What does the idea of taking 'the point of view of the universe' tell us about ethics? Lazari-Radek and Singer defend objectivism in ethics, and hedonistic utilitarianism, following Henry Sidgwick's lead. They explore how to justify an ethical theory; conflicts of self-interest and universal benevolence; and whether we should discount the future.

Evolutionary accounts of the origins of human morality may lead us to doubt the truth of our moral judgments. Sidgwick tried to vindicate ethics from this kind of external attack. However, he ended The Methods in despair over another problem—an apparent conflict between rational egoism and universal benevolence, which he called the “dualism of practical reason.” Drawing on Sidgwick, we show that one way of defending objectivity in ethics against Sharon Street’s recent evolutionary critique also puts us in a position (...) to support a bold claim: the dualism of practical reason can be resolved in favor of impartiality. (shrink)

Sidgwick's defence of esoteric morality has been heavily criticized, for example in Bernard Williams's condemnation of it as 'Government House utilitarianism.' It is also at odds with the idea of morality defended by Kant, Rawls, Bernard Gert, Brad Hooker, and T.M. Scanlon. Yet it does seem to be an implication of consequentialism that it is sometimes right to do in secret what it would not be right to do openly, or to advocate publicly. We defend Sidgwick on this issue, and (...) show that accepting the possibility of esoteric morality makes it possible to explain why we should accept consequentialism, even while we may feel disapproval towards some of its implications. (shrink)

Utilitarianism may well be the most influential secular ethical theory in the world today. It is also one of the most controversial. It clashes, or is widely thought to clash, with many conventional moral views, and with human rights when they are seen as inviolable. Would it, for example, be right to torture a suspected terrorist in order to prevent an attack that could kill and injure a large number of innocent people? In this Very Short Introduction Peter Singer and (...) Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek provide an authoritative account of the nature of utilitarianism, from its nineteenth-century origins, to its justification and its varieties. Considering how utilitarians can respond to objections that are often regarded as devastating, they explore the utilitarian answer to the question of whether torture can ever be justified. They also discuss what it is that utilitarians should seek to maximize, paying special attention to the classical utilitarian view that only pleasure or happiness is of intrinsic value. Singer and de Lazari-Radek conclude by analysing the continuing importance of utilitarianism in the world, indicating how it is a force for new thinking on contemporary moral challenges like global poverty, the treatment of animals, climate change, reducing the risk of human extinction, end-of-life decisions for terminally-ill patients, and the shift towards assessing the success of government policies in terms of their impact on happiness. ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable. (shrink)

In this article we argue that it is reasonable to believe that normal vertebrate animals can feel pleasure, and that there is sufficient evidence for a capacity for pleasure in some invertebrates. It follows that the pleasures of animals are morally significant. We argue for that in a few steps. First, we explain why philosophers used to concentrate more on pain rather than pleasure in regard to animals. Second, we define the notion of pleasure and show how it implies to (...) non-human animals. Third we discuss whether animals are conscious beings and how they may feel pleasure. It is true that we do not know exactly how pain and pleasure feel to nonhumans, but this is also true for other humans. Even though we can give a detailed verbal description of what we feel, pains and pleasures are subjective and we do not have any certain insight into what another human is feeling. This limitation should not stop us from behaving in a way that takes into account the fact that both we and many nonhuman animals are beings who can suffer and enjoy. (shrink)

In the first two volumes of On What Matters, Derek Parfit argues that three major normative theories – Kantianism, Contractualism and Rule Consequentialism – are, in their most defensible forms, compatible, and can be reconciled in what he calls ‘Triple Theory’. This has led many to assume that Parfit does not believe that Act Consequentialism is a defensible form of Consequentialism. We draw on correspondence with Parfit to show that this assumption is incorrect. We then consider Parfit's efforts, in the (...) third volume of On What Matters, to narrow the differences between Act Consequentialism and the triple theory, in part by treating impartial rationality as an external rival to morality, in much the same way that egoism is an external rival to morality. We argue that Parfit's attempts to bridge the gap between Act Consequentialism and Triple Theory meet with only limited success. (shrink)

Searching for a rational method of moral reasoning, Henry Sidgwick concludes that practical reason is inconsistent and sometimes directs us to actions that are contradictory. Our ultimate duty is in fact to achieve both our own, particular happiness and the happiness at all. We have duties both of a selfish and of a utilitarian nature. In a situation of conflict, when for the public good we must sacrifice our own interests, reason is not able to indicate to us what course (...) of action should be followed. Finally, we must admit that we cannot entirely rationalize our moral choices. The so-called problem of the dualism of practical reason has been and is discussed by many eminent philosophers, including Roger Crisp, John Skorupskiego and Derek Parfit. This paper is an attempt to highlight the considerations of Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason, the sources of dualism and the contemporary reception of this extremely serious problem for ethics. (shrink)

