Utilitarianism_Pellegrino

(1)

Utilitarianism vs Egalitarianism

Gianfranco Pellegrino

(2)

(3)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

The shallow pond

Assume that I am walking past a shallow pond and see a

child drowning in it. Ought I wade in and pull the child

out? This will mean getting my clothes muddy and being

late.

P. Singer, “Famine, Affluence, Morality”, Philosophy &

(4)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

The shallow pond

Assume that I am walking past a shallow pond and see a

child drowning in it. Ought I wade in and pull the child

out? This will mean getting my clothes muddy and being

late.

(5)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

The shallow pond

Assume that I am walking past a shallow pond and see a

child drowning in it. Ought I wade in and pull the child

out? This will mean getting my clothes muddy and being

late.

I ought….

Because this will produce good consequences – indeed,

this will produce better consequences than not doing it

(or even the best consequences)

(6)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

The saving analogy

As you should save a child in front of you, you should

give to charities able to produce similar savings abroad.

No differences between what you ought to do when

facing a single drowning child, and what you ought to do

when considering the predicament of the poorest in the

world.

(7)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The morally right action or policy is the one promoting

the greatest good – i.e. producing the best consequences,

the greatest happiness for the members of society

Consequentialism gives the right (= the intuitive, the

plausible) answer in The shallow pond case. This makes it

(8)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

A note on language: Kymlicka, 11: consequentialism is the

idea that “something is morally good only if it makes

someone’s life better off ”. Me: consequentialism is this

idea, in its most general form. Utilitarianism is a specific

version of it – where specific claims about whose lives are

to be taken into account and how much good is to be

produced are put forward

(9)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good –

i.e. producing the best consequences

Two parts (cp. Kymlicka, 12):

•  Theory of the right: utility is to be maximized

(10)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good – i.e.

producing the best consequences

Maximization – the good to be promoted should be the greatest

Theories of the good: welfarism (human and non-human

well-being, flourishing, what makes a life worthy of being lived),

preferences and desires (what one desires or prefers; irrational,

adaptive, and nasty preferences; informed and posthumous preferences; interpersonal comparisons; external and selfish preferences), objective list (states, capacities, achievements, objectively good), hedonism (the net balance of pleasures over pains, understood as sensations, Bentham: “pushpin is as good as poetry”, wanted or valuable pains) and mental state-theories (Nozick: the experience machine)

(11)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

The shallow pond and the saving analogy

Assume that I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child

drowning in it. Ought I wade in and pull the child out? This

will mean getting my clothes muddy and being late.

I ought….

Singer: 1. “It makes no moral difference whether the person I

can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali

whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.

[…]”; 2. “no distinction between cases in which I am the only

person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I

am just one among millions in the same position.”

(12)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good –

i.e. producing the best consequences

Maximization

Theories of the good: welfarism, preferences and desires, objective list, hedonism

Impartiality: it does not matter who acts, where the agent and

(13)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianismethical

theories

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good –

i.e. producing the best consequences

Consequentialist theories

•  Egoism: the right action is the one promoting the greatest

(14)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good –

i.e. producing the best consequences

•  Egoism

•  Utilitarianism: the right action is the one promoting the greatest good of the greatest number of people

(15)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Consequentialism

The right action is the one promoting the greatest good –

i.e. producing the best consequences

•  Egoism

•  Utilitarianism: the right action is the one promoting the greatest good of the greatest number of people

Many possible combinations: hedonistic utilitarianism/egoism, preference utilitarianism/egoism, and so on…

(16)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarianism and egalitarianism

Kymlicka, 32-

–  From equal consideration of interests to maximizing

utility: “each person’s life matters equally, from the

moral point of view, and hence their interests should

be given equal consideration”; Bentham: “we count

everyone for one, no one for more than one” – “equal

weight to each person’s preferences, regardless of the

content of the preferences or the material situation of

the person”

(17)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarianism and egalitarianism

Kymlicka, 32-3

–  From equal consideration of interests to maximizing

utility:

•  “people matter, and matter equally; therefore

•  each person’s interests should be given equal weight; therefore

•  morally right acts will maximize utility.”

