1. Principle-based ethics

2.  Ethicaljudgments must
apply to everyone in the
same way.
• Ex. It is wrong for everyone
to kill an innocent person.
• Ex. It’s always wrong to lie.
• Ex. One ought to live a life
aimed at artistic excellence if
one has the talent, desire,
and opportunities to make
likely the achievement of
such excellence.

3. You say “This is the way you should behave”. But I say: “No, that is
not the way”. You say: “This is right.” But I say: “No, that is wrong
and this is right.” You appeal to experience. I appeal to experience
against you. You appeal to authority: [but] it is not mine. What is
left? If you are strong, you can punish me for behaving my way.
But does that prove anything except that you are stronger than I?
Does it prove the absurd dogma that might makes right? Is the
slavemaster right because he owns the whip*?+ … ”
- MacHiver, 1952
MacHiver says that the golden rule is the one thing that everyone can agree on because it’s
very reasonable: it’s the ethical principle that applies to everybody despite their differences.
Universality – this rule is universal.
(Ex. owning a gun… or authority, as in religious authority or Bentham’s principle of utility.)

4. MacHiver: think about the one who would be affected, how would you feel if you were
them?

5. 1. It is mind-expanding in the
sense that it asks you to
transcend yourself and your
situation and see yourself in the
position of others (MacHiver)
1. Greater likelihood of realizing
the accident/luck of each of our
circumstances. (MacHiver)
2. Greater understanding and
empathy with others
3. Improved moral perception and
reasoning

6. Do all these say the same thing? …No.
 "Avoid doing what you would blame
 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as
others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC –
you do, and keep in mind your own
c. 546 BC)
dislikes.” —Sirach 31:15 (Judaism)
 Never impose on others what you
 "That which is hateful to you, do not do
would not choose for yourself." –
to your fellow. That is the whole Torah;
Confucius (551 BC – c. 479 BC)
the rest is the explanation" – Hillel,
Talmud, Shabbat 31a (Judaism)
 Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful. –
 “And as ye would that men should do to
Udanavarga 5:18 (Buddhism)
you, do ye also to them likewise.” –
Jesus (Luke 6:31)
 One should never do that to another
which one regards as injurious to one’s
 “None of you *truly+ believes until he
own self. This, in brief, is the rule of
wishes for his brother what he wishes
dharma. Other behavior is due to
for himself.” – Muhammad (An-
selfish desires. — Brihaspati,
Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)
Mahabharata (Hinduism)

7. MacHiver
1. The Golden rule functions as a validation
principle for all moral principles and values.
These must be compatible with it.
1. It doesn’t tell us what to do about all of our
ethical problems. We will still sometimes
disagree.
2. Its greatest ethical contribution is to the
spirit of how we should treat others – as
having interests as valuable as our own.
Ex. the abortion debate…
Is this something that I’d wish on others & would like others to wish unto myself…? (huh?)

8.  Literal compliance with the golden rule would
sometimes be absurd, wrong, or impossible.
This is why people rarely use it.
 We’re not after just doing what we would want
to do in another’s place, but rather doing what
we would regard as fair, just, right, or
reasonable in another’s person’s place.
 Deciding when the golden rule is appropriate
Archbishop Richard Whately depends on us already having conceptions of
(1787-1863) what is fair, just, right, and reasonable.
*We can’t truly follow the golden rule when 2 people may want 2 different things.
Ex. farmer & landlord

9.  Presents an ethical theory based on the right, rather
than the good – more specifically on having the right
motive
• “the good” = good consequences. The best action to
do is that which would bring about the best
consequences
 “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
even out of it, which can be called good, without
qualification, except a good will.”
• Good will = intention/motivation, the only truly good
thing in the world because intentions are Immanuel Kant
pure/free/the part of the action you can control. We (1724 – 1804)
can’t control the consequences.

10.  Sparky doesn’t care if other cats are
hungry. He operates by instinct –
mainly to eat and avoid punishment
 Humans have reasons that take us
beyond instinct. I can go on a
hunger strike to protest injustice
and resist my instincts.
 This freedom – the ability to choose
to act from principles is what gives
me dignity – what makes me worthy
of respect.