Pandemia Covid-19 poddała próbie poglądy bioetyków na temat alokacji ograniczonych zasobów opieki zdrowotnej. Rozważamy stanowiska zajmowane przez organizacje medyczne i krajowe rady etyki we Włoszech, Hiszpanii, Wielkiej Brytanii, Niemczech i Szwecji. W kilku wypowiedziach tych organów pojęcie godności ludzkiej odgrywa kluczową rolę. Twierdzimy, że użycie tego pojęcia nie pomaga w debacie etycznej. Bronimy poglądu, że decyzje dotyczące alokacji ograniczonych zasobów powinny być podejmowane na podstawie zasady maksymalizacji korzyści netto dla dotkniętych nimi osób. Kończymy pytaniem, czy fakt, że w niektórych regionach, (...) po szczepieniu, które stały się powszechnie dostępne, niedobór łóżek szpitalnych był w dużej mierze spowodowany przez członków społeczności, którzy zdecydowali się nie szczepić przeciwko wirusowi wywołującemu Covid-19, powinien odgrywać rolę w przydzielanie zasobów niezaszczepionym osobom, które później zachorowały na ten wirus. (shrink)

Utylitarysta hedonista twierdzi, że jego moralnym obowiązkiem jest bezstronne maksymalizowanie przyjemności dla możliwie jak największej liczby istot zdolnych do jej odczuwania. Czym jednak jest owa przyjemność? Henry Sidgwick, filozoficznie najbardziej skrupulatny z hedonistów, definiuje przyjemność jako „pożą dany stan świadomości”. W pierwszej częś ci artykułu przyjrzę się szczegółowo temu, co Sidgwick miał do powiedzenia w kwestii przyjemności. W części drugiej przedstawię niektóre najnowsze wnioski badań empirycznych i zastanowię się, jaki wpływ mogą one mieć na definiowanie przyjemności przez Sidgwicka. Czy pragnienie (...) zawsze towarzyszyć musi przyjemności? Czy świadomość jest koniecznym warunkiem do jej zaistnienia? Czy można porównywać ze sobą przyjemności i cierpienia? Wnioski skłonią mnie do postawienia pytania wyjściowego do kolejnych rozważań o możliwość użycia badań naukowych w dyskusjach filozoficznych. (shrink)

W artykule przedstawiono postać Henry Sidgwicka oraz główne założenia i recepcję jego najważniejszego dzieła The Methods of Ethics. Myśl Sidgwicka, w Polsce znana marginalnie, wpłynęła na współczesną dyskusję filozoficzną w większym stopniu niż teorie Benthama czy Milla i to nie tylko w obrębie utylitaryzmu i konsekwencjalizmu, ale również teorii umowy społecznej czy etyki cnoty. Kwestie moralne, które Sidgwick omawiał w The Methods, w dużym stopniu wynikły z obecnego w historycznych i społecznych realiach wiktoriańskich kryzysu powstałego na tle konfliktu wiary i (...) rozumu. Myśl Sidgwicka zrodziła się z dwu bodaj najbardziej charakterystycznych symptomów owego okresu: zainteresowania nauką i wiary w postęp oraz sceptycyzmu w stosunku do religii. Zarówno w swym wielkim dziele jak i w życiu osobistym Sidgwick dowiódł, iż rzeczą podstawowej wagi było dla niego poszukiwanie prawdy. Świadectwem jego oddania prawdzie było to, że po racjonalnym dojściu do konkluzji sprzecznych z jego utylitarystycznymi „preferencjami”, uznał, iż istnieją dwie ostateczne, nie dające się ze sobą pogodzić zasady moralne — utylitarystyczna zasada życzliwości oraz egoistyczna zasada roztropności. (shrink)

This is a short review of Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer's book The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics.

