Term Paper on "Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism"

Home > Topics > Ethics & Morality My Account

Term Paper 5 pages (1556 words) Sources: 1+

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism

Following the generally admitted differentiation between consequentialist ethical theories, where right and wrong depend only on the consequences, and the non-consequential theories, where right and wrong do not depend entirely on consequences, philosophers draw the conclusion that a successful defense of the non-consequentialist ethical relies greatly on the existence and proper justification of the "constraints" that appear in such cases. It seems natural to start our discussion by defining non-consequentialist constraints and follow through by justifying their necessary presence. In the second part of the essay, we will be comparing some of the defenses we have previously described and will be drawing relevant conclusions.

Following the definition of one of the best theoreticians of deontology, Thomas Nagel, non-consequentialist or deontological constraints can be defined as "agent-relative reasons which depend not on the aims or projects of the agent but on the claims of others."

Going straight for the trolley problem and describing the constraints that derive there from will help us understand better what constraints actually are and why they exist. According to this problem, a trolley is running down the track and on its path are five people tied to the track. Flipping a switch would turn the trolley to another track, where only one person is tied to the track. There is no way of derailing or stopping the trolley. Do you use the switch?

As we can see, from an utilitarian point-of-view, the mathematical calculations are pretty simple: in one case, you kill one person, in th

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

e other, you kill five. Mathematically, there is no reason why you shouldn't switch. On the other hand, the problem can be toughened to create the ethical dilemma we need to refer to our constraints. Judith Thomson offers such a dilemma in her own "trolley problem." According to her, there is a fact person besides you. Pushing the respective person would stop the train. Do you push him? Judith Thomson has also brought the trolley problem in another version, where a person's organs can be passed around and save other five people. The question is whether you would sacrifice him.

The difference between the two examples is given by exactly what we are to discuss and defend: constraints, moral and ethical constraints. In the first case, using the switch and killing one person is a "side-effect" of an action we do. In the second case, the killing can no longer be perceived as accidental, because it is part of the plan to save the five persons: it is premeditated. The moral difference, as such, seems to be in the lack or presence of intention and of the constraints that (1) do not appear in the first case and (2) are present in the second case and resist our pushing the fat person.

As such, we can also refer to deontological constraints as "limits on what one may do to people or how one may treat them." These limits can be restrictions against lying, violating individual rights, killing, injuring, torturing, etc. restrictions or rather the need of fairness and equality in one's treatment of people and many other. In the example presented previously, the constraint is represented by the restriction against intentionally killing a fellow human being.

Nonconsequentialist theory thus relies on the existence of such moral limitations and restrictions that stop us from exercising an action. Upon presenting a definition of deontological constraints, it is best to briefly present three deontological ethical theories and evaluate them one against the other. In my opinion, the best selection is represented by the golden rule, Kant's ethical theory and the moral rights ethical theory.

The first theory, the golden rule, stipulates that you should "act toward others as you would want them to act toward you." Subsequently, you should not "act toward others as you would not want them to act toward you." Applied in the trolley problem, this means that if you were the fat person, you would not want to be pushed in front of the train. Subsequently, you should not push the fat person in front of the train.

Kant's ethical theory stipulates that "an action is morally right if and only if it is in accordance with a maxim that the agent can will to be a universal law." In our specific example, pushing the fat person in front of the train is restricted by the existence of a maximum deemed universal law, according to which one must not voluntarily kill another person.

Finally, the moral rights ethical theory refers to actions which are right only if "they produce the least serious violations of people's moral rights." Moral rights complement legal rights, as the former can be considered as including the legal rights and obligations.

In the trolley example, pushing the fat person in front of the train would be considered a violation of his right to live. On the other hand, simply turning the switch is less so, mainly because of the lack of premeditation I have already mentioned.

On the other hand, there is also the proximity explanation on constraints, which states that it is basically less difficult to perform an act with unethical consequences in another room rather than in the same room. In the trolley problem, pushing the fat person is an act occurring next to the person involved. On the other hand, pushing the switch triggers an action with consequences further away.

Following this brief description and evaluation of the main explanatory nonconsequentialist theories, we may show that Kant's ethical theory provides the best justification for the existence of constraints.

Indeed, in my opinion, we should first of all start with the facts. We have arrived at the conclusion that the constraints generally take the form of moral, ethical, legal, personal restrictions or limitations that reflect the degree to which we can act against someone else. We can, for example, raise our voice to make a point. On the other hand, we punch our opponent in the face.

Kant's theory relies exactly on the existence of a set of mutually accepted and recognized moral norms, ethical criteria which help a person make the right decision at the right time. Kant's entire ethical theory relies on the existence of deontological constraints. These universal laws, as Kant sees them, allow us to function correctly in a society.

