possible then cooperative
action will also not be possible to
achieve something big.
o In the case of promise breaking or
deception/coercion. People act accordingly
by using each other as means.
 Ex. George promises to Joanne
with the intention of breaking it &
then Joanne accepts – the Joanne
has been deceived as to George’s
true maxim. Joanne, in principle,
cannot consent to this scheme of
actions because she does not know
what it is. Likewise, one cannot
consent to coercion because
consent requires having a choice.
 If a person is an end-in-themself it means their
inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it
doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying
 their life, or making other people's lives better. We
exist, so we have value.
o He believes that humans have value in itself
& that inherent value does not depend on
anything else. Either we are enjoying our
life or not or whether we are making other
people’s lives better or not. The very fact
the we exist, we have value.
o Every man is an end in himself, not the
means to an end of others. He must exist for
his own sake neither sacrificing himself for
others nor sacrificing others for himself.
o If a person is an end in himself, it means
their inherent value does not depend on
anything else; not fame, money, nor
prestige. Human beings exist; hence, we
have value.
o We should not treat ourselves as means to
our own ends; instead we should respect
our own inherent worth.
 This argument can be used against
euthanasia, suicide, & other acts
that damage ourselves.
NOTES VIEW
 To use someone as a mere means is to involve them
in a scheme of action to which they could not in
principle consent.
 Other people are reduced to instruments.
 Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings
should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a
means to something else.
 The fact that we are human has value in itself.
 If a person is an end-in-themselves it means their
inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it
doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying
their life, or making other people's lives better. We
exist, so we have value.
 Man-every man-is an end in himself, not the means
to the ends of others
 He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing
himself for others nor sacrificing others for himself.
The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his
own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his
life.’ – Ayn Rand
 We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own
ends; instead we should respect our inherent worth.
This can be used as an argument against
euthanasia, suicide and other behaviours that
damage ourselves.
 The idea also shows up in discussions of animal
rights, with the idea that if they have rights, animals
must be treated as ends in themselves.
THIRD FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
 Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he
were through his maxim always a legislating member
in the universal kingdom of ends.
o Every rational beings, like human beings
are capable of rationality. We must always
act on a principle/maxim as if we’re
capable of legislating those maxim in this
universal kingdom of ends. Meaning to say,
we are rational beings our
actions/principles have power that we are
able to act or not act. Since we have a
power to act, we must act as if the certain
principles are maxim would be followed by
everyone else.
Kant’s Duty Ethics
Perfect duties
 We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
result in logical contradictions when we attempt to
universalize them.
 In general, perfect duties are those that are
blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required
duty for a human being.
 Ex. Respect life, tell the truth
Kant’s Duty Ethics
Perfect duties
 We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
result in logical contradictions when we attempt to
universalize them.
 In general, perfect duties are those that are
blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required
duty for a human being.
- It is a duty that you must always do. It permits no
exemption to the advantage of inclination.
- Ex. “It is acceptable to steal”. That would result in a
contradiction upon universalization because the
notion of ‘stealing’ presupposes the existence of
private property. If I were to universalize that maxim,
then there could be no private property – so the
proposition has negated itself.
- Ex. 1respect for life & 2tell the truth
- Perfect obligations are those that a person may
demand from another person. Justice corresponds
with the idea of perfect obligation because it involves
the idea of a personal right. Justice then reflects the
feeling of retaliation expanded by sympathy &
intellect to apply to things that harm society at large.
- Preservation of justice preserves peace among
human beings thus, there is a strong utility interest in
preserving & enforcing what justice dictates.
- Justice is the name for certain social utilities that are
more important than any other kind. Rights are also
grounded in utility because rights represent the most
basic social utility necessary for human well-being.
Human culture cannot flourish if society does not
protect individual rights.
Imperfect duties
 We have imperfect duties, which allow for desires in
how they are carried out in practice. This duty is not
as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally
binding.
 You do not attract blame should you not complete an
imperfect duty, but you shall receive praise for it
should you complete it, as you have gone beyond the
basic duties and taken duty upon yourself.
 Ex. Give to charity – nobody is going to condemn
you if you did not give to charity but they will praise
you if you do.
Kant’s Specifies Two Imperfect Duties
1. The duty of self-improvement
 one imperfect duty is to perfect myself. This
duty arises because when I need help, I need
experts. Thus, the only way that rational
creatures can have their needs met is if
rational creatures are developing their talents.
