The textbook’s (Ethics for the Information Age, by Michael Quinn) discussions of the different ethical theories is really through, but rather dry and in the middle of reading my textbook the other day I started searching youtube. I found a video that explains Kantianism in 3 minutes using lots of humour. Humour is a really great way to learn and internalize concepts. And yeah I pronoucned Kant’s name “Can’t” in my head before watching this video (and attending lecture). There is also one on John Locke and Thomas Hobbes (Social Contract Theory). Much gratitude to the creator of these videos! Let’s press that “Like” button extra hard.
If were to take the last example the video gave about an axe murder appearing at your door and asking you the location of your innocent children so that he could hack them all to tiny pieces and apply the other workable ethic theories from the textbook, would you be morally obligated to reveal the location?
Both types of utilitarianism are based on the Principle of Utility, which wants to maximize happiness. With Act Utilitarianism the Principle of Utility is applied to an action, and the consequences of that action. Meanwhile Rule Utilitarianism the Principle of Utility is applied to a moral rule, and looks at the consequences of that rule if applied universally. Applying a moral rule universally makes Rule Utilitarianism like the halfway point between Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Under Act Utilitarianism, the net happiness of all affected parties decreases if you were to revel the location because the only person who could have possibly had his happiness increased is the murder. Under Rule Utilitarianism, if everyone told the location of their children to murders than the total happiness would also go down. I’m not sure if this phrasing is correct for Rule Utilitarianism – would “people should always protect their children” be a better phrasing?
Social Contract Theory is the last theory presented by the book, and it states that everyone living in a certain society agrees to follow that society’s rules because everyone else in the same society also agrees to follow those same rules, and there is a government in place to enforce those rules. So if the scenario was occurring in Canada, murder is illegal – so revealing the location of the children would be wrong. Actually, you are not the one murdering the children so “murder is illegal” does not really apply to you…maybe a more applicable law would be some childcare laws?
This exercise showed me that even though I understand what each ethical theory states, and the distinctions between them it is still hard for me to apply the theories. Guess more practice is needed!