1University
of Prince Edward Island
Philosophy 1050 — Technology, Values, and Science
May 2025
Lecture Notes on Values
Understanding value is of paramount importance because what we value and how we value it
dictates the manner in which we organize our world in general, and our social and individual
lives in particular.
Discussion: What are your "root values?"
Are the things you value most valuable in and of themselves and, or are they valuable only as
means to some other more important end?
Root Values and World Views
Our beliefs about values are related to what we believe in a number of ways. We might say that
our values are significant part of our entire world view.
The Value Domain
Consider the following examples:
1. A distant unknown galaxy may exist at the edge of the universe.
2. A microbiologist is examining a new type of bacteria.
3. A U.N. committee is formulating a policy regarding germ warfare.
How do these types of examples differ?
As we move down the list we move increasingly into the domain of human interests. The
domain of value is that domain affecting and affected by human interactions and experience.
The Language of Value
1. The language of value is first, ubiquitous.
2. The language of value is inherently ambiguous.
3. The language of value differs from the language of fact. This is often referred to as the
"fact/value distinction."
It is hard, in some cases, to draw this distinction. Example: “Your investment lost money.”
Kinds of Values
The most general distinction one can make in terms of values is that between intrinsic and
instrumental values.
Intrinsic values
Things of intrinsic value and valued in and of themselves. Take friendship for example.
Wouldn’t you be offended if you found out that your friends are your friends because you have a
lot of money or because you help them with their school work?
Instrumental values
Things valued in this way are so valued because they can be used to obtain something else;
presumably something which is more valuable.
Value Dilemmas:
A value dilemma occurs when two or more values come into conflict with each other.
Examples?
Some value dilemmas constitute moral dilemmas.
A moral dilemma arises when two or more moral values come into direct conflict with each
other, and no matter which course of action is taken one or more of the values will be sacrificed.
Can you think of an example? How about a hard one? A country may face a value dilemma in
deciding whether or not it is morally justified to kill a terrorist in order to save its citizens.
Values and Moral Decision Making
If society is to function smoothly it is necessary that there be some basic social policies of which
the members of society are in general agreement.
But social policies are based on some combination of more particular basic values and are put in
place to further those value interests.
The Priority of Moral Values
Moral values are those values that have to do with how we respond to and interact with other
people.
Hence they are the primary values in regard to social harmony.
The Breakdown of Moral Discourse
There are at least three levels at which a disagreement about basic moral values may arise.
1. The Factual Level
If two people are in disagreement about a particular moral issue it may be that they disagree or
fail to understand the facts of the case in the same way.
It is very important to recognize that some of our most vexing disagreements may not be related
to a difference in values, but rather to different understanding of the facts.
Take pollution as an example. Two or more people can value the environment quite strongly but
disagree over the actual levels of pollution and its impact on the Earth.
2. The Level of Moral Principles
Moral principles are action guiding statements that embody and promote specific moral values.
Examples of moral values that are embodied in specific moral principles?
- The moral value of human life: "One ought not to commit murder."
- Benevolence: "One ought to be good to others."
- Veracity: "One ought to tell the truth."
- Respect for property: "One ought not take another person's possessions."
Sometimes moral discourse breaks down because people subscribe to different moral principles
or because one or the other refuses to recognize the other's moral principles as valid.
3. The Level of Concepts
Concepts are effectively definitions: they are those very important terms that define the way we
understand the world, and the world of values in particular.
In any debate it is important to define the terms carefully so that we can be sure all parties are
speaking about the same thing.
Some Basic Conceptual Distinctions
1. Rights
Definition: A right is an entitlement. If someone has a right then they are entitled to something
(i.e. to own something or to do something, etc.).
Negative rights: These are rights to non-interference. If you have a negative right to something
then others have a responsibility not to interfere with your pursuit or enjoyment of that
something.
Positive rights: A positive right involves a claim to positive assistance in the pursuit or
enjoyment of the something in question.
If you have a recognized positive right to something then others have a positive responsibility to
assist you in acquiring or maintaining it.
This basic distinction is particularly important in the area of technology. Think about organ
transplants, for example.
Do people have a positive right to the advantages new technologies provide or is their right
negative at best?
2. Justice
Definition: Giving to each person her/his due.
What in fact each person deserves? There are several possible ways of determining desert.
Let me first mention the three most important types of justice:
1. Retributive justice deals with punishing people for wrongs they have committed.
2. Compensatory justice deals with paying compensation to the people who have been wronged.
3. Distributive justice determines how to divide certain social benefits and also certain social
costs among society's members.
There are many views as to how one should go about deciding on the proper matter of
distribution.
a) Egalitarianism: Those who take this position argue that all benefits and burdens should be
distributed equally.
b) Principle of merit: "To each as he/she merits it." What about physical beauty and athletic
ability? Should we reward people on the basis of luck?
c) Principle of contribution: "To each as she/he has contributed."
What about physically, mentally, or emotionally challenged?
d) Principle of need: "To each as they have need."
What about one's incentive?
e) Libertarian principle: "To each as the system of maximum liberty dictates."
Does everyone have equal freedom to begin?
Most societies adopt a combination of the above, and that combination varies with time and
place.
Approaches to Moral Decision Making
Over the last couple of centuries there have been a number of alternative theories of morality
with the intent to both describe the nature of moral life as well as prescribe the manner in which
people should behave when faced with a moral decision.
Is there a possibility of discovering the "law of morality" that would capture the essence of the
moral life as well as describe and predict what would happen in the moral realm (much like the
natural sciences describe and predict phenomena in the natural domain)?
1. Moral relativism: this is the view that morals are really just relative; there is no
objective/absolute right and wrong.
Moral relativism seems to be obviously true as a descriptive claim. But can we accept its
normative/prescriptive conclusions?
Philosophers often point out that the move from descriptive to prescriptive realms is not
legitimate.
2. Consequentialist theories: c.t. insist that the only think of importance in moral decision
making is the final result, that all we need to be concerned with are outcomes of our actions.
a) Ethical egoism: e.e. begins with the following descriptive claim: "People tend always to act in
their own self-interest." From this, the ethical egoist concludes that people ought always to act
in their own self interest.
b) Utilitarianism: The utilitarian begins with a descriptive claim that each of us individually
wants to achieve some kind of "utility." Typically, pleasure and happiness are used to illustrate
"utility."
The utilitarian maxim: In any situation, choose that course of action which, all things considered,
will contribute to the greatest overall utility.
A major advantage of utilitarianism is that it gives us a definite procedure for solving moral
dilemmas.
Some problems with utilitarian theory:
- Interpersonal comparisons of utilities
- Justice and rights.
3. Duty Based Theory (Deontological)
Deontological theory seeks to specify a conception of morality that prescribes certain moral
duties which we have one toward another; duties that apply irrespective of the claims of overall
utility.
The most important deontological theorist was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant.
Kant valued human autonomy above all other things. What this means is that humans are
characterized by their freedom and ability to act according the laws of their own making.
We can develop moral laws -- laws of our own making -- that dictate the proper course of
conduct (for example, we regulate our sexual appetite).
In effect, Kant is claiming that our autonomy is intrinsically (and not merely instrumentally)
valuable.
The Categorical Imperative:
"Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of any other, never merely as
a means to some other end, but always at the same time as ends-in themselves."
The advantage of deontological theory is that it provides a basis for rights.
Its problems:
- It is not very helpful in solving moral dilemmas.
What in fact each person deserves?