(18)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarianism and egalitarianism

Kymlicka, 33-4

–  Teleological utilitarianism: the primary goal is to

maximize value, and equal treatment only a

requirement of impartial value maximization

(19)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarianism and egalitarianism

Kymlicka, 35

–  Equality as a constraint on value maximization: Nagel:

“we must qualify our obligation to maximize the good

with the obligation to treat people as equals”

–  To put it otherwise: two goals – utility and equality

–  The attraction of utilitarianism derives from its

attempt to put together equality and utility (Kymlicka,

36)

(20)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

Utilitarianism as a comprehensive theory, utilitarianism as a distributive justice theory applied to the basic structure of society (cp. Kymlicka, 10)

(21)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D2’ A 10 14 15 B 11 11 10 C 13 13 13 34 38 38

•  D2 richer than D1. The best consequences produced in D2, the good maximized in D2

•  No one is losing in moving from D1 to D2 (D2 is Pareto superior to D1). B is losing in moving from D1 to D2’. A’s gain in D2’ is at expense of B. For a while, focus on cases such as D2 – cases where there is inequality but Pareto-superiority, i.e. inequality does not involve sacrifices or trade-offs

(22)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

•  D2 richer than D1. The best consequences produced in D2, the good maximized in D2

•  No one is losing in moving from D1 to D2 (D2 is Pareto superior to D1)

•  But B and C can complain, because A is gaining and this

gain should be equally divided. In ranking D2 over D1, Utilitarianism does not account for those reasonable complaints. Notice that these complaints do not arise from unjustified losses (more on this later).

(23)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D3 D4 A 10 14 (13+1)13 11,33 B 11 11 11.5 12,33 C 13 13 13.5 14,33 38 38 37,99

•  But B and C can complain, because A is gaining and its gain should be equally divided. Equality as reasonable complaints, concerning the relations between levels of resources, well-being and so on (L. Temkin) – equality as non-discrimination, or as fair treatment, and so on

(24)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

•  Equality of outcomes

•  Equality of opportunities •  Equality as equal treatment

(25)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 A 10 14 B 11 11 C 13 13 •  D2 richer than D1

•  No one is losing in moving from D1 to D2 •  D2 less egalitarian than D1

(26)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

D2 less egalitarian than D1

Equality as aggregation of individual distance from a standard –  Equality as distance from the average level: D1: (11,33-10)+(11,33-11)+(13-11,33)=3,33

(27)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

Equality as aggregation of individual distance from a standard –  Equality as distance from the average level: D1: 3,33; D2: 3,34

–  Equality as distance from the best-off D1: (13-10)+(13-11)=4

(28)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

–  Equality as distance from the best-off D1: 4; D2:4!!!

–  Equality as distance from the better-offs D1: (13-11)+ (13-10)+(11-10)=6

(29)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

–  Equality as distance from the better-offs D1: 6; D2: 6!!

(30)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

Equality as aggregation of individual distance from a standard

–  Equality as distance from the average level: D1: 3,33; D2: 3,34

Pure vs. pluralist egalitarianism: D2 better than D1, because slightly more inegalitarian, but much richer (gains in utility can compensate losses in equality)

(31)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2

A 10 14

B 11 11

C 13 13

Equality as aggregation of individual distance from a standard

–  Equality as distance from the average level: D1: 3,33; D2: 3,34

Pure vs pluralist egalitarianism: D2 better than D1, because slightly more inegalitarian, but much richer (gains in utility can compensate losses in equality)

(32)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D5 D6 A 10 30 10 11 B 11 4 10 10 C 13 7 10 10 34/3,33 41/32,66 30/0 31/1,33

Can gains in equality compensate losses in utility?

i. D1>D2 (greater equality) ii. D5>D1 (greater equality) iii. D5>D6 (greater equality)

D5>D6>D1>D2

(33)

(34)

(35)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Can gains in equality compensate losses in utility?

Greater equality

D5>D6>D1>D2

Levelling down!!!

iv. D6>D5 (greater utility) v. D7>D6 (greater utility) vi. D1>D7 (greater utility) vii. D2>D1 (greater utility) D2>D1>D7>D6>D5 D1 D2 D5 D6 D7 A 10 30 10 11 11,5 B 11 4 10 10 12 C 13 7 10 10 10 34/3,33 41/32,66 30/0 31/1,33 33,5/2,34

(36)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D5 D6 A 10 30 10 11 B 11 4 10 10 C 13 7 10 10 34/3,33 41/32,66 30/0 31/1,33

Priority for the worst-off

D1>D2 & D5 & D6 because in D1 the worst-off maximizes his gain – moving from 4 to 11

(37)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D5 D6 A 10 30 10 11 B 11 4 10 10 C 13 7 10 10 34/3,33 41/32,66 30/0 31/1,33

Priority for the worst-off

D1>D2 & D5 & D6 because in D1 the worst-off maximizes his gain – moving from 4 to 11. As D5 is worse than D1, there is no levelling down

(38)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D5 D2’’ A 10 30 10 39 B 11 4 10 4.5 C 13 7 10 7 34/3,33 41/32,66 30/0 50,5/44,33

Absolute Priority for the worst-off

D1>D2 & D5 & D6 because in D1 the worst-off maximizes his gain – moving from 4 to 11. However, if an absolute priority is given to the worst-off, then D2’’ should be ranked over D2. However, D2’’ is much more inegalitarian. This might be controversial.