So, I too have a need to develop my talents in
order to create a universalizable rule that
would make it so aid is available when I need
it of sufficient ability.
 Ex. You are a medical student & you do not
recognize the duty of self-improvement – how
can patients trust their life to you.
o Not something you owe to yourself
but to the rest of human population.
2. The duty to aid others.
  Imperfect duties reflect the nature of human
rational existence.
 We are born weak and frail, we cannot do
everything by ourselves. [Imagine, you have
to do everything by yourself, you have to do
the farming, infrastructure, chores etc. It’s
already too much, what if every core of
society you have to do it by yourself? That
can be very inefficient] These realities create
interesting non-rational features of our
reality: I needed someone to feed me when I
was a baby. I need someone to help me when
my car is stuck. I need a surgeon when my
liver fails.
 These needs are not universal either in time
or duration nor are they purely rational laws.
To make these desires moral, Kant needs us
to universalize them. Thus, we transform I
need help at times into every rational creature
has a duty to help other rational creatures at
times.
 Ex. What if we make commercial surrogacy
or prostitution a categorical imperative?
What can happen?
Carriers may have many reasons for electing to
become surrogates. Primary among them is remuneration. The
cost of surrogacy in the United States is approximately
$100,000 per pregnancy with additional medical costs
included. This is not a small sum of money, and could be a
boon for a woman seeking short-term or temporary
employment. Yet, I still can’t kick this uneasiness. Radin, in
Market Alienability, describes three reasons why we should
not allow people to sell things that, like wombs, are
identifiably personal. First, she argues that if an item is
personal, sometimes the circumstances under which the holder
places it on the market might arouse suspicion that her act is
coerced. This is a real concern in gestational surrogacy.
Income discrepancy in the United States combined with an
uptick in demand for surrogate carriers could give rise to an
oppressed surrogate class in which increased supply of
surrogate carriers drives down the price of the service to levels
that could hardly be considered fair. Second, Radin argues that
it is important to exclude from social life commodified
versions of certain goods, as the commodified version of the
good fosters an inferior conception of personhood. Finally, she
also argues that commodification for some might lead to
commodification for all, and that non-commodification is
morally preferable to commodification for certain personal
things. Given the nature of birth and society’s connection to
the birth narrative, I don’t foresee this domino effect in the
area of gestational surrogacy, yet the essence of the argument
that some social forces (like love and partnership) should not
be commoditized, rings true.
According to Kant, prostitution is morally wrong. The second
formulation of the categorical imperative states that one
should never use themselves, or another as a mere means.
1 I can see how prostitution would fail to respect self,
as it is using one's body as a "mere means" to earn
money. But how is that different from a farmer, who
use his body to work in the fields to harvest crops for
food and money?
2. Prostitution also fails to respect another, by using
the person to satisfy his sexual urges. However, by
paying the prostitute, isn't it also respecting her by
recognizing her dignity and worth and paying her for
her "work"? On the basis of these 2 points, can you
please explain why prostitution is morally wrong?
Prostitution is impermissible for Kant, not because of
the harm it might cause to society (he was not a
consequentialist in his ethics), but because it treats a person as
a commodity. Persons are not at their own disposal. They do
not own themselves, because if they did, they would be a
thing. “To let one’s person out on hire and to surrender it to
another for the satisfaction of his sexual desire in return for
money is the depth of infamy.”5 One would thereby be
acquiescing in the act of commodification.
‘… to allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for
the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an Object
of demand, is to dispose over oneself as over a thing and to
make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite,
just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak. But since the
inclination is directed towards one’s sex and not towards one’s
humanity, it is clear that one thus partially sacrifices one’s
humanity and thereby runs a moral risk. Human beings are,
therefore, not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things
for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual
propensities.’ Immanuel Kant1
 Dignity is grounded in autonomy.
o What gives a rational agent dignity is their
autonomy (the capability for a rational agent
to freely create the moral law for
themselves).
o So, one is obligated to respect another
rational agent, because said agent is a free
creator of the moral law, which means that
they have the dignity afforded to them as
creators of the moral law.
Why Motivation is what matters?
 Moral worth only comes when you do something
because you know that it is your duty and you would
do it regardless of whether you like it or not.
E.g.
“imagine winning in a lottery and you are wondering
what to do with the money. You look around for what
would be the most fun to do with it: buy a yacht,
travel, etc.. Or what is more fun to you is giving
money to a charity and enjoy that special feeling you
get from making people happy.”
