Applying Theories

Front 1

Utilitarianism - what would Bentham say about lying?

Back 1

Whether a lie could be morally justified would depend on it consequences (using the hedonic calculus)

Front 2

Utilitarianism - what would Mill say about lying?

Back 2

Lying generally causes harm - so we should follow the rule ‘do not lie’ unless we are certain that the person we are lying to will otherwise cause greater harm (e.g., in axe-murderer situation?)

Front 3

Kantian Deontology - what would Kant say about lying?

Back 3

We still cannot know the consequences of our lie - we may inadvertently lead the killer straight to their intended victim... so it is better to do our duty

Front 4

Kantian deontology - what would James Rachels say about lying?

Back 4

We could make the maxim more specific - I.e., only lying when it is necessary to save a life. This carries no inherent contradiction. The killer would only bother asking if he thought you did not know his intentions.

Front 5

Kantian deontology - what would James Rachels say about lying?

Back 5

We could make the maxim more specific - I.e., only lying when it is necessary to save a life. This carries no inherent contradiction. The killer would only bother asking if he thought you did not know his intentions.

Front 6

What would Kantian Deontology say about lying?

Back 6

Lying cannot pass the rest of universalisability and is therefore not morally permissible.

Lying also cannot pass the principle of humanity: it treated the person lied to as a means to an end.

Front 7

What would virtue ethics say about lying?

Back 7

Falsehood has no mean... and therefore must already be an excess/ defiance so is mee et virtuous.

Aristotle suggests that there are better and worse lies to tell ... it is begged to lie to save your reputation than to lie for money.

Ultimately though, the virtuous person will only lie if they have exhausted all other ways of not sharing the truth (I.e., simply being quiet)

Front 8

Utilitarianism - what would Bentham say about simulated killing?

Back 8

As a utilitarian focuses on consequences - the act of playing a violent video game cannot in itself be bad. No I’m is harmed and the player presumably enjoys it.

However, the utilitarian would consider whether there is an increased risk of:

- killing

- aggressive behaviour more generally

- other forms of anti sociable behaviour

- change in gamers’ attitudes to violence in general

Front 9

Utilitarianism - what would Mill say about simulated killing?

Back 9

For Mill, such entertainers may be classed as lower pleasures, which, though still good, are of lower worth. Mill wanted utility not just to be about physical pleasure but:

Utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.

Mill may argue that such pleasures appeal to our baser, animal side and not our progressive, intellectual side. Holding a higher/ lower, qualitative distinction may alter the result of the Utilitarian Calculus.

Front 10

Utilitarianism - what would Mill say about simulated killing?

Back 10

For Mill, such entertainers may be classed as lower pleasures, which, though still good, are of lower worth. Mill wanted utility not just to be about physical pleasure but:

Utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.

Mill may argue that such pleasures appeal to our baser, animal side and not our progressive, intellectual side. Holding a higher/ lower, qualitative distinction may alter the result of the Utilitarian Calculus.

Front 11

Kantian Deontology - what would Kant say about simulated killing?

Back 11

It it clear that simulated killing does not violate any duty not to kill directly (it does not violate 1st or 2nd formulations)

However, if it were found that playing such games damaged ones rationality and led them to make decisions that did violate duties - Kant would object. We must preserve our own rationality as well as that of others.

If treating animals cruelly could lead to treating people cruelly - then surely killing people in a virtual setting could lead us to violent behaviour in the real world.

Kant significantly noted that doctors and butchers could not sit on juries (whilst he was writing) as they were ‘hardened’ to killing. Perhaps he would think excessive playing of violent games could have the same effect.

Front 12

What would virtue ethics say about simulated killing?

Back 12

The cumulative effect of playing games which involved simulated killing nah lead to the development of character traits that are not virtuous, such as injustice and unkindness, or at least inhibit the development of character traits that are virtuous.

Simulated killing is wrong if it prevents the development of virtue, and so prevents the gamer from achieving eudaimonia.

However, as no one is killed - we cannot say tag a viscous act is performed.

Perhaps Aristotle’s would say that those who struggle to distinguish between fiction and reality should play them - but for those who are able to, it would pose a significant threat to their virtue.

Front 13

What does utilitarianism say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 13

There is no tendency for an actor to engage in violent behaviour - as acting is a career, lots of pleasure is gained from it

Front 14

What does utilitarianism say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 14

There is no tendency for an actor to engage in violent behaviour - as acting is a career, lots of pleasure is gained from it

Front 15

What would Kantian ethics say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 15

If there is no evidence for ones rationality being damaged by acting the killer, then it breaks no moral duty

Front 16

What does utilitarianism say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 16

There is no tendency for an actor to engage in violent behaviour - as acting is a career, lots of pleasure is gained from it

Front 17

What would Kantian ethics say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 17

If there is no evidence for ones rationality being damaged by acting the killer, then it breaks no moral duty

Front 18

Would would virtue ethics say about ‘acting’ the killer?

Back 18

Again, if there is no evidence to support ones character being affected by acting the killer, then it seems to be morally praiseworthy.

Front 19

What would all three say about being the audience to simulated killing?

Back 19

The salient issue is whether the audience member is able to distinguish successfully between fiction and reality. If they can, there is arguably nothing wrong with watching violence in a film but they can’t, there could be devastating consequences (utilitarianism) or their character could be damaged (virtue/ Kantian ethics)