PHIL349 070405
From Necowiki
- Test: Kossgard - only up to bottom of 222
- Philosophy is stuck on its old theories
- question
- Are we thinking about the doctrine of double effect and Kant just because they are so old and so entrenched in Philsophy?
Darrens trip to class
*BCKS
/ \
/ \
/ \
_>_/ \_____ class
if star bucks is slow - he will be late for class
Why doesn't he leave earlier if he were to be late for class? - he says "I won't leave earlier for a coffe"
- this is relating to so few people having read Quinn and Kossgard
Quinn
- Doctrine of double effect - oldest stuff in our course (along with Kant)
- He is very difficult to talk about
- Doctrine of double effect is old - from the Christian times - they believed (Christians) that if you have secret intentions - you could do terrible things
- if you tell you self "i will lie" and then tell a lie - you would effectively have a get out of jail free card
- People believed that...
- Doctrine of Double Effect
- you have a focus - like a telescope - or cross hairs in your mind
- where you put those (where you are targeting) what you INTEND matters morally -- this is in ADDITION to what you do (your action)
- the intention is a multiplier or adder to the result of the action
- the cross hairs are like a bonus (what you do is the action - than the cross hairs are a bonus evilness)
- what you INTEND, the reason why you do what you do matters
BOMB FACTORY
|
| CIVILIANS
^ /
a /
i /
m /
| /
| /
|/
|
|
YOU
even if the people die - you only INTENDED to blow up the factory - this is OK
- if we aim our cross hairs at the people its obviously wrong
- You gotta wonder if you can trust what someone says is their goal (their "in order to")
- why? because sometime the reason is just silly
- examples
- someone says "I didn't INTEND to kill the person I shot at, just intended to risk their life to scare them (everyone)"
- or my INTENT was to hit them with the bullet
- my INTENT was to do my duty (as a security guard/soldier)
- adding "do duty/obey orders" adds a kind of legitimacy - but only legitimizes in the eyes of the person who wants to believe the excuse
- abortion example: abortion didn't happen in the past - it was said that the woman needed a "hysterectomy something" - this would kill the fetus but that was not the INTENT so it made it OK (where as abortion was not OK at that time)
- The thing that is INTENDED can be made to sound very noble - but how do you know you are not just lying to yourself - so that you are not as evil as you really are
- How do you know you are deciding to be a police officer? maybe some of them just do it to kill people?
- same for fire"person" - do you care - or do you just want to be a "hero"
- how about a soldier in a war? - money? desire to kill? helping the world? being a hero?
back to Quinn
He thinks the doctrine of double effect is not crazy
- know his cases
- page 196
- about "the topic of whether or not crushing a head = intending to kill"
- Quinn doesn't think so - he says its an intention to crush the head
- imagine the guillotine operator - he just chops off heads - he doesn't intend to kill the people (can anyone believe this? Quinn apparently did)
- Quinns punchline/point
- he ends everything with:
- he thinks the doctrine of double effect has as rational - the intuitive plausibility of a claim gives it its rational - that there are restrictions
- what rational do those restrictions have? he doesn't say.
Kossgard
- Talks about the oldest person in the course - Kant
- The late 1700's was the a very interesting time to live in - someone could come along and be the best easily
- In those times only the best ideas were exposed/popular
- Kant invented deontology - some people will even call it "Kantianism" - Darren thinks he destroyed it
- very respected - but Darren doesn't know exactly why :)
- she made it interesting to be a Kantian - she is a neo-Kantian
- she doesn't think Kant was right - but he was on the right track - if you want to do good by ethics you just fix Kant
- Kant says some "stupid" things - the problem is that not everyone things so
- recall the person running in to the room followed by a man with a gun - Kant invented this - his reply was to "never never never lie"
- he doesn't think what what happens - doesn't determine right or wrong - what matters is what were you doing "upstairs"/in your mind/what were you thinking/what were you following (were you following the categorical imperative) when you did what you did.
- saying motive is too simplistic to say
- there are really 5 versions of Kant
- in the notes - about universalizing your maxims
- don't treat people just as means/tools/instruments
- "kingdom of ends" - the kingdom of end-setters - people who set their ends - end-setting agents (Kossgard talks about this)
- the others are not so important to remember (Kant said)
- She is the defender of Kant
- back to the room
- what should you do? (assume you can't affect the murderer)
- you can lie - it might not be best but it can't be THAT wrong
- Kant said you must never lie: - so much so he would be enraged about people lying - we know this because he writes this as a consequentialist - "if you lie, and by accident the people meet (from the room) you are as guilty as the murderer, because you lied"
- moral luck
- blame hinges on luck - how blame worthy you are hinges on how lucky you are
- Kant is the enemy of moral luck - how blame worthy you are depends only on what you intended - and if you lie you break the perfect duty
There are different ways to think about kant:
- he is crazy
- Kant never thought of prime faci duties:
- his theories are right - he just misuseshis own theory (Kossgard fits here)
- She believes Kant 1 allows lying, but Kant 2 and on don't
- why? Kant 2 has obvious reasons; but Kant 1 allowing is the strange one
- perfect duties are things that you can even hold the though to universalize the duty
- Imagine the maxim is "lie whenever it helps someone" if you imagine you wish that its universal - no one would trust anyone - we always lie. Imagine a society of generous pathological lyiers. - If you universalize it - then there is no lying.
- Kossgards response
- if a murdere comes to the door and asks you is you have seen so and so - then murderer doesn't realize that you realize they are a murderer to be - other wise they wouldn't ask - it wouldn't make sense. You'd have to somehow know. They would have to be sneaky about the murder.
- universalizing a maxim makes sense if the murderer doesn't realize you know they are a murderer ... they are in the dark about what you know about them - than everyone who answers the murderer doesn't lie because there is a trust there
this makes it possible to universalize a lying maxim - if you universalize that lying to mureres is ok - and the murdere doesn't know you know they are a murderer - you can lie to them (is that what it means?)
Kant says you can't exempt your self from a rule that you want everyone to follow, what about exceptions for groups (the knoweres)? - whenever you know a lie will save a life (and not everyone is in the know) then always lie. Only those who know will lie - but they will do it universally
- last page
- foot note 3 is getting strange - the last thing is on page 222
- she brings up the case of lying to liers - are you allowd to lie back? Kant hints at a "weapon of defense" - but Kant doesn't lie?
- last paragraph
- "the common though the lying to a lier is a form of self defense..." Kant doesn't explicitly allow that. Other deontologists talk about it - Kossgard uses other deontological tools to defend Kant. Thats why we stop there.
test: Nagel, Darwall(he brought up others though), Quinn, Kossgard.
