Chapter 6 When Values Clash: Theoretical Approaches

1
Chapter 6 When Values ClashTheoretical
Approaches

• A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox by Anthony Weston

2
Utilitarian Strategies

• Good vs. Good
• Good vs. Other Values
• Values that Dont Cash Out

3
Good vs. Good

• When one good conflicts with another good, what
  would an utilitarian say?
• Choose the one that creates the greatest good for
  the greatest number
• We are forced to perform a kind of cost/benefit
  analysis, usually tied to economic analysis.
• Solution Calculate the long-term costs and
  benefits and choose that which creates the
  greatest good.

4
Good vs. Other Values

• For an utilitarian, all moral reasoning is
  reduced to consideration of creating the greatest
  good for the greatest number.
• Ultimately, all of the other values can be
  understood as goods and considered in
  cost/benefit analyses.
• Its a matter of figuring out how to cash out
  or translate these other values we have find
  their market value and operate accordingly.
• Justice (a right) is just because it promotes
  happiness and utility.
• Honesty (a virtue) is virtuous because it
  ultimately leads to happiness.
• Solution Translate rights and virtues into goods
  and proceed with cost/benefit analysis.

5
Values that dont Cash Out

• Not all values seem to translate into goods.
• Those that dont cash-out are not really moral
  values to utilitarians.
• E.g. Fairness (a right and virtue)
• Sometimes fairness gets in the way of utility
• The kidnapping of Dr. Zhivago by the Bolsheviks
  is sanctioned by J.S. Mills theory

6
J.S. Mill

• Cases may occur in which some other social duty
  is so important as to overrulethe general maxims
  of justice. Thus, to save a life, it may not only
  be allowable , but a duty, to steal or take by
  force the necessary food or medicine, or to
  kidnap and compel to officiate the only qualified
  medical practitioner
• Cited in Weston 2001 p. 105

7
Non-Utilitarian Strategies Prioritizing Values

• Rights vs. Rights
• Rights vs. Goods
• Virtues, Goods, and Rights

8
Rights vs. Rights

• When rights conflict, the most basic rights come
  first.
• E.g. Two children fighting over a toy. Property
  ownership trumps desire. Who has a right to the
  toy? The child who owns it.
• E.g. My right to life trumps your right to keep
  and bear arms, or, Youre rights end where my
  nose begins.
• E.g. Is it fair to informed voters when
  uninformed voters vote? No, but the right to vote
  trumps the right to fairness, according to this
  logic.

9
Rights vs. Goods

• How do we act when rights conflict with social
  utility?
• E.g. You are a surgeon and you come upon a plane
  crash. There are six passengers. One is unharmed,
  and the five others each have a different
  internal injury. Without organ transplants the
  other five will die. Can you kill the healthy one
  and distribute her organs among the other five?
• What would a utilitarian say?

10
Rights vs. Goods (continued)

• Trust your intuition
• Whats the little voice say?
• What does your gut tell you?
• Appeal to moral reason
• How would Kant address the surgeons situation?
• Prioritize rights vs. goods
• Right to life trumps social utility

11
Virtues, Goods, and Rights

• What do we do when virtues collide?
• Again, choose the most basic according to your
  interests and values.
• Virtue theorists urge us to always consider
  virtue because, they say, goods and rights do not
  always trump virtue. Virtuosity ought always be
  considered in moral reasoning.

12
Conclusions

• All of this is controversial
• Theories are limited tools
• Cross-family problems are difficult situations
  for traditional moral theories
• Use these tools with care and caution
• Learn from them in the act of using them to
  interrogate a problematic situation
• And, remember to creatively transcend the
  limitations of theory, if only because you are a
  human and you can.

13
Chapter 7 When Values ClashIntegrative
Approaches

• A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox by Anthony Weston

14
Another View of Moral Conflicts

• What is each side right about?
• What is each theory right about?

15
John Dewey

• Only dogmatism can suppose that serious moral
  conflict is between something clearly bad and
  something known to be good. Most conflicts of
  importance are conflicts between things which are
  or have been satisfying, not between good and
  evil.
• Cited in Weston 2001 p. 118

16
What is each side right about?

• In nearly every serious moral issue, all sides
  are usually right about something they each make
  good points.
• E.g. Abortion
• What is each side right about?
• What kind of conflict is this? Good vs. good,
  virtue vs. right, etc.?
• How did the last chapter suggest we might cope
  with this issue?