 According to Kant, you are not a morally worthy
person because you acted not because of duty.
Kant’s Duty Ethics: What motivates actions?
3 kinds of actions:
1. Against duty
2. From duty
 I perform the action because it is my duty,
irrespective of whether or not I am inclined to do
it or od whether or not it is in my interest
3. In accordance with duty
 I perform the action that duty commands because
I am inclined to do it – it pleases me or is in my
interest
 Ex. A shopkeeper is honest with a naïve
customer not because it is his duty to be honest
but because it will help build his good reputation
and his business.
 He acts in accordance with duty (he is honest)
but not from duty (not because honest is right
whether or not it helps his reputation or
business.
- He is not acting in duty but rather in accordance
with duty.
 Only acting from duty has genuine moral worth.
 Recall, that for Kant, morality is something that all
rational beings can self-prescribe simply because
they are rational.
 No desire or inclination can sustain morality because
not all rational beings have the same desires, it may
even conflict with the desires of others.
 Desires can also conflict with duty.
  In disconnecting morality from desire, Kant is
opposing the passion-based account of moral
motivation
- Although there may be a misconception that we act
morally only if our inclinations are opposed to the
action. Ex. Doing something with a long face rather
than pleasure.
- The main message of Kant is that: actions have
morally worth when motivated by duty not by
inclination. But there is no need for opposition.
Inclination can actually aid the good will. He is only
saying that acting from duty is more readily evident
when it clearly goes against inclination.
The Good Will
 Other good things are held to be good to the extent
that they are combined with a good will.
 But the good will, when combined with bad things,
loses none of its goodness; on the contrary, it would
shine like a jewel for itself, as something that has its
full worth in itself
 A good will meant to act out of a sense of moral
obligation or duty.
 Moral duty is when our motive is determined by a
principle recognized by reason rather than desire.
- For Kant, nothing is good except a good will. A will
is unique to human ability to act in accordance with
moral rules with regardless of law or consequences.
o Ex. What if I am on a 3rd floor building &
then I see John whom I do not like is coming
by. Turns out that there is a plot beside me
& I can just drop the plot and hit him on the
head & kill him. But when I did act on my
desire, it turns out that unbeknownst to me
& John that he was being followed by a
robber/murderer. But this pot of plant
happens to hit the robber.
o Acc. to Kant, I did not act out of good will
& my actions are not praise-worthy because
it did not come with good intentions. It was
just by mere coincidence that I saved John.
o Also, acc. to Kant, it is true for the reverse.
Even if you aim for helping another person,
but instead of helping the more you put them
in danger. Kunyari gusto ko talaga i-save si
John by hitting the robber but I hit John
instead. For Kant, it will not tarnish my
good will.
o There can be a problem with that example,
negligence of one’s capacity or over
estimation of one’s ability.
What is it to have a good will?
 To have a good will is to be a person whose
motivation is to do good.
 It is not just wishing for good things but being
motivated to do good and thus acting to do good.
o Wishing for good things is not enough, you
have to act on it.
 Courage is good when we find it in a person who
strives to do good.
o We do not see it for ex., in a courage of a
tyrant or blood-thirsty criminal because
they do not strive to do good.
 Kant’s ideas about morality conflicts sharply with
Utilitarianism:
o Kant denies consequentialism: a good will
does not need to have a good consequence to
be good
o Kant’s denies Hedonism: Not everything
that is good is pleasurable and not all
pleasures are good.
Conclusion
 According to Kant, a good person is someone who
always does their duty because it is their duty.
 It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the
case that they would do it even if they did not enjoy
it.
 The overall theme is that to be a good person you
must be good for goodness sake
Applications
Medical Ethics:
 A medical professional must be happy with their own
practices to be used by and on anyone, even if they
were the patients themselves.
 For example: a researcher who wished to perform
tests on patients without their knowledge must be
happy for all researchers to do so even if it be done to
him.
 Kant’s requirement of autonomy would mean that a
patient must be able to make fully informed decision
about treatment, making it immoral to perform tests
on patients aren’t informed and have no consent.
 Patients are never used merely for the benefit of the
society, but are always treated as rational people
with their own goals.
Lying
- Somebody knocks at your door looking for your mom
& when you ask why the person will say “I wanna
kill your mom”. Of course, you will lie.
- For Kant, you should not lie.
