SOME GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS OF GERT'S THEORY

• Morality and common sense are in complete agreement .
• Every rational being would agree with his theory (Gert maintains).
• We do not really accept some of the views we think we accept:
  • Criticism of (a certain formulation of) The Golden Rule and the Hillel's Rule
  • Criticism of Kant's First Imperative (the formula of Universal Law)
  • Criticism of the Ten Commandments
• What Gert proposes is supposed to be uncontroversial and not profound. 

CRITICISM OF THE GOLDEN RULE (GR) AND HILLEL'S RULE (HR)

• GR: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
• HR: Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

  Objections:

  • A burglar does not want us to call police.
  • A salesman wants me to buy an encyclopedia.
  • Each student wants me to give him or her an A.
  • Deserving students want deserved grades. 

CRITICISM OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Objections:

• There are several different versions of TC, so they cannot be all universal.
• Some of them are religious commandments [e.g., "Do not worship idols"]; they have nothing to do with morality.
• The rule "Do not covet thy neighbor's... slaves [male and female servants]" seems to condone slavery; it is not a correct moral rule.

 Some of the similar issues are discussed in the following articles:

• Does the Bible Really Condones the Slavery (by Louis W. Cable)
• House Candidate Uses the Bible to Defend Southern Slavery (by Philip Rawls -- Associated Press, May 5, 1996)
• No Rationalizing Slavery (by Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune, May 15, 1996 )
• The Ten Commandments (A Different View by Louis W. Cable) (Click on "The Ten Commandments/Appendixes")

 

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

 GENERAL FEATURES OF MORAL THEORY

• Morality must be consistent (p. 4)
• Moral theory must explain relationships between morality and impartiality and rationality
• Morality is a "public system... understood by everyone to whom it applies and which is not irrational for them to follow" (p. 7).
• Morality is universal; it applies to all rational persons (p. 7).

 TWO POPULAR (MISTAKEN) VIEWS OF RATIONALITY

• (Prudential Theory of Rationality) An action is rational if and only if it promotes one's self-interest.
• (Humean /Instrumental Theory of Rationality) An action is rational insofar as it provides efficient means to one's chosen end.

HARMS (EVILS), BENEFITS (GOODS) AND RATIONALITY

Harms: "something that you would always avoid for yourself or your friend unless you have some reason for not avoiding it" (p. 5). Benefits :"Something you would not avoid for yourself and your friends unless you had some reason to" (p. 5)

HARMS	BENEFITS
Pain Loss of pleasure Death Disability Loss of freedom	Alleviation of pain Pleasure Consciousness (conscious life) Ability Freedom (gain of freedom)

REASONS

"A reason is a conscious belief that you or someone else will avoid suffering an evil, or will gain a good " (p. 6). An adequate reason is a reason that people generally think is adequate: "the evil avoided or good gained must be equal to or greater than the harm caused" (p. 7) (There will be a gray area here, but it is not a very big one.)

RULES OF RATIONALITY

1. Do not do what is likely to get yourself (or your friends) killed (unless you have an adequate reason).
2. Do not do what is likely to cause yourself (or your friends) pain (unless you have an adequate reason).
3. Do not do what is likely to disable yourself( unless you have an adequate reason).
4. Do not do what is likely to reduce your pleasure (unless you have an adequate reason).
5. Do not do what is likely to reduce your freedom (unless you have an adequate reason).

In other words an action is irrational if you risk causing yourself harm by performing that action, and you have no adequate reason for doing so. [Note: This does NOT mean that your action is irrational if you fail to do what gains you a good.]

IS MY ACTION RATIONAL?

• Step 1) Is it likely that doing it will cause me (my friends) harm?
  • NO ===> It is rational
  • YES ===> Step 2) Do I have a reason for doing it?
    • NO ===> It is irrational
    • YES ===> Step 3) Is the reason adequate?
      • NO ===> It is irrational
      • YES ===> It is rational

 MORALITY

MORALITY IS IMPARTIAL: moral rules apply equally to all current and former persons; all have to follow them.

SOME "PARTIAL" (AND THUS NON-MORAL) RULES 

SELF-CENTERED RULES	MODIFIED SELF-CENTERED RULES
Do not kill me.	Do not kill me or anyone I care about.
Do not cause me pain.	Do not cause pain to me or anyone I care about.
Do not disable me.	Do not disable me or anyone I care about.
Do not reduce my pleasure.	Do not reduce the pleasure of anyone I care about
Do not reduce my freedom.	Do not reduce the freedom of anyone I care about.

MORAL RULES

(BASIC) MORAL RULES	OTHER MORAL RULES
1) Do not kill.	6) Do not cheat.
2) Do not cause pain.	7) Do not deceive.
3) Do not disable.	8) Do not break promises.
4) Do not reduce pleasure.	9)  Do not shirk your duty (do your job).
5) Do not reduce freedom.	10. Do not break the law.

IS MY ACTION IMMORAL (MORALLY WRONG) OR IS IT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?

• Step1) Does it violate a moral rule?
  • NO ===> It is morally OK (permissible).
  • YES ===> Step 2) Would an impartial rational person publicly allow this violation?
    • NO ===> It is immoral
    • YES ===> It is morally all right (permissible).

   

  To wit, an action is immoral (morally wrong) if it involves a violation of one of the moral rules, and an impartial rational person would not publicly allow that violation. If an action is not immoral, then it is morally permissible.

  An action is morally good if it reduces harms suffered by other persons.

    

  Top of this page	Philosophy home	Stef's home page
  Professional Ethics	Environmental Ethics	. . .