Demandingness-based objections to utilitarianism and other consequentialist moral theories constitute the most important problem facing moral philosophers today. In this Thesis, I offer an explanation of what makes the demandingness objection compelling, namely, that utilitarianism alienates us from the projects and goals that define us as individual human beings (normally taken to be a separate objection). This suggests that solving the problems demandingness considerations present involves carving out a space for these projects and goals alongside the demands of a consequentialist morality; thus, we have two nearly independent sources of normative reasons, and the real question is how they interact. Various suggestions for answering this question are considered and rejected. I also discuss how Alastair Norcross’ scalar utilitarianism “solves” the demandingness problem, what the costs of this solution are, and how it might be integrated into a theory concerning the aforementioned interaction. / February 2008

I defend Hobbes’ foundation for peace and property. His foundation for peace and property is his major argument for why society’s moral order (i.e. collection of rules of interaction) should be based on the principles of non-interference and exclusive use of material objects. His foundation is that in the absence of both a recognised moral order and government, it would be rational, or felicity maximising, for individuals to agree to a moral order constituted by peace and property. The cogency of his foundation depends on the accuracy of the second of the two steps of his state of nature thought experiment. In the first step, he formulates the state of nature by defining it as a social state of affairs with no government, by arguing that, as a consequence of there being no government, there would be no recognised moral order, and by assuming there would be relievable scarcity. In the second step, he theorises that interactions this anarchic state of affairs would be periodically violent. Also, the second step is informed by his theory of human nature, that is, his theory of the major characteristics common to all humans. Given that his foundation’s cogency is subject to the accuracy of the second step of his state of nature thought experiment and that the second step of his thought experiment is informed by his theory of human nature, my defence of his foundation involves arguments in favour of his theory of human nature, his state of nature, and his foundation. I first contend that the six characteristics that compose his theory of human nature are true. I next argue that the second step of his state of nature thought experiment – his theory that state of nature interactions would be periodically violent – is accurate. Lastly, I argue that his foundation is true, that it would be felicity maximising for individuals to agree to a moral order based on peace and property in the absence of government and a recognised moral order. To make my argument, I construct a hypothetical bargain between individuals in the state of nature where they choose between Hobbes moral order based on peace and property and the sort of moral order most contemporary political philosophers would propose as alternative (e.g. one based on general non-interference and a redistribution requirement) as their improvement over the state of nature. I argue that individuals would choose the former over the latter as their improvement because the former is purely mutually beneficial while the latter is only partly mutually beneficial.

I defend Hobbes’ foundation for peace and property. His foundation for peace and property is his major argument for why society’s moral order (i.e. collection of rules of interaction) should be based on the principles of non-interference and exclusive use of material objects. His foundation is that in the absence of both a recognised moral order and government, it would be rational, or felicity maximising, for individuals to agree to a moral order constituted by peace and property. The cogency of his foundation depends on the accuracy of the second of the two steps of his state of nature thought experiment. In the first step, he formulates the state of nature by defining it as a social state of affairs with no government, by arguing that, as a consequence of there being no government, there would be no recognised moral order, and by assuming there would be relievable scarcity. In the second step, he theorises that interactions this anarchic state of affairs would be periodically violent. Also, the second step is informed by his theory of human nature, that is, his theory of the major characteristics common to all humans. Given that his foundation’s cogency is subject to the accuracy of the second step of his state of nature thought experiment and that the second step of his thought experiment is informed by his theory of human nature, my defence of his foundation involves arguments in favour of his theory of human nature, his state of nature, and his foundation. I first contend that the six characteristics that compose his theory of human nature are true. I next argue that the second step of his state of nature thought experiment – his theory that state of nature interactions would be periodically violent – is accurate. Lastly, I argue that his foundation is true, that it would be felicity maximising for individuals to agree to a moral order based on peace and property in the absence of government and a recognised moral order. To make my argument, I construct a hypothetical bargain between individuals in the state of nature where they choose between Hobbes moral order based on peace and property and the sort of moral order most contemporary political philosophers would propose as alternative (e.g. one based on general non-interference and a redistribution requirement) as their improvement over the state of nature. I argue that individuals would choose the former over the latter as their improvement because the former is purely mutually beneficial while the latter is only partly mutually beneficial.

This study explores the factors that influence how three First Nations educators in the City of Saskatoon define ethics, identify ethical dilemmas, and resolve ethical dilemmas.<p> Using the case-study methodology guided by respectful inquiry with First Nations people, the study sought to identify influential factors affecting the ethical considerations among three Aboriginal educators. The research questions were: 1) How do three Aboriginal educators define ethics? 2) How do the three Aboriginal educators identify an ethical dilemma? 3) What factors do the three Aboriginal educators identify as influencing the resolution of ethical dilemmas? The study sought to identify how the educators perceive ethics, and was not meant to be built on a priori theory of ethics. The reliance on ethical theory beyond what was generated by the participants or through relevant and related studies was carefully selected so as not to impede the expression of the understandings of the participants and the interpretations and understandings of the researcher and readers.<p> The study found that the participants identified their definitions, instances, and resolution of ethical dilemmas as reflecting the experiences of the participants. Their histories are a part of the diversity of First Nations people, and it is their stories that illustrate the ethical frameworks of the participants. The study participants reported a connection to their First Nations cultures from which they drew. Their influential experiences, though, have diminished a concrete connection to their First Nations cultures. They maintain a sense of belonging to an Aboriginal collective, and it is this membership that frequently defines their ethical dilemmas.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 100 years after his death, remains a controversial figure in philosophy. Much of this controversy stems from Nietzsche's view of truth, which seems superficially hopelessly contradictory, vacillating between relativism and denial of truth on the one hand, and praise for science and hard truths on the other. Thus, any person wanting to defend Nietzsche's positive philosophy must first make sense of his epistemology. The solution to this puzzle regarding Nietzsche's theory of truth is the realization that Nietzsche changes his view on truth. Much like Wittgenstien, Nietzsche had an early and a late period in his epistemic views, and a middle period where he is struggling with two very different, incompatible views. The late view of truth is surprisingly straightforward: Nietzsche can be seen as an early pragmatist. Once we have a coherent truth theory, we can then start to conclude some of the more contentious arguments in Nietzsche's philosophy, such as: what is the Will to Power, and how does Nietzsche's view of truth interact with his criticism of morality? This thesis will trace the development of the former and endeavor to answer some of the latter.

Die grundlegende Annahme der Arbeit lautet, dass nicht, wie bei der Mehrzahl der Konzepte in der Wirtschaftsethik angenommen, ein fundamentalen Antagonismus zwischen ökonomischer Rationalität und Moral existiert, sondern, dass Ethik und Ökonomik zwei Systeme sind, die zwar unterschiedliche Codes aufweisen, sich jedoch ineinander übersetzen lassen. Auf der wissenschaftstheoretischen Basis des Kritischen Rationalismus und einer nonkognitivistischen Ethik-Konzeption werden folgende Thesen herausgearbeitet: Erstens: (&amp;quot;Starke&amp;quot; These): Moralisch erwünschtes Handeln resultiert allein aus Handeln gemäß ökonomischer Rationalität. Zweitens: (&amp;quot;Schwache&amp;quot; These): Lässt sich die erste These nicht oder nicht durchgehend nachweisen, so ist, neben ökonomischer Rationalität, lediglich eine Norm, nämlich die der Ausgangsgleichheit aller Menschen, erforderlich, um moralisch erwünschtes Handeln zu implementieren. Mit Hilfe von Erkenntnissen der Evolutionsbiologie und Analyseinstrumenten der Ökonomik, wie beispielsweise der Principal-Agent-Theorie, gelangt der Verfasser zu folgenden Ergebnissen: Unter idealen Bedingungen benötigt Moral im Ergebnis keine Moral in der Intention, um implementiert werden zu können - ausreichend ist allein die ökonomische Rationalität. Unter realen Bedingungen liefert die Ökonomie alle notwendigen Instrumente, um die ökonomische Rationalität so zu transformieren, dass moralisch wünschenswerte Ergebnisse erreicht werden. Nur wenn diese Instrumente versagen, benötigt Moral im Ergebnis zusätzlich die Gleichheitsnorm, um implementiert werden zu können.

When facing a dilemma about what to do, rational agents will often encounter a conflict between what they ought to do, morally speaking, and what they most want to do. Traditionally we think that when there is a moral imperative for an agent to do something, even if she does not want to do it, she nevertheless ought to do it. But this approach inevitably fails to be able to explain why agents often choose to do what they most want, in many cases flouting such moral imperatives. The purpose of this thesis is to offer a plausible alternative to this way of understanding these deliberative dilemmas. I argue that communitarian moralism, the account according to which genuine moral imperatives are only imperatives on communities, rather than agents, and according to which agents’ moral conduct is necessarily bound up with her particular preferences, projects and commitments, is the most plausible way to understand dilemmas in which agents must choose between doing moral and self-interested actions.

