Agent Skills: Ethics Skill

Ethics Skill

Master ethical theory: metaethics (nature of morality), normative ethics (what we ought to do), and applied ethics (specific issues).

Structure of Ethics

ETHICAL THEORY
══════════════

METAETHICS
├── What is the nature of moral claims?
├── Are there moral facts?
└── Can we have moral knowledge?

NORMATIVE ETHICS
├── What makes actions right/wrong?
├── Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics
└── General moral principles

APPLIED ETHICS
├── Specific moral issues
├── Bioethics, environmental ethics, business ethics
└── Applying principles to cases

Metaethics

Moral Realism vs. Anti-Realism

Moral Realism:

• There are objective moral facts
• Moral claims are truth-apt
• Some moral beliefs are true

Moral Anti-Realism:

• Error theory: Moral claims are false
• Non-cognitivism: Moral claims aren't truth-apt
• Relativism: Truth relative to culture/individual

Non-Cognitivism

Emotivism (Ayer, Stevenson):

• "X is wrong" = "Boo X!"
• Moral claims express attitudes, not beliefs

Prescriptivism (Hare):

• "X is wrong" = "Don't do X!"
• Moral claims are universal prescriptions

Expressivism (Blackburn, Gibbard):

• Moral claims express non-cognitive states
• But can still be "true" in a deflated sense

Moral Epistemology

Intuitionism: We directly perceive moral truths Rationalism: Moral truths knowable a priori Naturalism: Moral facts = natural facts Constructivism: Moral truths constructed by rational procedures

Normative Ethics

Consequentialism

Core Idea: Actions are right if they produce best outcomes

CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES
═════════════════════════

UTILITARIANISM
├── Maximize happiness/pleasure
├── Bentham: Quantity of pleasure
├── Mill: Quality matters too
└── Hedonistic vs. preference utilitarianism

ACT UTILITARIANISM
├── Each act evaluated by its consequences
└── Problems: demanding, counter-intuitive

RULE UTILITARIANISM
├── Follow rules that maximize utility
└── Handles some objections

CONSEQUENTIALIST FORMULA:
Right action = Action that maximizes good outcomes

Objections:

• Integrity (Williams): Alienates us from our projects
• Justice: Might justify punishing innocents
• Demandingness: Requires constant maximization
• Calculation: Impossible to know all consequences

Deontology

Core Idea: Actions have intrinsic rightness/wrongness regardless of consequences

KANTIAN ETHICS
══════════════

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (CI)
├── Formula of Universal Law
│   └── Act only on maxims you can will as universal laws
├── Formula of Humanity
│   └── Treat humanity never merely as means
└── Formula of Autonomy
    └── Act as if legislating for a kingdom of ends

APPLYING THE CI:
1. Formulate maxim (e.g., "Lie when convenient")
2. Universalize: What if everyone acted this way?
3. If contradiction (logical or practical), action is wrong
4. Lying universalized → No trust → Lying pointless
   ∴ Lying is wrong

Deontological Constraints:

• Some acts wrong regardless of consequences
• Negative duties (don't harm) stronger than positive (help)
• Agent-relative: My killing is worse than allowing death

Virtue Ethics

Core Idea: Focus on character, not acts or rules

VIRTUE ETHICS
═════════════

EUDAIMONIA (Flourishing)
├── The good life; well-being
├── Achieved through virtue
└── Not just feeling good

VIRTUES
├── Character traits that promote flourishing
├── Courage, temperance, justice, wisdom
├── Acquired through habituation
└── Mean between extremes

PHRONESIS (Practical Wisdom)
├── Knowing what virtue requires in situations
├── Cannot be reduced to rules
└── Developed through experience

VIRTUOUS PERSON AS STANDARD:
Right action = What the virtuous person would do

Neo-Aristotelian: MacIntyre, Foot, Hursthouse Challenges: Action guidance, moral disagreement, relativism

Comparison

| Theory | What's Primary | Right Action | |--------|---------------|--------------| | Consequentialism | Good outcomes | Maximizes good | | Deontology | Right acts/duties | Follows rules | | Virtue Ethics | Good character | What virtuous do |

Thought Experiments

Trolley Problems

TROLLEY CASES
═════════════

SWITCH:
Trolley heading to kill 5.
Flip switch → diverts to kill 1.
Most say: Permissible

FOOTBRIDGE:
Trolley heading to kill 5.
Push large man off bridge to stop trolley.
Most say: Impermissible

WHY THE DIFFERENCE?
├── Doing vs. allowing
├── Intended vs. foreseen (Double Effect)
├── Using person as means
└── Physical contact

Experience Machine

Nozick: Would you plug into a machine that simulates perfect happiness?

• Most say no → Pleasure isn't everything
• Authenticity, achievement, reality matter

Violinist

Thomson: You wake up connected to a famous violinist who needs your kidneys.

• Argues: Even if fetus is person, abortion can be permissible
• Your body, your choice

Applied Ethics Topics

Bioethics

• Abortion, euthanasia, genetic enhancement
• Autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice

Environmental Ethics

• Animal rights, climate change, future generations
• Anthropocentrism vs. biocentrism

Social/Political Ethics

• Distributive justice, human rights
• Rawls' veil of ignorance, libertarianism

Key Vocabulary

| Term | Meaning | |------|---------| | Deontology | Duty-based ethics | | Consequentialism | Outcome-based ethics | | Utilitarianism | Maximize happiness | | Virtue | Excellence of character | | Eudaimonia | Flourishing, well-being | | Categorical imperative | Unconditional moral law | | Supererogatory | Beyond duty, praiseworthy | | Prima facie | At first glance, defeasible | | Intrinsic value | Valuable in itself | | Instrumental value | Valuable as means | | Moral realism | Objective moral facts exist |

Integration with Repository

Related Themes

• thoughts/morality/: Ethical explorations
• thoughts/life_meaning/: Good life, flourishing