While the theory provides excellent defense of deontological constraints, there are certain objective objections we should consider. First of all, Kant refers to universal laws, but he mentions that these universal laws are willed by the acting agent himself. In this sense, there is a certain contradiction in terms here: on one hand, the laws are universal and universally recognized, on the other hand, the acting agent creates them and may not necessarily be mutually accepted.

What happens, for example, if we have a group of people who kills criminals and rapists? The universal law should probably be that no one should be killed without a fair trial. This is, however, a legal universal law and not necessarily a moral one. Does it leave our field of discussion? Not necessarily: according to Kant, the acting agent can will the maxim to be a universal law. In this case, if the group considers that their moral system can accept the maxim, then the constraint is eliminated.

Similarly, in our trolley case, one can resume to adopt a maxim that eliminates the universal law. One may point out towards the fact that the fat person can be pushed in front of the train and the constraint will turn from this limitation (killing someone) to a different one (perhaps pushing the fat person in a way that hurts him least -- the torture limitation).

As such, we may conclude that while on one hand, Kant's ethical theory provides… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism" Assignment:

“

Paper topic:

Justification of “constraints” is often regarded as central to a successful defense of non-consequentialist

ethical theory. Even as constraints are firmly ensconced in our ordinary moral thought, their friends and

foes alike regard them as puzzling. What, in your considered view, is the best defense of constraints? Do

you agree that the argument establishes the existence of constraints, and why or why not?

General remarks

As these two questions indicate, the assignment has two parts:

(1) You want to explain, as clearly as you can, what sort of thing exactly a constraint is, why constraints

appear intuitively plausible but puzzling, and then present an argument for the existence of constraints.

You want to pay special attention to explaining just to what kind of considerations your defense of

constraints appeals (something about the agent? the potential “victims”? the relation between the two?),

and to explaining how exactly the considerations in question attempt to provide a coherent and morally

adequate defense of constraints. As Shelly Kagan (a contemporary consequentialist) points out, any

argument for constraints which rests merely on commonsensical intuitions in favor of their existence will

be inadequate, for those intuitions seem to presuppose the existence of constraints (and, therefore, the

falsity of consequentialism). To avoid the problems with such arguments, you want to construct the best

possible defense of constraints which you can think of. If you do so, your critical evaluation of the

argument (whether favorable or not) will carry maximal conviction. (Some arguments for constraints are

better than others; you will be assessed in part on your judgment in selecting the best defense.)

(2) You want to evaluate the defense of constraints you have presented. Some questions you might ask

yourself: Are its explicit assumptions plausible? Are there problematic hidden assumptions – assumptions

which the defense doesn’t officially acknowledge, but which are needed to make the argument work?

Does the defense start from correct claims, but makes errors of reasoning along the way? Are there crucial

unclarities in the claims that the defense makes – crucial because they affect what the argument can show?

If you are feeling a bit at sea here, you might try to get your bearings by carefully comparing the different

ways of defending constraints which we have studied. This will help you along with (1) because it will help

you decide what type of defense you think is the best. (The comparison shouldn’t be a part of your paper,

though, since a largely expository paper isn’t the kind of paper you’re writing.) And it will help you along

with (2) because presumably the way to decide what type of defense is the best is to consider the kinds of

questions raised under (2), and determine which fares best with respect to them. This is, of course, not to

say that there will be no problems with the best defense. The problems that remain are those on which

your critical evaluation of the defense should focus. To get a grip on these problems, you might consider

some of the objections that other advocates of the defense you think is best bring forward against their

own positions (which are objections they think they can answer). How good are those objections, or those

replies? You shouldn’t mechanically recapitulate these objections in your paper, however. Scrutiny of them

is an exercise to stimulate your thinking about the possibility of successfully defending constraints.

A final remark about the paper as a whole: your treatment of (2) should occupy more of the paper than

your treatment of (1), at least insofar as presenting an argument for constraints is clearly distinguishable

from task (2). A paper that is merely or largely expository is not the kind of paper you want to be writing.

Sources:

Robert Nozick: "Moral Constraints and Moral Goals"

Thomas Nagel: "Agent-Relativity and Deontology"

Shelly Kagan: excerpt from The Limits of Morality

Judith Thomson: "The Trolley Problem"

F.M. Kamm: "Harming Some to Save Others"

F.M. Kamm: "Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status" 381-389 only

***** McNaughton & Piers Rawling: "Deontology and Agency"

***** McNaughton & Piers Rawling: "On Defending Deontology", 37-44, 48-53

How to Reference "Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism" Term Paper in a Bibliography

“Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2005, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898. Accessed 28 Sep 2024.

Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism (2005). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898

A1-TermPaper.com. (2005). Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898 [Accessed 28 Sep, 2024].

”Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism” 2005. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898.

”Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898.

[1] ”Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898. [Accessed: 28-Sep-2024].

1. Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2005 [cited 28 September 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898

1. Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/justification-constraints-non-consequentialism/61898. Published 2005. Accessed September 28, 2024.

Related Term Papers: