Nonconsequentialists like ross believe that

1. 3.1 Outline the major assumption of the act nonconsequentialist theories

Just as utilitarianism falls into two categories (act and rule), so too do nonconsequentialist theories. Remember, however, that the main difference between act and rule utilitarianism and act and rule nonconsequentialism is that the former are based on consequences, whereas the latter are not. Nevertheless, some of the problems and disadvantages of the theories are similar, as we shall see.

Act nonconsequentialists make the major assumption that there are no general moral rules or theories at all, but only particular actions, situations, and people about which we cannot generalize. Accordingly, one must approach each situation individually as one of a kind and somehow decide what is the right action to take in that situation. It is the “how we decide” in this theory that is most interesting. Decisions for the act nonconsequentialist are “intuitionistic.” That is, what a person decides in a particular situation, because he or she cannot use any rules or standards, is based upon what he or she believes or feels or intuits to be the right action to take. This type of theory, then, is highly individualistic—individuals must decide what they feel is the right thing to do, and then do it. They are not concerned with consequences—and certainly not with the consequences of other situations, or with people not immediately involved in this particular situation—but they must do what they feel is right given this particular situation and the people involved in it.

This theory is characterized by two popular slogans of the 1960s: If it feels good—do it and Do your own thing. It also has a more traditional basis in intuitionistic, emotive, and noncognitive theories of morality. What these theories seem to stress is that morality in thought, language, and deed is not based upon reason. Some of these theories even suggest that morality cannot be rationalized because it isn’t based upon reason in the same way as scientific experimentation and factual statements about reality are.

The “emotive theory,” for example, states that ethical words and sentences really do only two things:

1. Express people’s feelings and attitudes

2. Evoke or generate certain feelings and attitudes in others

Journal: Moral Decisions in Act Nonconsequentalist Theory

The act nonconsequentialist theory allows one greater freedom in making moral decisions than other theories because it leaves moral decisions completely up to each individual’s own feelings. How free do you think individuals should be in their moral decision-making? Do you think this theory appeals to you and to what extent?

3.1.1: Intuitionism
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
In Right and Reason, Austin Fagothey (1901–1975) lists some general reasons for accepting or rejecting intuition as a basis for morality.1 The general reasons supporting moral intuitionism include the following:

1. Any well-meaning person seems to have an immediate sense of right and wrong

2. Human beings had moral ideas and convictions long before philosophers created ethics as a formal study

3. Our reasoning upon moral matters usually is used to confirm our more direct perceptions or “intuitions”

4. Our reasoning can go wrong in relation to moral issues as well as others, and then we must fall back upon our moral insights and intuitions. Thus these arguments present intuition as a higher form of reasoning indicating humans have deep moral insights which have values in themselves.

Arguments Against Intuitionism
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
There are at least four strong arguments against moral intuitionism. First, some people have described intuition as “hunches,” “wild guesses,” “irrational inspirations,” and “clairvoyance,” among other meanings lacking in scientific and philosophical respectability. It is, in short, difficult to define intuition, and it is more difficult still to prove its existence. Second, there is no proof that we have any inborn, or innate, set of moral rules with which we can compare our acts to see whether or not they are moral. Third, intuition is immune to objective criticism because it applies only to its possessor and because intuitions differ from one person to the next. Fourth, human beings who do not possess moral intuitions either have no ethics or have to establish their ethics on other grounds.

Journal: Role of Emotions in a Moral System

Analyze whether emotions or feelings play an important role in a moral system. How do they relate to morality?

Submit

3.1.2: Criticisms of Act Nonconsequentialism
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The greatest problem for act nonconsequentialism would seem to be the third argument listed in the foregoing paragraph, for if intuitions differ from person to person, how can conflicts between opposing intuitions be resolved? All we can say is that we disagree with another person’s intuitions; we have no logical basis for saying, “Your intuition is wrong, whereas mine is right.” Intuitions simply cannot be arbitrated, as reasons and judgments of evidence can; therefore, any theory of morality based upon intuitions alone, such as act nonconsequentialism, is highly questionable.

Other criticisms of act nonconsequentialism are these:

1. How do we know that what we intuit—with nothing else to guide us—will be morally correct?

2. How can we know when we have sufficient facts to make a moral decision?

3. With morality so highly individualized, how can we be sure we are doing the best thing for anyone else involved in the situation?

4. Can we really rely upon nothing more than our momentary intuitions to help us make our moral decisions?

5. How will we be able to justify our actions except by saying, “Well, I had an intuition that it was the right thing for me to do”?

It would seem to be very difficult to establish a morality of any social applicability here because anyone’s intuitions can justify any action he or she might take. An angry person might kill the one who made him angry and then justify the murder by saying, “I had an intuition that I should kill her.” But how do we arbitrate the conflict between the killer’s intuition and the intense feeling of the victim’s family and friends that the act was wrong? This is moral relativism of the highest degree, and absolutely no settlement is possible when the only things we have to go on are the intuitions of a given individual at a particular time.

Another criticism of act nonconsequentialism, similar to the criticism of act utilitarianism, focuses on the questionable assumption that all situations and people are completely different, with none of them having anything in common.

There are, of course, some highly unique situations for which no rules can be set up in advance, but there are many other situations containing enough similarities so that rules, perhaps with some appended exceptions or qualifications, can be stated quite effectively. For example, all situations in which someone is murdered have at least the similarity of there being a killer and a victim; because human life is considered to be essentially valuable in itself, rules governing when killing is or is not justified are not difficult to set up. Our legal system, with its different degree charges of murder and manslaughter, is a good example of rules fraught with moral import. These generally work quite satisfactorily by condemning immoral acts while at the same time recognizing extenuating circumstances, thereby attaining a significant degree of justice and fairness for all concerned.