There are several problems with each of the eight theories on ethics.

Egoism is a theory that determines something is good when it brings pleasure to one self.

The problems with the theory of Egoism, as stated in the online textbook by Dr. P.

Pecorino, are as follows:

·                 Ethical Egoism provides no moral basis for solving conflicts between people.

·                 Egoism prevents others from doing the right thing.

·                 It has the same logical basis as racism

·                 Egoists cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoist’s interests.

·                 No one person can expect the entire world's population to act in such a way as to produce the most benefit (pleasure) for that one person.

Utilitarianism is also a theory derived from the amount of pleasure, however this theory

 determines that which produces the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number

of people to be the good. The problems with the theory of Utilitarianism, as stated in the

 online textbook by Dr. P. Pecorino, are as follows:

·                 It is difficult if not impossible to measure the amount of happiness (pleasure) produced to a group of people, or society as a whole. Not everyone is able to measure his or her happiness. One person’s maximum happiness may not be equal of another person's maximum. It is impossible to calculate the range over a specific amount of time and to determine how long it will last.

·                 The theory can support opposing actions on different occasions as the correct or the good thing to do.

·                 The theory can support doing horrible, heinous acts as long as they produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. There is no act that is wrong in and of itself (including murder, lies, rape, child molestation ect).

·                 The theory cannot resolve conflicts in views, and sometimes supports lying, cheating, killing, stealing (and sometimes not).

·                 The theory treats all people as being equal. It does not take in to consideration special relationships that exist between people.

 The Categorical Imperative Theory bases the good on a sense of duty in which the

good lies in the intention or will of performing acts. The only thing good about the act is

 the "good" will and that will is our duty. "It is our duty to act in such a manner that we

would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all

 other people...Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people

 to follow, as if it were a universal law." ( P. Pecorino online text). The problems with

The Categorically Imperative Theory, as stated in the online textbook by Dr. P. Pecorino,

are as follows:

·                 The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational (human's with brain malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative coma).

·                 The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties.

·                 A clever person could phrase the maxim to be universalized in such a manner as to permit almost anything. By lacing qualifiers on the maxim or peculiar definitions on terms a clever actor could satisfy the categorical imperative and yet be acting in a manner not consistent with it.

Natural Law Theory states "what is natural is right and what is unnatural is wrong...the

 laws of nature are discernable by human reason"(P. Peccorino online text). The problems

with this theory as listed by Dr. Pecorino are as follows:

·                 People interpret nature differently. This should not be the case if as asserted by natural law theory.

·                 There is difficulty in determining the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature, as it is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accordance with human nature is morally wrong.

·                 If it is true that human beings have certain natural propensities, there is difficulty in justifying whether those propensities should be developed, and on the grounds that human beings should (or would) choose the good.

·                 The existence of Devine inspiration regarding nature raises questions regarding whether God produced the natural moral order as evolutionary theory species have developed the way they have out of survival needs.

·                 It is doubtful that one can infer moral principals forbidding adultery, rape, brutality, and homosexuality based on biological facts about human nature or from facts about the inherent nature of human beings.

·                 Critics say that it is doubtful that the inherent nature of human beings establishes laws of behavior for us in the same way as it may establish laws of behavior for other animals. It is difficult because so much of human behavior is shaped by the environment then by deliberate and non-deliberate conditioning, training and education.   

Normal Ethical Relativism is a theory, which holds there are no universally valid moral

principals. Moral correctness and incorrectness vary from society and there is no

universal moral standard binding all men at all times. Nor only do different cultures have

different views, but it is impossible to set an ethical standard for the world because no

ethical principals could apply to all of the people on the earth. The problems with this

Theories as stated by Dr. P Pecorino in the on-line text are:

·                 Normal Ethical Relativism cannot be used to promote tolerance.

·                 This theory cannot support or explain criticism of the majority' s view by minorities. Yet there have been such criticisms and many have ked to moral reforms, such reform cannot be accounted for by the theory.

