Reference no: EM13976769

Before you read the rest of this lecture, view the 5 minute Prager University course on the atomic bomb (available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM ). You'll notice the structure of moral reasoning seems to be that which chapter 2 of Barry & Shaw discusses in detail. Here's a participation assignment for you: Summarize the argument of this video, identifying its conclusion and what type of moral reasoning it used of the theories in Barry & Shaw, ch. 2, and explain why, citing Barry & Shaw and the video (minute and second) no less than 7 times, using footnotes to cite.

Utilitarianism is an old theory about the nature of moral acts or rules of action. Major figures here are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, as you know from the reading and class lecture. Make sure you know the differences that they had with each other. Be careful to be accurate about it. You may need to read things twice or three times.

There are, as you know from the reading, there are major criticisms of the theory proposed by Barry & Shaw. It would be good for you to familiarize yourself with them well. Note carefully that all of them use common sense to argue against it. The problem, philosophically and practically, is that common sense seems to support the utilitarian answer to "The Trolley Problem" (available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw ). It is also supportive of the dropping of the atomic bomb, as the Prager University 5 minute video purports to show.

We have, it seems, commonsense intuitions that conflict. They support utilitarian answers in the case of the atomic bomb and in the case of The Trolley Problem. It is on the level of theory that we try to harmonize as much of our common sense intuitions as possible while also ironing out any contradictions that crop up.

As a consequentialist theory, of course, utilitarianism differs vastly from Kant's moral theory. Crucial to understanding Kant are the following (this is review from your reading): The Good Will, Pure Respect for the Moral Law, Acting "from duty" vs. "in accordance with duty," and the Categorical Imperative (2 senses).

It seems a fundamental disagreement between Mill and Kant would be what is intrinsically valuable. Mill says happiness is. Kant isn't impressed with that. For him, it is intrinsically valuable- unqualifiedly good, as he says-to be worthy of happiness in the first place. The virtues and happiness are not fundamentally good. Only a good will is. And a good will acts out of respect for law. Out of pure unadulterated respect for the moral law. That happens when one acts from duty, not against or merely in accordance with duty. And what is the moral law?

There are two senses, two formulations in Barry & Shaw. Both seek to be action-guiding. So, the Categorical Imperative is the moral law formally. It is also a test for how one can discern what to do. But striving for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people affected by the action is as far as the East is from the West-"never the twain shall meet", said Kipling-from Kant's theory.

But of course, Kant's theory has its own problems with common sense, as Barry & Shaw points out in their criticisms, which is why they introduce Ross's theory of Prima Facie Duties. Which theory - utilitarianism or Kantianism-holds more promise for harmonizing our common sense intuitions about morality? Do we need Ross?