Phil 345: Issues in Applied Ethics
Practice exam
Due Tuesday 3/20
“On my Honor, I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this exam.”
Signed:
Printed name: Lucas Malhotra
Date: 03/20/18
Phil 345, Prompt 1, Word Count: 669
Mill believes that it is wrong either for the government or the people to restrict speech, however immoral it may be, as long as it does not instigate violence. Silencing an opinion, Mill argues, is bad for all of us, as if the opinion is right, then we are all deprived of the truth, and if the opinion is wrong, then we lose a livelier perception of the truth (Mill, 16). I will argue that freedom of expression should be restricted if it leads to less social good or undermines another’s freedom of expression.
Mill presents arguments against suppressing a dissenting opinion in the case that it is true, false, or partially true. If the dissenting opinion is true, then suppressing it while assuming that it is false, Mill argues, assumes our own infallibility and prevents the exchange of true ideas. Since human beings are not infallible, we have no basis to determine an argument as being incorrect and so should not prevent others from coming up with their own judgements (Mill, 17).
While Mill believes that it is wrong to silence a correct opinion, he also believes that silencing a false opinion is wrong. Even if an opinion is wrong, Mill argues, it shouldn’t be silenced because it keeps the truth alive through debate (Mill, 34). For example, Mill believes that Christianity has suffered from having little debate, as he believes many who practice Christianity do not fully understand the doctrines they believe in (Mill, 48).
In the cases where a dissenting opinion is partially correct and the truth lies somewhere in the middle of opinions held, Mill also believes freedom of opinion to be useful. Dissenting opinions, Mill argues, may offer pieces of partial wisdom that are neglected by the popular opinion, and so dissenting opinions should not be silenced since they may contain some truth (Mill, 38).
While Mill believes that all types of opinions should be allowed to be expressed, he also believes that all forms of free expression should be allowed. If expression was restricted to only “fair discussion,” Mill argues, then it would be difficult to enforce this and it would be likely that only dissenting opinions be held to such a high standard of conduct.
My first criticism of Mill’s argument is that the benefits of free opinion can be outweighed by allowing something immoral to be said. Since Mill bases his argument on discussion being good because it leads to more social good, it seems as though if there is a case where discussion led to less social good, then discussion should not freely take place. Consider the case of the Westboro Baptist Church members picketing a funeral of a soldier as a form of expressing that we shouldn’t allow gay people to have the rights they have and that god is punishing us for granting these rights. According to Mill, this discussion will either find a new truth or enliven our existing one and with either outcome, lead to more social good. However, I will argue that it seems likely that the disrespect demonstrated to the soldier’s family and the dehumanization of gay people that the free expression of the Westboro Baptist Church members leads to is a social negative which outweighs the social good that more discussion brings. Since this free expression of opinions leads to less social good, it seems as though some speech should be restricted.
My second criticism is that in cases where one person’s freedom of expression may undermine another’s, it may make sense to restrict freedom of expression so as to not undermine another’s freedom. Imagine a scenario where one black family lives in an all white town, where a few white people express outwardly racist views to this family. If these expressions are adopted by the rest of the townspeople to the point where any beliefs or expressions the family would like to share would be immediately cast away, then it may make sense to not grant the racist people full freedom of expression.
Phil 345, Prompt 2, Word Count: 727
Classical Act Utilitarianism is the claim that an act is morally right iff it maximizes utility, where utility is the net value of the consequences of one’s actions. This type of utilitarianism is consequentialist, maximizing, welfarist, universal, and impartialist.
To say that act utilitarianism is consequentialist means that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that action, and not the circumstances surrounding the action. As act utilitarianism is maximizing, it follows that the correct action is the one which has the best consequences. From this, we understand that an action “A” could lead to improvement, but if there were a course of action “B” that could lead to more overall improvement, then taking action “A” is not morally right. Act utilitarianism is welfarist, meaning that the moral rightness of an action depends only on the value of the actual consequences, and not any perceived ones. Act utilitarianism is also universalist, which is to say that the moral rightness of an action depends on the consequences for all people, as opposed to only the consequences surrounding the individual agent. Finally, act utilitarianism is both impartialist and non-prioritarian, meaning that benefits or harms to one person matter just as much as to any other person (Timmons 114).
Under classical act utilitarianism, one could argue that Harvey Weinstein sexual assaulting dozens of women was a morally good action. Let us first begin with some negative aspects of Weinstein’s actions. The most obvious may be the harm suffered by the many women Weinstein assaulted. Another negative would be that Weinstein, who was known by many in the film industry to sexually assault those working under him, helped to propagate the idea that sexual assault was to be expected in the film industry and there is nothing one can do about it. Another consideration for Weinstein assaulting women who worked for him is that now that Weinstein will no longer direct any more movies, and if his work was both genius and unduplicatable, then he is depriving us his further artistic talent.