·                 In the application of this theory, no one has the right to make moral judgments about another person, for each person has the right to have his or her own morals.

·                 people who claim to subscribe to beliefs in this theory make moral judgments concerning the practices of people in other cultures.

The following two theories are part of Post Modernism Relativism in which there are no

 absolutes of any kind and there are neither universal truths nor universal criteria for the good.

 These theories are: The Will to Power an the Caring Theories. The problems with the

Will to Power Theory or Existentialism, as stated by Dr. Peccorino in the online text is

as follows:

·                 Morality is philosophically in supportable. When we understand the genealogy of morality we will see that what actually explains our having it are profoundly negative aspects of human life.

·                 Morality is an ideology that we can believe only if we ignore what we do.

·                 There is a fundamental distinction between the ideas of good and bad. The natural form ethical evaluation first takes is excellent and merit. People who excel, who have merits we admire and esteem, thereby have a kind of natural nobility.

The second theory under Post Modernism Relativism is the Feminine Approach on

Ethics, referred to as Caring. The problems with this theory, as stated in the links to the

online textbook written by P. Pecorino, are as follows:

·                 Women centered thinkers think of morality as gendered and that it is important to determine whether a gendered concept is indeed correct. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics)

·                 The Caring approach rejects the assumption that the more separate the self is from others, the more fully developed that self is and the more universal, abstract, impartial and rational knowledge is the more closely it resembles reality.(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics)

·                 The Feminist Approach embraces the assumption that the more connected the self is to others, the better the self is. The more particular, concrete, partial and emotional knowledge is, the more likely it represents the world as it truly is. (http://plato.stanford.edu.entries/feminism-ethics)

·                  Feminist critics state that this approach focuses on either the relationship between justice and care, considered as two, gender-neural perspectives on morality, or the fact that women are culturally associated with care and men are culturally associated with justice. Some say that even if care is a moral virtue and not a pleasing psychological trait that some people happen to have, it is a less moral virtue than justice. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics).

The last theory on ethics to discuss is The Theory Of Justice As Fairness, or the Max-Min

 Principals. This theory developed by John Rawls states the good as justice and justice is

conceived as fairness. The theory was developed to assist a society in ordering its affairs

and has been instrumental in establishing laws for providing equal access to opportunities

for the minorities and disabled. The problems with this theory as noted by P. Pecorino in

 the on-line text is:

·                 Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principal are unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged.

·                 This theory does not maximize utility.

·                 The Difference Principal is criticized as a primary distributive principal on the grounds that it mostly ignores claims that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions.

·                 The Original Position and the Veil of ignorance may exclude some morally relevant information. The theory excludes in order to promote rationality and is biased in favor to rationality.

     The Theory with the most acceptable disadvantages is the Theory Of Justice As

 Fairness- The Max-Min Principals. Under this theory, humans use reasoning to arrive at

 the principal of the good. According to Dr. P. Peccorino:

" This approach puts human beings in a position wherein they view the moral dilemma or problem without knowing who they are in the situation...Human beings would resolve the conflict or problem in such a way that whoever was worst off would not be as bad off as they otherwise might be because the person making the decision does not know whether they are going to be in the position of the worst off". (http://66.7.64.125/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm) 

     An advantage of this theory, is that it holds the most moral order. As this theory was

developed to assist society in ordering its affairs, it is very organized. In the Utilitarian

 Theory, the principal of utility states:

 " that which produces the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number people  to be the good”  (P. Pecorino online text) .

According to John Rawls, a professor of philosophy at Harvard:

Consider whether the act, rule or institution to be evaluated is best for the happiness of mankind generally. The difficulty is that often it will be not to the advantage of some people and to the disadvantage of others. The effect of happiness of mankind in general has to be assessed by somehow balancing the bad effects on some people against the good effects on others. There is no way of avoiding this." (http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)

John Rawls thinks that a theory of justice cannot allow disadvantages to some to be

justified by the advantage of others. Rawls's objection to Utilitarianism is:

It puts no restrictions upon the subordination of some people's interests to those of others, except that the net outcome should be good This would allow any degree of subordination, provided the benefit to the advantaged was great enough. (http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)

Utilitarian are concerned about total or average welfare and can argue that basic rights for

individuals should be guaranteed, not specifically that the worse off will be better off.