This work examines the relationship between moral philosophy and literature. I start by exploring a dialectic that exists between “prevalent view” theorists (i.e., D. D. Raphael and Onora O'Neill), who argue that the moral interest of literature lies in explicit deliberative arguments modeled in literary texts, and Diamondian realist theorists (i.e., Alice Crary, Cora Diamond and Iris Murdoch), who argue that the “prevalent view” is too narrow. Rather, the ways in which literature affects us emotionally can make ineliminable contributions to fully rational moral thought. In Chapter Two, I explore potential challenges to this position, drawn from the works of Simon Blackburn. He argues that there are epistemological concerns (it relies upon a faulty view of language), and moral concerns (specifically relativism) with Diamondian realism. I respond to these challenges in Chapter Three and conclude that Crary, Diamond, and Murdoch have given us a better picture of literature's moral value.

Demandingness-based objections to utilitarianism and other consequentialist moral theories constitute the most important problem facing moral philosophers today. In this Thesis, I offer an explanation of what makes the demandingness objection compelling, namely, that utilitarianism alienates us from the projects and goals that define us as individual human beings (normally taken to be a separate objection). This suggests that solving the problems demandingness considerations present involves carving out a space for these projects and goals alongside the demands of a consequentialist morality; thus, we have two nearly independent sources of normative reasons, and the real question is how they interact. Various suggestions for answering this question are considered and rejected. I also discuss how Alastair Norcross’ scalar utilitarianism “solves” the demandingness problem, what the costs of this solution are, and how it might be integrated into a theory concerning the aforementioned interaction.

Whether philosophy can contribute decisively towards alleviating humanity’s pressing environmental predicament I here argue in the affirmative. There are many considerations that challenge my case. Specifically, I show that environmental ethics, the subdiscipline of moral philosophy which was founded on the presumption of this possibility, has faltered. The field threatens to divide between “impractical theoretical” discourses within the academy, and “pragmatic” and largely atheoretical “practical” engagements with environmental science, policy and management. To help environmental ethics advance beyond this dysfunctional division, I explore methodological comparisons with bioethics, the “most successful field of applied ethics”. My deliberations apply in novel ways Bartha’s model for evaluating the plausibility of scientific hypotheses that incorporate analogies. In an initial test application of Bartha’s model, I evaluate the relevance to environmental ethics of the failure of the “top-down” applied ethics approach in bioethics. I present good reasons to conclude that environmental ethics can indeed learn from this failure. I also conclude that my trial application of Bartha’s model is promising. I then evaluate two proposals for reforms towards the greater practical effectiveness of environmental ethics. First I evaluate the plausibility of the proposal of Minteer and Collins for a new field of “ecological ethics”. They argue for the adoption of the broadly pragmatic methodological commitments now prevailing in bioethics. Because they focus primarily on supporting individual rather than collaborative processes of ethical judgment, I argue they risk facilitating an ethically pernicious “ecological paternalism” on analogy with the widely condemned practice of medical paternalism. Second I evaluate Norton’s proposal to incorporate environmental ethics within the adaptive ecosystem management paradigm. By arguing that the tasks of seeking cultural and biophysical sustainability within spatiotemporally defined communities must be integrated, Norton offers a potentially vital interface for intelligent and just interaction between culture and wider nature. I also argue this interface may be of more general relevance to bioethics and moral and political philosophy. However, a significant theoretical challenge for Norton’s sustainability model is identified. I argue that his model provides a thought experiment which illustrates the conceptual and practical incoherence of the primary liberal mechanisms for managing ethical conflict once these are applied to the sustainability challenge. Those mechanisms are the separation of public and private spheres and the simultaneous pursuit within private spaces of mutually exclusive conceptions of the good (and biophysically sustainable) life. I argue that rectifying this failure defines a vital, albeit daunting, theoretical and practical challenge for environmental ethics. That is to reconceptualise ethical conflict and to help design and facilitate practical processes to achieve sufficient common ethical agreement. Addressing this challenge is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, some promising work and possibilities for further research are outlined. I conclude that I have successfully defended the value of analogical comparison with bioethics for enhancing the unity and effectiveness of theory and practice in environmental ethics. I therefore further conclude that I am correct to affirm that philosophy can, and I believe indeed should, contribute more effectively toward alleviating humanity’s pressing environmental predicament.