- But what if you lied, but it happens that your mom
heard it – what she does is escape. Upon her
escaping, the person leaves the house & finds your
mother escaping & killed her.
- Kung sinabi mo na lang totoo, at least nagawa mo
‘yung duty mo. Now that you lied, you are now
blame-worthy for the death of your mom.
 Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative
provides us with the maxim that we ought not to lie
under any circumstance, even if we are trying to
bring about good consequences, such as lying to a
murderer to prevent them from finding their intended
victim.
 Kant argued that, because we cannot fully know the
consequences of any action, the result might be
unexpectedly harmful.
o Take note that this is a criticism of
utilitarianism, because utilitarianism is
consequence-based but the problem with
that unless you are God you actually don’t
know what the consequences will be. You
can predict but there’s no way to be sure.
 Therefore, we ought to act to avoid the known wrong
—lying—rather than to avoid a potential wrong.
 If there are harmful consequences, we are blameless
because we acted according to our duty.
Criticisms of Kant’s Duty Ethics
1. Conflicting duties – how to choose? [that is in conflict with
another]
2. Many questionable values can be universalized without
contradiction or inconsistency.
3. Reversibility criterion (in relation to 2 above, Kant would
“reverse” the question and ask
would you want it done to you?) may be implicitly
consequentialist. I.e. would you want someone to help you in
need because the consequences are better than someone not  The maxim would not be an
helping you when you need help? effective policy for promoting
- What if the researcher is okay to be tested w/o consent that human welfare.
would break the maxim.  Since the answer to the first question is "No,"
4. Qualifying a rule versus making exceptions to it. One may  Martha should not act on her maxim, since it fails the
object to exceptions to the rule but qualifying the rule may still "contradiction in conception" test.
be consistent with Categorical Imperative.
5. Duties versus inclinations. If duties and inclinations Utilitarian Analysis
coincide, what is the difference morally? If we are to make a utilitarian analysis of the same case these
are the things we should do:
Thought Experiment  Specify the options
“100 babies will be experimented on to save ten million  Specify possible consequences for each option
children”  For each option, estimate the probability of each of
its consequences
- Utilitarian: Yes  For each option, estimate the "utility" of each of its
- Kant’s duty’s based ethics: No, because of consequences
categorical imperative. Also, we are not to use  Identify the best prospect
people as a means, but always as an end.

”An experimental procedure was the only way to save a

child’s life and it also would furnish doctors information that
might well save lives in the future. Should the experiment take
place?”
- In this case, a human being won’t just be a means to
an end but an end to himself. Because it might be
therapeutic for him/her & because there is not other
way.
- What if the action is discovered? The probability na
Case Study may makaaalam na ginamit mo ‘yung money for
 Martha, as a home-service medical care volunteer, HTF than SPACE is low. The utility/impact on
has cared for George through the final weeks of his human welfare is somewhat lower.
fatal illness. Just before he died, George told Martha Sir William David Ross Prima Facie Duties
where a large sum of money he had accumulated was
stored. He asked her to see that the money was given  15 April 1877 – 5 May 1971
to the Society for Protection against Alien Control of  The Right and the Good (1930)
the Earth (SPACE). Since George's illness did not  Moral Realist
affect his mental capacity, she agreed. But now that  Non-naturalist
he has died, she is considering using the money to  Intuitionist
support the activities of the local Hunger Task Force,
an organization that provides donated food to those  Moral Realism
who need it. George has no surviving friends or
relatives, and no one else knows about the money. He
 Ethical Realism - is the position
left no written will.
that ethical sentences express propositions that
- It defeats the purpose of having a death bed promise
refer to objective features of the world (that is,
and you cannot make it into a maxim or a categorical
features independent of subjective opinion),
imperative.
some of which may be true to the extent that they
report those features accurately.
Kantian Analysis
 I am to do x in circumstances y in order to
promote z
 x = break a deathbed promise
 y = when doing so will allow me to do much more
good for humanity
 z = the goal of increasing human welfare
 Formulate the maxim: I am to break a deathbed
promise when doing so will allow me to do much
more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal
of increasing human welfare.
 Generalize the maxim into a law of nature:
Everyone always breaks deathbed promises when
doing so allows him to do much more good for
humanity, in order to promote the goal of increasing
human welfare.