They see no reason to restrict advantages to the better off except for protecting basic

rights. Provided that there is no objections to the guarantee of basic rights, there is no

Utilitarian objection to inequality.  In response:

Rawls concern is to make as good as possible the position of the worst off is distinctive. (http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)

Utilitarian’s object to the Difference Principal in Rawls theory as they feel it does not

maximize utility. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls uses Utilitarianism as a comparison

against his own theory.

The Utilitarians were concerned about total or average welfare: their distribution principles, which might well be designed to protect the worse off, were in fact justified as contributing to the total welfare - not specifically to the welfare of the worst off. In other words, the Utilitarian may argue that there should be certain basic rights guaranteeing a sort of floor below which no one will fall, because such a guarantee reduces anxiety and conflict and thereby frees people for productive and constructive activity - but will not try to regulate the distribution of what this activity produces except to protect the basic rights. The Utilitarian argument is that mankind generally are better off if these basic rights are guaranteed, not specifically that the worst off will be better off. And the Utilitarian would see no reason to restrict advantages to the better off except to protect basic rights. Provided there is a suitable floor, there is no Utilitarian objection to inequality. So Rawls's concern to make as good as possible the position of the worst-off, and his rejection of inequalities not beneficial to the worst-off, is distinctive, in comparison with Utilitarianism, and, as far as I know, in comparison with other theories.(http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/politics/y64l13.html)

Some critics criticize Rawl’s theory stating that it is too similar to Utilitarianism and that

these two principals could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit

 the least well off ( P. Peccorino, online text). This statement is a contradiction. A theory

that is based on:

So Rawls's concern to make as good as possible the position of the worst-off, and his rejection of inequalities not beneficial to the worst-off, is distinctive, in comparison with Utilitarianism, and, as far as I know, in comparison with other theories. A Locke-Nozick kind of theory, which emphasizes rights such as property (as basic, and self-evident, not just as a means of reducing conflict and increasing welfare generally) has no place for the idea that inequalities are justified only by improving the situation of the worst-off.

            (http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/politics/y64l13.html)

     Under the Theory of Justice and Fairness, people are on equal terms and they decide

general rules, which will determine the outcome of situations that will arise in a society.

A Libertarian objection o the Theory of Justice and Fairness according to P. Pecorino is:

Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty. For instance, the Difference Principle may require re-distributive taxation to the poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings.

(http://66.7.64.125/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm)

A response to this criticism:

Rawls construction of the original Position is that people should not get more simply as an accident of birth: There is an objection against any system that permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by natural distribution of abilities and talents…distributive shares in such a system are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery; and his outcome is arbitrary            (therefore objectionable) from a moral perspective.(A Theory of Justice p. 74

http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)

The people determine a set of permanent rules that can not be altered and apply to all

 members of the group. Being that all members are created equal, there is no dominant

 faction, and no member can bend the rules in their favor. Occasionally the rules would

 have to be lessened to the interest of some members of the group, as needed but there

 would be no overall compensation for the other group members. This is justice of

fairness and the ultimate democracy. According to Rawls theory:

The rules of justice are the rules which will get accepted in a group of people living together on equal terms, if they understand that the rules are to apply for the indefinite future, and to ever member of the group alike, and if none of the members of the group can see any way of tailoring the rules to their own advantage. (http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)  

This theory handles the problem of Egoism in a society quite diplomatically, as most of

 the members of any group are self-interested. By establishing rules, they are trying to

secure their own interests but are unable to prevent other group members from

establishing their own interests. The Egoist will have to settle for fairness. No egoist

would consent to act in disregard of his own bargaining strengths and weaknesses. In fact

 they are attempting to discover ways to discover principals to limit the pursuit of self

interest. That is what the principals of justice are.  Rawls wants to make the "Golden

 Rule" more evident. Rawls' system of value has been criticized as potentially being used

as a weapon or academic competition. However, a response to that criticism is :

Mankind generally will be better off if we all accept the difference principal, because we will live better lives in the more secure and friendlier, harmonious, more willingly to co-operate society that this principal will generate." 