17
What is each side right about? (continued)

• Suppose we start by asking, What are the
  strengths of their argument?
• Conversely, and this is difficult, we ought to
  ask ourselves, What are the weaknesses of my
  point of view?
• Critical inquiry requires this of us...
• Self-reflexivity
• Fallibility

18
Example Affirmative Action

• What is each side right about?
• Pro-Affirmative Action
• Racism and Sexism are wrong.
• Justice, equality, and fairness requires a
  leveling of the playing field to help us
  overcome present circumstances which have
  unfairly limited the possibilities of affected
  groups of people.
• We ought to work toward righting some of these
  wrongs.
• Anti-Affirmative Action
• If discrimination is wrong, it is wrong in any
  form. Affirmative action discriminates against
  white men.
• It is wrong to correct one injustice with
  another.

19
What is each theory right about?

• Similarly, when looking for the right moral tools
  to use to grapple with our problems, we shouldnt
  just ask, which theory is right. We should ask,
  what is each theory right about?
• E.g. Assisted Suicide
• Utilitarians are right to consider pain relief
  good
• Deontologists are right to believe that
  autonomous, rational, humans with free will have
  the right to make their own decisions
• And, theyre right to value human life as a good,
  even a life of suffering
• Virtue ethicists are right to value compassion
  and courage as laudable character traits
• Care ethicists are right to value compassionate
  action to relieve and minimize suffering, and to
  consider also those loved ones affected by the
  decision to end a life

20
The result Complexification

• This kind of inquiry doesnt make moral reasoning
  easier, but it illuminates the terrain in ways
  that help us come to terms with our moral
  reasoning processes.
• It compels us to look at the situation from
  different perspectives.
• It changes a moral problem from a simple fight
  between two polar opposites to a genuine
  challenge among many competing notions of
  goodness, righteousness, and virtue.
• So, have we simply made the decision more
  complicated and harder to cope with? Not
  necessarily.
• Weve exercised due care and consideration on the
  road to thoughtful moral deliberation.
• Now, at least, we can demonstrate our thought
  processes and justify our moral decision to even
  our most adamant detractors.

21
Integrative Methods

• Strategies
• Case in Point Affirmative Action

22
Weve only made things more difficult, havent
we?

• What do we do if everybody is right about
  something?
• Havent we only paralyzed ourselves and made it
  more difficult to act?
• Not necessarily, provided we bring all that we
  have as humans to bear on the situation.
• In fact, there are many proven ways to negotiate
  these complex moral landscapes.
• Lets examine a few of the strategies Anthony
  Weston suggests we consider

23
Strategies

• To integrate values, we need find ways to
  identify and honor all worthwhile contending
  points of viewa tall order.
• We are not looking to find a winner among the
  contenders we are seeking multiple winners.
• Three (3) Helpful Strategies
• Split the difference between opposites
• Search for compatibility among different values
• Begin to work from common values all sides hold

24
Split the Difference A Real-world Example

• I come home from a long day of work and want
  quiet
• My daughter comes home from a long day of school
  and wants to play her musicloud.
• How about half of the time quiet, and then half
  of the time with music
• Or, I work in a quiet room on one side of the
  house and she plays her music on the other side
• Or, she wears headphones for her music
• Or, I wear noise-reducing headphones

25
Find Compatibilities among different values

• Vacation time is coming I want to go to the
  mountains, and my wife wants to go to the beach.
  I want to hike and she wants to swim and
  sunbathe.
• Are these really incompatible?
• In Oregon the mountains are right next to the
  beach, maybe we can vacation in some place where
  we can do both?
• Theres a nice beach in one of the lakes in the
  Pintlerswhy not go there?
• Or, why not find some nice day hikes near the
  ocean, why not hike into a secluded beach?

26
Work from Common Values

• The vacation, continued
• We both have some common values here
• Each wants to spend time together
• Each wants to spend time outside, in nature
• Each wants to spend time doing something active
• Why not begin the negotiation there?

27
Case in Point Affirmative Action

• Split the Difference
• Allow some preferential treatment, in college
  admission, for example, and eliminate affirmative
  action in hiring practices in the private sector.
• Common Values
• Both value justice, fairness, and equal
  opportunity colorblindness
• Blind auditions, for example
• Or, combination of merit and affirmative action
  incentives so that nobody deserving goes
  unrewarded

28
Homework

• Choose one of the following contemporary public
  moral issues
• Abortion
• Gun-control
• Legalization of marijuana
• Physician assisted suicide
• Racial profiling in airport screening
• Storing toxic waste on Indian reservations

29
Homework (continued)

• Map the moral debate
• Draw maps that depict rights vs. rights, goods
  vs. goods, and virtues vs. virtues.
• What cross-family debates can you see? Map them.
  

30
Homework (continued)

• Using the notes in this presentation, suggest 3-5
  different ways to cope with these problems. Apply
  the methods you suggest.
• Bring your work to class on Monday and be
  prepared to discuss your problem and your
  suggested resolutions.
• Turn-in your work (3-5 pages) double-spaced,
  include visual representations of your moral
  problem maps.
• 50 points