Now, to consider the positive results of Weinstein’s sexual assaults. The open criticization of such a powerful man is a strong message in combating sexual violence, as it demonstrates that those previously thought untouchable can be held accountable for sexually assaulting others. Another consideration is that Weinstein’s actions may have been necessary for the #metoo movement to gain traction, and that this movement will lead to a reduction in the number of people sexually assaulted.
An act utilitarian would then argue that if the positive results of Weinstein sexually assaulting women outweighed the negative results of him doing so, then Weinstein sexually assaulting those women was morally right as it produced a better outcome than him not doing so.
One argument proposed against utilitarianism by Timmons is that utilitarianism would demand medical sacrifice. Suppose a physician is attending to a patient in the hospital who she knows to be in good health. Also under her care are three very sick patients who would live if given organ transplants from the health one. If these sick patients would be unable to get an organ from any other source, this transplant have a high likelihood in succeeding, and there being very little chance that anyone discovers the physician’s actions, then the physician should kill the one patient to save the three others (Timmons 144). Timmons argues that this example demonstrates that utilitarianism leads to obviously incorrect moral conclusions, but I believe that a utilitarian may not necessarily have to demand medical sacrifice.
Given the same medical sacrifice scenario, the physician should not take the life of her healthy patient because the difference between her killing the healthy patient and the sick patients dying is relevant. If one killing is worse than three deaths, then it seems that the physician should not kill her healthy patient. Timmons may counter with a scenario where the other three patients are hurt from murder attempts, and if they were to die then there would be three deaths from killings, so the physician should kill the one healthy patient to stop three killings. However, the role of the physician is to not cause the loss of life and honor her patients. Not fulfilling this role is worse than allowing three patients to die from killings, so the physician should not perform medical sacrifice.
Phil 345, Prompt 3B, Word Count: 692
William’s idea of integrity is one in which an agent is not expected to violate certain commitments. These commitments are certain projects the agent has which are very important to them (Williams 116). A commitment may be based on any important moral project as long as the agent builds their life around it and cannot just discard it. Williams believes that if an agent is expected to violate their own project, then it alienates them from their actions and convictions in a meaningful way (Williams 116). This idea is important because Williams sees preserving these commitments as being in direct conflict with utilitarianism. He argues that utilitarianism makes integrity unintelligible, as it cuts out the idea that each of us are responsible for our own actions (Williams 99). This is because under the utilitarianism framework, agents have an unlimited responsibility to act such that the best overall output is formed, which would lead projects of others to make one break one’s own commitments (Williams 116). So, for one to truly have integrity, Williams argues, an agent should be expected to make choices that safeguard their commitments which are central to them as a person, even if doing so indirectly leads to far more suffering than would have happened had the agent acted against their commitment. This idea of integrity has broad reaching applications, some of which Wicclair explores in his paper on conscientious objection in medicine.
Wicclair argues that the best justification for conscientious objection, or refusing to perform a duty associated with one’s role, is respect for moral integrity. When one cannot fulfill their duty in good conscience, Wicclair argues, it then follows not only that they believe the action to be unethical, but that completing their duty would violate part of their moral conscience (Wicclair 213). Wicclair believes that for moral integrity to be at stake, an agent:
Must have core ethical values
These core ethical values are part of the agent’s understanding of who they are
It would be incompatible with these core ethical values to fulfill their duty
Wicclair believes that acting contrary to one’s core ethical values is a form of self-betrayal, and may lead the agent to a significant loss of self respect, so if the previous three conditions are satisfied, the agent should be able to conscientiously object to their duty (Wicclair 214). I will argue that Wicclair’s conscientious objection is flawed because it does not clearly extend from William’s views on integrity and is not tolerant.
Consider the case of Jack Phillips, a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Wicclair’s understanding of conscientious based objections would allow the baker to not bake the cake as long as:
The baker has a set of core ethical values
These core ethical values are part of the baker’s understanding of who they are
It would be incompatible with these core ethical values to bake a cake for a gay marriage
Wicclair would argue that the baker should be able to object to baking the cake to respect the baker’s moral integrity. However, I will argue that in cases like these where a conscience based objection damages another agent’s integrity, it shouldn’t be permitted. There is no clear reason to respect the integrity of the baker over the integrity of the gay men who want to buy a wedding cake. Wicclair would defend the conscience based objection of the baker by arguing that it is necessary to respect their integrity, but there seems to be no reason to ere on the side of respecting the baker’s integrity while the gay man’s integrity may be subject to a deeper violation by doing so.
A second objection to Wicclair’s argument which extends from my first is that moral integrity is not a tolerant bases for conscience based objections. If one must marginalize other groups and disrupt their integrity just to respect the moral integrity of another’s conscience based objection, then conscience based objections seem to not accurately serve the foundations that they are built upon.
Wicclair should give up conscience based objections because they are founded on integrity but often serve to disrupt it instead.