More complicated principles could be invoked – leximin and

prioritarianism without absolute priority (proposed by D. Parfit). I shall

(39)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D2’ D2’’ D2’’’ A 10 14 15 10 35 B 11 11 10 11 1 C 13 13 13 13 1 D 4 1 34 38 38 38 38

A gains at the expense of B. D2’ is Pareto-inferior to D2 and D1. However, D2’ is richer than D1, and for utilitarians this is enough. Or, to say more, A’s gains are greater than B’s losses. Then, A’s gains compensate B’s losses, overall – and on the aggregate. The same holds for D2’’. On the aggregate, this is a richer society, even though it includes a very poor newborn, D. And the same holds for D2’’’.

(40)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D2’ D2’’ D2’’’ Dn Dz A 10 14 15 10 35 1 0.1 B 11 11 10 11 1 1 0.1 C 13 13 13 13 1 1 0.1 D 4 1 1 0.1 … 1 0.1 … 1 0.1 … 1 0.1 … 0.1 34 38 38 38 38 38 1000 Dn = D2-D2’’

(41)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D2’ D2’’ D2’’’ A 10 14 15 10 35 B 11 11 10 11 1 C 13 13 13 13 1 D 4 1 34 38 38 38 38

The idea that what matters is the overall value, and that the gains of an individual can compensate the losses of other individuals, and this holds also for the aggregated losses, is called in the scholarship aggregation.

(42)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

D1 D2 D2’ D2’’ D2’’’ A 10 14 15 10 35 B 11 11 10 11 1 C 13 13 13 13 1 D 4 1 34 38 38 38 38

According to some, aggregation is illegitimate, as it fails to respect the rights of individuals, i.e. the separateness of persons (cp. Rawls & Nozick)

(43)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Transplant: Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die

without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients. the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the “donor”, and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation).

(44)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Transplant No Transplant P1 80 years 40 P2 80 40 P3 80 40 P4 80 40 P5 80 40 D 40 80 440 280

(45)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Transplant No Transplant Tossing a coin

P1 80 40 20.5 P2 80 40 20.5 P3 80 40 20.5 P4 80 40 20.5 P5 80 40 20.5 D 40 80 20.5 440/66,68 280/66,64 123/0

For utilitarians, Transplant is better than No Transplant.

Egalitarians could claim that it is better tossing a coin. Each person has (40*0.5)+(80*0.5) (cp. J. Taurek). Tossing a coin is better than either

Transplant or No Transplant. But notice that, in so far as inequality is

(46)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Transplant No Transplant Tossing a coin

P1 80 40 20.5 P2 80 40 20.5 P3 80 40 20.5 P4 80 40 20.5 P5 80 40 20.5 D 40 80 20.5 440/66,68 280/66,64 123/0

Egalitarians could claim that it is better tossing a coin. Each person has (40*0.5)+(80*0.5) (cp. J. Taurek). Tossing a coin is better than either

Transplant or No Transplant. Notice also that in Tossing a coin there is a

different distribuendum – chances are equally distributed, whereas in the other two cases life and death is distributed. If the problem

is that D is wrongly treated in Transplant, it is no clear that this wrong treatment can be amended by giving her something different as a compensation.

(47)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Moral options (vs. maximization): it is permissible to fail to

promote the greatest good, provided one do a good enough action. To promote the greatest good is supererogatory, i.e. beyond the call of duty – it is praiseworthy, but not obligatory

(48)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Moral options (vs. maximization)

Moral constraints (vs. maximization): Good cannot be maximized

when maximization leads to harm to the innocent, or violating rights, or trespassing moral constraints

(49)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarian answers

Act- vs. rule-utilitarianism

(50)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Utilitarian answers

Act-utilitarianism: focused on actions (the right action is the one producing the greatest good for the greatest number)

Rule-utilitarianism: focused on rules, i.e. on general pattern of conduct (the right action is the the one meeting the general system of rules compliance with which, and internalization of which, bring about the greatest good for the greatest number)

(51)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

There are moral options and moral constraints. The right action is the one that is not optional and that does not violate moral constraints. The right is independent from the good

(52)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross: a duty of fidelity, that is, a duty to keep our promises;

a duty of reparation or a duty to act to right a previous wrong we have done; a duty of gratitude, or a duty to return services to those from whom we have in the past accepted benefits; a duty to promote a maximum of aggregate good ; and finally a duty of

non-maleficence, or a duty not to harm others

(53)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I. Kant

–  The formula of the universal law of nature: “act only in accordance

with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” -- First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.