 Figure out the perturbed social world: In the PSW,
it will be common knowledge that people break
deathbed promises whenever they think they can do
much more good for humanity  Ethical Naturalism (or Naturalistic Ethics) is the
o First question: Would it be rational to adopt meta-ethical doctrine that there are objective
moral properties of which we have empirical
and act on my maxim in the PSW?
knowledge, but that these properties
 No, because in the PSW no one
are reducible to entirely non-
would ask for deathbed promises,
ethical or natural properties, such as needs,
because everyone would know that
wants or pleasures
they are not genuine commitments.
  (as opposed to relating the ethical terms in some
way to the will of God, for example).
 Ethical Non-naturalism
 This doctrine holds that ethical statements
express propositions that cannot be reduced
to non-ethical statements (e.g. "goodness"
is indefinable in that it cannot be defined in
any other terms).
 Moore claimed that a naturalistic fallacy is
committed by any attempt to prove a claim
about ethics by appealing to a definition in
terms of one or more natural properties.
o Confusing good which is not a
natural object, with any natural
object, then there is a reason for
calling that a naturalistic fallacy.
o All things which are good may be
also something else (e.g. "good"
cannot be defined in terms of
"pleasant", "more evolved",
"desired", etc.).
 What does Good means?
 The notion of Good is objective but
indefinable.
 It is an error to define good in terms like
desired or social approved.
 Good just means good like yellow means
yellow. It is simple and has no parts.
 Ethical Intuitionism
 is a variant of Ethical Non-Naturalism which
claims that we sometimes have intuitive
awareness of moral properties or of moral
truths.
 Ross defended ethical intuitionism. He
argued that there are objective ethical truths,
that the basic ones are self-evident.
 He further argued that our ethical intuitions
are best captured neither by a utilitarianism
that seeks to maximize good consequences
nor by exceptionless principles, but by a set
of prima facie duties that hold “other things
equal.”
 Naturalistic Fallacy
o Confusing good which is not a
natural object, with any natural
object, then there is a reason for
calling that a naturalistic fallacy.
o All things which are good may be
also something else
Prima Facie Duties
 According to Ross, the claim that something is good
is true if that thing really is good.
 Ross rejected consequentialist ethics.
 According to consequentialist theories, what people
ought to do is determined only by whether their
actions will bring about the most good.
 By contrast, Ross argues that maximizing the good is
only one of several prima facie duties (prima facie
obligations) which play a role in determining what a
person ought to do in any given case.
 In The Right and the Good, Ross lists seven prima
facie duties, without claiming his list to be all-
inclusive: fidelity; reparation; gratitude; justice;
beneficence; non-maleficence; and self-improvement.
 In any given situation, any number of these prima
facie duties may apply.
 In the case of ethical dilemmas, they may even
contradict one another. Someone could have a prima
facie duty of reparation, say, a duty to help people
who helped you move house, move house
themselves, and a prima facie duty of fidelity, such as
taking your children on a promised trip to the park,
and these could conflict.
 Nonetheless, there can never be a true ethical
dilemma, Ross would argue, because one of the
prima facie duties in a given situation is always the
weightiest, and over-rules all the others.
 This is thus the absolute obligation or absolute duty,
the action that the person ought to perform
Our Basic Duties
1. Some duties rest on my previous acts.
(a) Some rest on a promise or an implicit promise, such
as the implicit promise not to tell lies which seems
implied in the act of conversation.
These are duties of fidelity.
(a) Some rest on a previous wrongful act.
These are duties of Reparation.
2. Some rest on previous acts of other men, i.e. services
done to me.
These are duties of Gratitude.
3. Some rest on the possibility of a distribution of
pleasure or happiness not in accord with the merit of
the persons concerned; there arises a duty to upset or
prevent such a distribution.
These are duties of Justice.
4. Some rest on the fact that there are other beings in the
world whose condition we can make better in virtue,
intelligence, or pleasure.
These are duties of Beneficence.
5. Some rest on the fact that we can improve our own
virtue or intelligence.
These are duties of Self-improvement.
6. We should distinguish from (4) the duty of not
injuring others.
Non-maleficence is a distinct duty of a more
stringent character.
We do not in general consider it justifiable to kill one
person to keep another alive, or to steal from one to
give alms to another.
Prima Facie Duties
• My neighbors stand in this relation to me, and this is
morally significant.
• “But they may also stand to me in the relation of
promisee to promiser, of creditor to debtor, of wife to
husband, of child to parent, of friend to friend, and of
fellow countryman to fellow countryman; and each of
these relations is the foundation of a prima facie
duty, which is more or less incumbent on me
according to the circumstances.”