             (http://www.humanities.mg.edu.au/politics/y64113.html)

The Theory Of Justice and Fairness has also been criticized as those supporting total

 equality say that the inequalities allowed by the Difference Principal are not acceptable

although they help those most in need. According to Dr. P. Peccorino:

The problem for these advocates is to explain …why society should be prevented from materially benefiting the least advantaged when this is possible. The most common explanation appeals to solidarity: that being materially equal is an important expression of the equality of persons. Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have over others, if they are better off materially. Rawls’ response to this latter criticism appeals to the priority of his first principle: The inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do not result in unequal liberty. So, for instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty, even if they increase the material position of the least advantaged group. (http://66.7.64.125/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm) 

In the online textbook, Dr. Peccorino states:

There is also the difficulty in applying the theory to practice.  It is difficult if not impossible for people to place themselves under the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to formulate what conduct would be required of them by the MAXI MIN Principle.  

                                                                         (http://66.7.64.125/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm )

A response to the criticism:

By conceiving of ourselves as potential constructors of a mythical just future society, but being ignorant of our racial, social, and economic position within that society, Rawls strips away all those pieces of information he considers to be irrelevant to questions of justice. From this "original position," he considers that the response of a rational person would be to secure only two basic principles of justice. These are a) a schedule of basic rights, including liberty of conscience and movement, freedom of religion, etc., and b)equality of opportunity. Rawls has a particularly inventive way of securing equality of opportunity in that he sees the only way to prevent the stronger (or richer) in his just state from overpowering the weaker (or poorer) in enforcing the maxim, "No redistribution of resources within such a state can occur unless it benefits the least well-off."

(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1643/rawls.html)

     The advantages of the theory of Justice and fairness are many. By far the most

advantageous is that above all of the other theories, it is the most fair. As the most

intelligent creatures, mankind has a responsibility to help the disadvantaged when

needed, that is what distinguishes us from mere animals. This theory is organized and

aids those who need it, by not wasting aid on those who are fortunate enough to not need

it. The Theory of Justice and Fairness considers three basic things to be essential to the

running of such a value-neutral state:

The idea of "reasonableness" defined as the ability of individuals coming from different cultural backgrounds to work with each other politically and tolerate each other's cultures. On this view, a socialist and a capitalist may have much common ground, but a libertarian and a fundamentalist may have much less. This idea of the common ground of the reasonable leads Rawls to his second necessity: the idea of an "overlapping consensus," which needs to be wide enough to bridge the gap between cultures to allow for a diverse field of government regulation and lawmaking. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Rawls secures the autonomy of the just state's citizens in the public sphere by invoking the idea of public reason. Within this notion, citizens are called upon to be active members of debate, lawmaking, and, if necessary, constitutional revision. The value of public deliberation in these circumstances is high not only to increase personal reflection on one's own theories of the good, but to widen the overlapping consensus and ensure that each has a voice in asserting their own autonomy.

(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1643/rawls.html)

This theory describes an ideal democratic America. As the “melting pot” of cultures, it is

necessary for all American’s from different cultures to work together and tolerate each

other’s culture. That is one of the advantages of this theory. The theory of Justice as

Fairness encompasses the ultimate democracy, what America is supposed to be. I believe

in these principals. The problem with society is that we fail to realize that as a whole, it is

beneficial to have all people, healthy, happy, fed with a roof over their head then

wondering the streets, dying of exposure and starvation. People must remember that we

do have the strength and ability to make our government and society listen.

Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. They should be read as such. They are not intended for publication or general distribution.