Conclusion: Utilitarianism alone does not complete one’s
moral reasoning, in fact in times of war is rendered completely inadequate.
1. There are two components to moral reason: Utilitarianism and Absolutism (52).
a. Utilitarianism is concerned with
what the outcome (of one’s action or inaction) will be, as the first priority
(52).
i. One should try to maximize the
good and benefit to society, and minimize evil (53).
ii. When presented with a problem
where one has to choose between two evils, one chooses the lesser of two evils
(i).
iii. In war, one will do whatever
it takes to defeat the enemy, if the overall outcome will save more people (i).
b.
Absolutism is focused on the action itself, instead of the outcome (52).
i. It is based on a few principles
of moral judgment, which should hold in any situation (54).
ii. For example, one should not murder, kill innocent people (i).
iii. In war, one should never target
civilian populations (i).
2. Utilitarianism calls for actions that are not moral and
cannot be justified (i).
a. Utilitarianism accepts the
notion of total war, whereas absolutism finds this completely immoral and does
not (68).
i. Total war is the type of
aggression where one country uses anything they can do, to break morale or
cripple the enemy. This can include direct attacks on innocent civilian
populations.
b. Absolutism not only finds any
type of murder or torture completely immoral, but states that they are also
unjustifiable (72).
3. Utilitarianism accepts “dirty fighting,” absolutism
demands “clean fighting” (63).
a. Fighting dirty is when someone
directs their aggression at a peripheral target, which indirectly attacks the
proper object itself (63).
b. Clean fighting is directing
one’s aggression and hostility directly at the true object, and the action is
intended for him as a subject and he receive it as a subject (65).
i. For example, the hostility
should strictly apply to him and not the situation, he should be able to
identify his role as the subject (65).
c. Utilitarianism, based on its
definition, accepts dirty fighting if it leads to a greater overall good (i).
i. If one has to torture a
suspected terrorist with the possibility he might give up information that
could save thousands of lives, Utilitarianism allows it (i).
4. Absolutism is strictly a limitation on utilitarian
reasoning, not a substitute for it (56).
a. Absolutism does not mean to
eliminate all type of fighting all together, just prohibit the worst types and
calls to concentrate the fighting on militaries rather than civilians (70).
b. Both moral intuitions together
allow for a complete moral reasoning.
i. The biggest concern for an
absolutist is not to break any of the absolute prohibitions (56).
ii. When a conflict between the
two moral intuitions arises, one must act accordingly to absolutism in order to
be acting morally (i).
iii. Beyond that, an absolutist
can practice utilitarianism and try to maximize good for as many people as
possible, without any moral predicament (56).
I found your outline very helpful and detailed. I am a little uncertain what you mean by “complete moral reasoning” in 4b. Nagel concludes by stating that the moral dilemma cannot always be resolved. Does this then contradict your claim or are you not referring to this? I found your second premise particularly interesting because I did not remember Nagel ever specifically using the term, “total war”, but looking back that is certainly the type of warfare he is addressing. I am still confused about how, if utilitarianism and absolutism have contrasting principles like the ones you mention in your first premise, the two can be used together in moral reasoning.
ReplyDeleteLaura, you are right, I did not explicitly define what I meant by complete moral reasoning. What I was referring to is when intertwined with one another, utilitarianism and absolutism are the best possible combination of moral reasoning. Like Nagel states, there will be situations where neither one offers the best possible solution, but acting based one or the other by itself all of the time will result in immoral actions (e.g. the fire-bombing of civilian populations in Tokyo to end WWII). Although the two are different, Nagel believes that one can stick to the moral principles that absolutism lays out, while being a utilitarian (so long as one does not violate the absolute principles).
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an extremely solid outline that really covered the distinctions between Utilitarianism and Absolutism. Laura already addressed my first issue, so the only thing other thing I could recommend is that in your 3rd premise, where you talk about "dirty fighting" and "clean fighting", you could briefly include a sub-premise on the definition of combatants and noncombatants. You do mention "true object" and "peripheral target", but to condense this premise a little, using Singer's straightforward lingo might help. I feel like the differentiation between targeting the immediate threat (combatants) or a facilitating bystander (non-combatants) really creates the fundamental difference between the two theories of warfare. Otherwise, great outline.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really good outline. I thought premises 2 and 3 were well put together and I agreed with those topics. When I was reading, a point that Nagel made about absolutism stood out to me. He writes, "that certain measures are impermissible no matter what the consequences" (71) talking about absolutism and war. I thought this point could be helpful for either premise 2 or premise 3. It is a point that shows the side of absolutism well, and shows close to a polar opposite of utilitarianism. Good outline, I hope the point I added helps you out.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this outline is very detailed and I liked how you defined all of the terms that you used in each of your arguments. One point that I feel might have been important to address is how absolutism requires that we avoid murder at all costs, not that we prevent it (60). In premise 1b you say that one should not murder and that one should never target civilian populations. This confused me because Nigel says that absolutism does not say that “the worst thing in the world is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” and that if it was the only choice to result to, it could be justifiable (60).
ReplyDeleteAbsolutism confused me so this outline is really helpful. Your fourth premise is the only one that I still have questions on. I think that was confuses me is how absolutism restricts utilitarianism. Are you saying that it restricts some things that utilitarianism allows. I did not understand Nagel's point when he spoke about this. If absolutism helps solve problems that utilitarianism cannot, doesn't that make it an extension of utilitarianism? So in 4ii you stated that one should use absolutism instead of utilitarianism during a conflict between two moral institutions. Is this to be used as a back up if utilitarianism fails or instead of utilitarianism completely?
ReplyDeleteI really like the distinction you made in some of your points, such as in your second premise, where you state utilitarianism would allow for total war, while absolutism would prohibit this. I also appreciate your third premise, where you define the terms “fighting clean,” and “fighting dirty,” and relate this to the principles of absolutism/utilitarianism. As someone mentioned, it may have been helpful to define combatants and noncombatants at this point, to make the point clearer. I am a little confused with the terminology in 3c, where you use the words “suspected terrorist.” What if we knew for a fact this man was a terrorist, he wasn’t merely ‘suspected’? Would this justify his torture any more than if he was merely suspected in absolutism?
ReplyDeleteI really like this argument! I, too, was a little confused about absolutism (I still don't think I have a full grasp of the concept), but this outline definitely helps me understand it a lot more than I did. Honestly, I do agree with Colleen when she says that absolutism seems like an extension of utilitarianism, but I feel like there is such a fine line it would be extremely hard to differentiate between the two, but you did a great job. You basically confirmed what I thought about absolutism and that is that the concept of it is just dumb and doesn't make any sense as to why someone would live by absolutism. The "dirty fighting" example and the "clean fighting" example are really good too, but they should instead be labeled "being smart" and "being dumb." As to why anyone would even like absolutism is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteGreat post though, I have no critiques on your argument; just on the topic in general.