The Relation Between Prima Facie and Actual Duties
 Prima facie duties are those duties we ought to
perform, other things being equal. A principal
challenge is that “other things” often are not equal.
 In virtue of breaking a promise, for instance, it tends
to be wrong; in virtue of being an instance of
relieving distress it tends to be right.
 Being one’s duty belongs to an act in virtue of its
whole nature.
Other things being equal:
• Provided that other factors or circumstances remain
the same.
• If nothing unexpected happens or no other factors
which affects the situation
• It is true in general but that other things may cause
the situation to change.
What in Ethics is Self-evident
 The moral order expressed in these propositions is as
much part of the fundamental nature of the universe,
as is the numerical structure expressed in the axioms
of arithmetic.
 However, the judgments we make as to our duties all-
things-considered are not at all certain: they are not
self-evident, nor are they the results of deductions
based upon self-evident truths.
 This does not mean that morality is to be left to
chance. There is a similarity here to our attempts to
judge what is in our long-run personal
advantage. While we can not be certain that a
particular action will be in our long-run advantage,
we have learned that careful judgment is better than
capricious choice
Prima Facie Duty
 In recognizing something as a prima facie duty, we
are apprehending what is self-evident - that to be an
action of a certain kind is morally significant.
 (e.g., promise-keeping)
 The only "data" for a moral theory that are available
to us are the moral convictions we arrive at via
serious thought and reflection.
Rightness and the Best Consequences
 Sometimes our obligation may not be to produce the
best consequence.
 A promise to A which nets 1,000 units of good to A
in a situation where another act will produce 1,001
units of good to B.
Should I void my promise?
 “Such instances—and they might easily be added to
—make it clear that there is no self-evident
connection between the attributes `right’ and
‘optimific’.
 “To make a promise is not merely to adopt an
ingenious device for promoting the general well-
being; it is to put oneself in a new relation to one
person in particular, a relation which creates a
specifically new prima facie duty to him, not
reducible to the duty of promoting the general well-
being of society.”
1. Stealing a toy from another child
2. Suppose you observe an elderly neighbor collapse
with what might be a heart attack. You are a block
away from the nearest phone from which you could
call for help. A child’s bike is close at hand and no
one but you and the collapsed elderly person is
around
The Importance of Being Wary of Misuse
 For instance, the prima facie duty of beneficence is
misapplied when the desire to promote happiness (or
to "save souls") leads one to violate an actual duty to
respect persons' freedom or an actual duty not to
physically or psychologically injure them.
 The prima facie duty of beneficence is misapplied if
we allow the intention to promote the pleasure of
others to override an actual duty of non-injury,
respect for freedom, or promotion of moral
development and intelligence.
 The prima facie duty of fidelity may be misapplied if
one thinks one has a strongly binding moral
obligation to keep a promise one has made under
coercion. (But don't count on exploitive people
appreciating this point!)
 The prima facie duty of care may be misapplied if it
leads a person to cover up or excuse moral wrongs of
others, say, wrongs by members of your family or
friends involving injury to outsiders.
 The prima facie duty of non-injury may be
misapplied if one uses it to justify refraining from
telling a person what she needs to know for the sake
of her future moral development or long-term well-
being because it may distress her or somebody else in
the short run.
 The prima facie duty of respect for freedom may be
misapplied if one appeals to it to justify letting a
child take risks that have a significant chance of
permanently injuring her.
 The prima facie duty of self-improvement may be
misapplied if one prefers pleasure to other benefits to
oneself (health, moral improvement, intellectual
improvement) or allows the prima facie duty of self-
improvement in areas other than moral character to
override a high presumption of duties relating to
fidelity, non-injury, justice, or respect for freedom,
i.e., high-priority prima facie duties directly
involving others.
General Criticisms of Nonconsequentialist Theories:
1. Why follow rules if consequences are bad?
2. If rules are absolute how do we avoid conflict?
3. Can a rule be exceptionless?
4. Is it possible to avoid consideration of consequences in all
moral judgments?
Intuition Advantages:
1. Do not have to compute consequences.
2. Provide strong guidance in rules.
3. Ground systems on something other than consequences and
avoid cost-benefit analysis.
Intuition Disadvantages:
1. How do we know that what we intuit will be morally
correct?
2. What happens when moral intuitions conflict with
each other?
3. How will we be able to justify our actions except by
saying,
“ Well, I had an intuition”