Applied Ethics - Class Notes

Applied Ethics

1) Simulated Killing (Normative Ethics)

a) Utilitarianism on simulated killing
- (Bentham – Act Util): “we ought to do what maximises pleasure (happiness) for the
greatest number”
 cannot give a clear yes/no answer to this : we need to balance the pleasure the player
experiences, against the harm (i.e. pain) done to society as a result.

- (Mill – Rule Util): IN THE LONG RUN, will stimulated killing through playing graphic
games or watching violent films lead to a more aggressive society?
 If yes – we should not allow for simulated killing to take place.

- (Preference Util): if the action of stimulated killing is fulfilling for the greatest amount of
pleasure for an individual’s personal interests,
 then stimulated killing is justified.

b) Deontology on stimulated killing
- (Kant): if we frequently witness violence does this lead us to becoming cruel and
indifferent ?
 if we do, it means we can’t treat people as an end in themselves (2 nd CI) – so we’re more
likely to view people as only a means to an end ?

c) Virtue Ethics (character-based theory – what you are) on stimulated killing
- Most easy theory to oppose playing stimulated violent games with because we develop
virtues by performing virtuous acts – so we inhibit moral development by playing them
 … but we aren’t performing unjust acts > just simulations of them + so it’s still an
empirical question as to whether performing simulated unjust acts leads to developing
vices of injustice

2) Simulated killing (Meta Ethics – meaning of moral language)

a) Naturalism (moral realism)
- (Naturalist): realist theory; there are mind independent moral properties in the form of
natural properties e.g. ‘goodness’ = ‘pleasure’
 SO “simulated killing is wrong” = it’s wrong because it leads to aggression (aggression is
a natural property)

b) Non-Naturalism (moral realism)



1

, - (Intuitionism): realist theory; there are mind independent moral properties e.g.
‘goodness’ = ‘pleasure’ BUT we need to use the ability of our minds to judge self-
evident truths.
 SO “simulated killing is wrong” = its self-evidently true that simulated killing is wrong
(BUT, what if it’s not self-evidently true)

c) Emotivism (moral anti-realism)
- (Emotivist): anti-realist theory; there are no mind independent moral properties. Moral
statements are just expressions approval or disapproval (i.e. ‘boo’ or ‘hurrah’)
 SO “simulated killing is wrong” = expressing a feeling of disapproval (i.e. “boo” to
simulated killing)

d) Prescriptivism (moral anti-realism)
- (Prescriptivists): anti-realist theory; there are no mind independent moral properties.
Moral statements are just universal recommendations that we should follow
 SO “simulated killing is wrong” = “no one should kill in a simulation”

e) Error Theory (moral anti-realism)
- (Error theorists): anti-realist theory; there are no mind-independent moral properties.
All moral statements are false because there is no reality for them to refer to.
 SO “simulated killing is wrong” = not actually possible because it is falsely treating
“wrongness” as if it’s a cognitive statement.



3) Lying (Normative Ethics)

a) Utilitarianism on lying
- (Bentham (Act Util): “we ought to do what maximises pleasure (happiness) for the
greatest number”
 SO we should tell lies if it makes more people happy e.g.: Saying ‘You look fantastic!’ to
encourage a very socially anxious but shabbily dressed person to come out with their
friends if they’ll enjoy the occasion.

- (Mill – (Rule Util): We should follow those rules which on average create the greatest
good for the greatest number in the long run
 so if lying does not create the greatest good in the long run, lying is wrong

- (Preference Util): if the action of lying is fulfilling for the greatest amount of pleasure for
an individuals personal interests,
 then lying is justified

b) Deontology on lying

2