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer have recently provided an evolutionary argument for utilitarianism. They argue that most of our deontological beliefs were shaped by evolution, from which they conclude that these beliefs are unjustified. By contrast, they maintain that the utilitarian belief that everyone’s well-being matters equally is immune to such debunking arguments because it wasn’t similarly influenced. However, Guy Kahane remarks that this belief lacks substantial content unless it is paired with an account of well-being, and (...) he adds that utilitarian beliefs about wellbeing—e.g. the belief that pleasure is good and pain is bad—were probably shaped by evolution. Logically, de Lazari-Radek and Singer should therefore reject these beliefs along with the deontological beliefs that evolved. The present paper is a defense of their argument. After considering a number of unsuccessful replies to Kahane’s objection, I put forward a more promising solution: de Lazari-Radek and Singer should combine their objectivist view in metaethics with a subjectivist account of well-being, such as the desire theory. Such a hybrid account would tackle Kahane’s challenge because subjective accounts of value are immune from evolutionary debunking arguments. And it would be compatible with utilitarianism, which doesn’t fit very well with metaethical subjectivism. Before concluding, I deal with two concerns that this solution might raise: I argue that the desire theory is actually subjective enough to escape Kahane’s objection, and I deny that retreating to the combination of ethical objectivism and prudential subjectivism is ad hoc. (shrink)

This article responds to an argument from Katarzyna de Ladari-Radek and Peter Singer in their article, "The Objectivity of Ethics and the Unity of Practical Reason.".

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer argue that evolutionary considerations can resolve Sidgwick’s dualism of practical reason because such considerations debunk moral views that give weight to self-interested or partial considerations but cannot threaten the principle of universal benevolence. I argue that even if we grant these claims, this appeal to evolution is ultimately self-defeating. De Lazari-Radek and Singer face a dilemma. Either their evolutionary argument against partial morality succeeds, but then we need to also give up (...) our conviction that suffering is bad; or there is a way to defend this conviction, but then their argument against partiality fails. Utilitarians, I suggest, should resist the temptation to appeal to evolutionary debunking arguments. (shrink)

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer’s wonderful book, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, contains a wealth of intriguing arguments and compelling ideas. The present paper focuses on areas of continuing dispute. The paper first attacks LazariRadek’s and Singer’s evolutionary debunking arguments against both egoism and parts of common-sense morality. The paper then addresses their discussion of the role of rules in utilitarianism. De Lazari-Radek and Singer concede that rules should constitute our (...) moral decision procedure and our public morality. This paper argues that, if no one should be blamed for complying with the optimal decision procedure and optimal public rules, there are strong reasons to accept that these same rules determine what is morally permissible from what is morally wrong. (shrink)

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer’s wonderful book, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, contains a wealth of intriguing arguments and compelling ideas. The present paper focuses on areas of continuing dispute. The paper first attacks LazariRadek’s and Singer’s evolutionary debunking arguments against both egoism and parts of common-sense morality. The paper then addresses their discussion of the role of rules in utilitarianism. De Lazari-Radek and Singer concede that rules should constitute our (...) moral decision procedure and our public morality. This paper argues that, if no one should be blamed for complying with the optimal decision procedure and optimal public rules, there are strong reasons to accept that these same rules determine what is morally permissible from what is morally wrong. (shrink)

Avant avoir été accusée de lèse majesté (trahison) Kaneko Fumiko (1903-1926) avait fait cause commune avec les nihilistes coréens au Japon. À partir de ce moment, comme son amant et co-accusé coréen, elle critiquait les abus coloniaux des japonais. Il est facile de comprendre pourquoi sa position politique a souvent été comprise comme un simple effet secondaire de dévouement « pour son homme ». Comment expliquer autrement le martyr d’une Japonaise pour un homme et pour la Corée, sinon par référence (...) à sa fémininité? Kaneko n’a pas été écoutée et cette non-écoute constitue une sorte de « colonisation » de sa position. (shrink)

The article interprets Plutarch's dualism in the light of the Apollo-Dionysus opposition as presented in "De E" 388e-389c, arguing that Plutarch is no dualist in the strict sense of the word. A comparison of "De E" 393f-394a with "De Iside" 369b-d shows that it is only in the sublunary realm of Nature that Plutarch assumes a duality of two distinct Powers; at the higher levels of reality the divine is unified and harmonious. If Plutarch fails to emphasize this point clearly (...) enough, it is because his primary philosophical interests were ethical, not metaphysical. (shrink)