11. “What is the morally right motive?”
 Good Will = the morally right motive
 Central ideas:
• The only intrinsic good is the good
will
• The good will is one that acts out of a
sense of duty to do the right thing
• Duty is action in accordance with the
moral law/ a universal principle

12.  Actions contrary to duty not allowed
 Actions in accordance with duty but
motivated by inclination don’t have any
moral worth.
 An action that is done from duty and
against inclination, has more moral
worth, than the same action done from
duty with inclination.
Ex. 2 people drowning, one who you don’t like, the other who’s your friend. Kant’s
POV: the right thing to do would be to save the one you don’t like because it would
require more action against inclination (?) – that’s BS.

13.  Right actions follow from the right principles.
 How do we know if our moral principle is a good one?
 Hypothetical imperatives are conditional on something: If I
don’t (?) mind going to prison, I’ll stop performing surgery
without a license
 All moral rules must rest on a categorical imperative
 Kant’s POV: moral principles don’t work in terms of hypothetical
imperatives, but categorical imperatives
To find out whether a moral principle is ok to act from, you
check if it is compatible with The Categorical Imperative (CI)

14. 2nd formulation: “Never treat a person merely as a means to  “don’t use
an end, but always treat them as an end in themselves” people”
1st formulation: “Act only according to that maxim that you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.” (a rule that applies to everybody)
Step 1: Formulate a sincere & rational maxim (a subjective principle of
action that states what you propose to do, and why)
(Ex: Make false promises whenever you want/whenever it suits you, or steal from
the bookstore whenever you go in, if you can get away with it.)
Step 2: Universalize the maxim to everyone, past, present and future.
(everyone, as if by a law of nature, does A in C in order to achieve E)
(Ex: Everybody can then lie or break promises/steal from the bookstore if they want to.)
Step 3: Imagine the social world that would result from conjoining all the laws
of physics, psychology, sociology, etc. with the law you made in Step 2.
(Ex: Imagine the world as you know it with the maxim.)

15. Step 4: test the maxim
(Ex: Would you then be able to use this?
Would you be able to lie/steal whenever you want to?)
 The contradiction in Conception test – In the imagined world of step
3 would it be possible to achieve your end by means of the action
you proposed in step 1?
(Ex: No. Nobody would be trustworthy, there’d be no such thing as promises;
there’d be nothing left in the bookstore & it would close.)
What makes it bad is that it’s irrational & contradictory.
 The Contradiction in the Will test - Could I consistently will that
this world (in 3) actually exist?
(Ex: Is this the sort of world you can rationally/would really want to live in?
No. You need to be able to trust people in life.)
If a maxim for an action fails either test, you have a duty NOT to act on it!

16. PERFECT DUTIES IMPERFECT DUTIES
 Perfect Duties are duties that  Imperfect Duties are duties that
we are all obligated to meet we should sometimes fulfill, but
every time are not required to do all the time.
• e.g. do not kill innocent people • e.g. be charitable
• e.g. keep all of your promises • e.g. cultivate yourself
Kant’s POV:
• How are you supposed to get all these ethics/maxims in one world?
• Happiness doesn’t fit here.

17. WHAT KANTIANISM ADDS PROBLEMS WITH THE GOLDEN RULE
1. Literal compliance with the golden
rule would sometimes be absurd,
 A foundation in reason (rather than wrong, or impossible.
faith) for morality
2. Deciding when the golden rule is
 The golden rule is very ambiguous, appropriate depends on us already
Kant offers a specific methodology having conceptions of what is fair,
for a first principle of morality just, right, and reasonable
- Archbishop Whatley
The Categorical Imperative offers the answer whereas the golden rule doesn’t. For example,
the trolley problem. The golden rule says that it’s wrong to sacrifice...? A maxim saying that
it’s okay to sacrifice 1 person for the lives of others doesn’t stand up to the categorical
imperative. Would you want to live in a world where at any moment you can be grabbed &
sacrificed? We still need notions of things like justice & the golden rule doesn’t provide that.

18. 1. The system is too absolutist and inflexible
2. Some maxims which seem to be ok, fail the CI test.
3. Other maxims which seem to be objectionable, pass the CI test.

19. 4. Usually universalizing bad maxims does not lead to
contradiction or inconsistency, but to a really bad situation.
5. Universalization requires a particular description of the action
I’m considering performing. But maxims based on different
descriptions can give us contradictory answers.
6. Morality should be from the heart, not the head.