(54)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I. Kant

–  The formula of the universal law of nature

–  The humanity formula: we should never act in such a way that we

treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself (respect for persons)

(55)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I. Kant

–  The humanity formula

–  The autonomy formula: Act so that through your maxims you

could be a legislator of universal laws

(56)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I. Kant

–  The autonomy formula

–  The kingdom of ends formula: “act in accordance with the maxims of

a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends” -- our fundamental moral obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in legislating these principles for their community

(57)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I. Kant

–  The autonomy formula

–  The kingdom of ends formula

(58)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

W.D. Ross I.  Kant

Contractualism (T. Scanlon): An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement.

(59)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

Contractualism (T. Scanlon)

Contractarianism: Morally wrong acts are, on such accounts, those acts that would be forbidden by principles that people in a suitably described social contract would accept (e.g., Rawls 1971; Gauthier 1986), or that would be forbidden only by principles that such people could not “reasonably reject” (e.g., Scanlon 2003)

(60)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

Contractualism (T. Scanlon) Contractarianism

Rights theories: rights (not to be killed, not to be harmed, and so on and so forth) are moral side-constraints to action. An action is right iff it is no violation of rights (R. Nozick, Anarchy, State

and Utopia, 1974)

(61)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Normative theories

Focus on good – or the best – consequences

•  Consequentialism

–  Egoism

–  Utilitarianism »  Act-

»  Rule-

Focus on right actions

•  Deontology – moral options and moral constraints

–  Prima facie duties (Ross)

–  Universalization, ends in themselves, and so on (Kant) –  Reasonable rejectability (Scanlon)

(62)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

Trolley Case: A driver is driving a trolley when it becomes

clear that it is headed toward killing five people on one

track and cannot brake. It can only be stopped from

killing the five by the driver redirecting it away from them

onto another track where it will kill one different person,

who is equal in all morally relevant respects

(63)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem: Why is it permissible to kill in the

Trolley’s Driver Two Options Case, but not in Transplant?

(F.M. Kamm)

(64)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology) The Trolley Problem

Double Effect

A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

•  that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least

indifferent;

•  that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;

•  that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;

•  that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil

effect

(65)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Double Effect

It is impermissible to kill in Transplant because the

doctor intends the death of the single person as a

means to saving the five. In the

Trolley

Driver’s Two

Option Case, by contrast, the death of the one is only a

foreseen side effect of turning the trolley.

(66)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Vs. Double Effect

The Gas Case: A doctor can use a gas that will save five

patients, but it is foreseen that the gas will kill one

immovable bystander as a mere side effect

(67)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Vs. Double Effect

The Gas Case

The Bomb Trolley Case: As in the Trolley Case, except than

the driver can set off a bomb that will stop the trolley

from hitting the five, but a piece of the bomb will kill a

bystander as a side effect

(68)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Vs. Double Effect

The Gas Case

The Bomb Trolley Case

The Bad Man Trolley Case: All as in the Trolley Case, but the

driver turns the trolley because he intended to kill the one

person on the other track who is his enemy

(69)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Negative duty not to kill and positive duty not to let

people die: the driver may redirect the trolley because he is

choosing between a negative duty not to kill five people

and a negative duty not to kill one person, and he should

kill fewer rather than a greater number. The doctor is

choosing between letting five die and killing one, and the

negative duty not to kill takes precedence over the positive

duty to aid

(70)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Negative duty not to kill and positive duty not to let

people die

–  Is the driver killing or letting die?

–  Fat Man Case: the driver could stop the trolley from

hitting the five only by pressing a button that causes a

device to topple a fat man standing on a bridge so that

he falls in front of the trolley. His weight could stop

the trolley though he would be killed by it

(71)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Negative duty not to kill and positive duty not to let people die

–  Is the driver killing or letting die?

–  Driver Redirect or Topple Case: the driver could a. set a bomb,

but a piece of the bomb would kill another person as a

side effect, b. press a button to topple the fat man whose

fall is needed to stop the trolley, or c. turning the trolley

from the five people to a track where it will kill two other

people

(72)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Negative duty not to kill and positive duty not to let

people die

–  Is the driver killing or letting die?

–  Bystander Case: the driver is unable to do anything to

stop the trolley, but a bystander can press a switch and

redirect the trolley – thereby killing one rather than

letting five die

(73)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Neuroethics

Surveys: most of people would switch, most of people would not use the toppling device

J. Greene: when switching (and calculating) – in impersonal cases -- prefrontal cortex is active, when refusing to kill the fat man – in close and personal cases (?) – amygdala and other older parts of the brain are active

(74)

Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Problems for Nonconsequentialism (or Deontology)

The Trolley Problem

Neuroethics

Surveys: most of people would switch, most of people would not use the toppling device

J. Greene: dual process (like shooting pictures with a camera): the automated mode, and the manual mode