During the last 100 years, several interpretations of the Thesmophoria have been advanced. Following the typology of H.S. Versnel, we can classify these interpretations as substantive, functionalist and cosmological. The three approaches can be seen as comple­mentary, but in practice they are hardly ever pursued simultaneously. This article examines how they fit together. In particular, it re-examines the subject of fertility, asking how it fits in with the wider social and ideological issues to which Detienne and others have drawn attention (...) and which, to our mind, have little connection with agriculture or human repro­duction. As a response this paper offers a synthetic interpretation that places fertility in a wider cosmological context and shows it as interconnected with all the other levels of the festival.Plusieurs interprétations des Thesmophories ont été proposées depuis un siècle. En suivant la typologie d’H.S. Versnel, on peut les qualifier de substantives, de fonctionnalistes et de cosmologiques. Les trois approches peuvent être complémentaires, mais, en pratique, elles sont difficilement assumées en même temps. L’article examine la manière dont elles fonctionnent ensemble. Il reprend en particulier le thème de la fertilité, en posant la question de savoir comment il s’insère dans les thèmes sociologiques et idéologiques plus larges sur lesquels Detienne et d’autres ont attiré l’attention et qui, dans notre esprit, ont peu de rapport avec l’agriculture et la reproduction humaine. En réponse à ce problème, on offre une interprétation synthétique qui situe la fertilité dans un contexte cosmologique plus vaste et en montre les relations avec les autres niveaux de la fête. (shrink)

W wyniku kontaktów polsko-niemieckich na płaszczyźnie kultury, polityki i gospodarki na przestrzeni dziejów pojawiły się w języku polskim liczne wyrazy pochodzenia niemieckiego. We współczesnej polszczyźnie występuje bardzo wiele zapożyczeń niemieckich, z czego większość stanowią rzeczowniki. Najczęściej jednak ich obce pochodzenie nie jest znane przeciętnemu użytkownikowi języka polskiego, gdyż wyrazy te zasymilowały się w polszczyźnie zarówno na płaszczyźnie fonologicznej, graficznej, jak i morfologicznej. Największą grupę rzeczowników pochodzenia niemieckiego stanowią te, w których przypadku zachowane zostało ich pierwotne znaczenie, co wiąże się z (...) faktem, że jako pojęcia i terminy fachowe nie miały w języku polskim swoich odpowiedników, pod wpływem których mogłoby ulec zmianie ich znaczenie. Wśród zapożyczeń znajdują się również takie, których znaczenie całkowicie różni się od pierwotnego znaczenia słowa niemieckiego. Znaczenie zapożyczeń ulegało zawężeniu, gdy dany wyraz pojawiał się w języku polskim nie we wszystkich swych znaczeniach pierwotnych lub też rozszerzeniu, gdy został on zapożyczony zс wszystkimi pierwotnymi znaczeniami i dodatkowo obok nich pojawiło się zupełnie nowe znaczenie. Częstym zjawiskiem jest występowanie równocześnie różnych typów zmian znaczenia wyrazu zapożyczonego, np. zawężenia i przesunięcia lub/i rozszerzenia znaczenia. (shrink)

The state is the means by which the most primeval human problems are solved. It is, an entirety, capable of confronting an opponent in a fierce fight for survival. It is an authoritative, total and sovereign entity, having at its disposal the power to set out measures, to encompass the whole of public life and to make final decisions; it is in such words that this institution was described by Carl Schmitt, who added: should any of these features be missing, (...) the state will cease to exist. Its existence depends on this power, which is necessary to identify the enemy adequately, to defeat it and to make peace. The state is also an answer to those human passions too destructive to be freely unleashed; conceit, envy and aggression. Machiavelli, Hobbes, de Maistre or Hegel, regarded as political thinkers par excellence, had no doubts whatsoever in this respect. Because of their anthropological pessimism, they were all followers of Plato. They knew that the realm of politics is a cave where one should not expect to meet wise men and saints. A hero of politics is enthralled by the play of shadows and echoes and devotes to it his all time and passion. Moved by an exuberant ambition and tempted by the hope of immortal glory, he pursues mirages.The liberals seem not to understand these nooks and crannies of the human psyche and not even to notice them. They reduce the mystery of our multifarious needs to one: lust. The entire wealth of feelings is reduced to the fear of poverty, greed and the want of luxury. They claim that all our choices are accompanied by economic motivation. The central character of liberal philosophy is Adam Smith’s homo oeconomicus. The Wealth of Nations is, to them, a priceless source of knowledge regarding everyone’s conduct. The economic way of thinking and the methods of eliminating tensions derived from the capitalist economy should, to them, provide a template for the solving of conflicts in other areas as well, including politics. What becomes important is the scope of power, which raises the highest distrust. It is the largest threat to the value which has been recognised as the most precious: human freedom. (shrink)