Phil 103 Exam 2

1. an action is good or bad in virtue of the goodness or badness of its consequences

2. ought to act so as to bring about the best possible consequences

1. any action that maximizes overall well-being

2. any action that brings about the best possible consequences

1. PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY: an action is morally required iff it will do more to maximize over-all well-being than any other possible action

2. It provides a decision procedure because you make this calculation for every action each time.

1. Impartiality - everyone matters equally (advantage over ethical egoism)

2. Consistency - well-being is good; misery is bad; it promotes what we already know as good and bad; virtues are generally beneficial and vices are generally bad

3. Flexibility - no moral rules are without exception (except utility)

1. happiness, pleasure, desire-satisfaction, realization of potential

2. different theories emerge depending on how one defines "well-being"

1. determine how much happiness or misery for how many individuals

2. the best action brings about the greatest average happiness in all those involved

1. an action is optimifc if it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks

2, morally required

1. No

2. All matters are taken into account equally

1. we should blame or praise the action itself, rather than its intentions.

1. anything than can experience misery is a part of the moral community

2. Includes animals

1. taking one species (typically humans) to be of greater moral significance than others for no good reason

2. If human suffering matters more than animal suffering, we had better be able to give a reason why this is (utilitarians do not think such a reason can be given)

(Note: this is an objection to utilitarianism)

1. assigning a definite quantity of well-being (e.g. 38.74 utiles) is almost impossible

2. if more than one factor is relevant to well-being (e.g. happiness and autonomy) then there is no clear way how to measure tradeoffs between them

(Note: epistemic means "knowledge")

1. does not make consequentialism false

2. means that we won't always know whether an action is right or wrong

3. inability to know does not mean that there is no correct answer

4. there will still be unambiguous cases

1. SUPEREROGATORY: action is a morally good action that would bring about a benefit to someone, but is not morally required (goes above and beyond; running into burning house to save stranger)

2. Utilitarianism does not believe any actions are supererogatory, because all actions that are the best are morally required

3. Utilitarianism requires excessive and severe sacrafices

1. Bite the bullet

2. admit that consequentialism makes these strong demands on us

3. it shouldn't be surprising that morality sometimes demands that we do difficult things that are not directly in our best interest

1. all that matters in moral deliberation and evaluation is overall well-being

2. it doesn't matter whether actions are just or unjust, or whether anyone's rights get violated in the process

1. brings problems regarding how to make tradeoffs between well-being and justice

1. one should act according to rules which, if everyone in society followed them, overall well-being would be maximized

1. Kant's theory

2. "deon" = duty (Greek)

3. an action is morally correct when its intention is based on moral duties/obligations

Consequentialists - consequences of an action (overall well-being importance)

Kantians - intentions behind an action (justice and fairness importance)

1. No, justice and fairness

1. Yes, because an action is morally good based on the intentions

2. Moral goodness comes from a good moral will

1. the reason behind an action

2. the rule you follow when you act

3. you give it to yourself

4. how to act in general to acting in particular instance

5. different maxims can lead to the same action (have different moral values)

1. test to determine whether an action is moral or immoral

2. act only according to universalizable maxims

3. APPLIED IN 3 STEPS:

a. determine what maxim you're considering acting on (an be honest, because we are good at self-deception)

b. imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted on the same maxim

c. ask whether you could reach your goal in such a world (if yes, then action is permissible; if no, then action is impermissible)

1. Principle of Universalizability applied

2. Plagiarism only works when the norm is not to do it

3. False promises only work when most promises are true

1. GOLDEN RULE: "treat others the way you want to be treated"

2. We have different desires regarding what we want done to us

3. the golden rule doesn't say anything about your obligations to yourself (Kant believes you need to notice and cultivate your talents)

1. Immorality is making an exception for oneself

2. such behavior makes one's own values more important than others

3. reason says we are morally equivalent

4. inconsistency with reason = irrational

1. Some very immoral maxims could pass the test (religious zealot would be happy if the world forced his religion)

2. Kant is too strict; he thought moral laws are absolutely inviolable (cannot lie to the murderer at the door)

1. HYPOTHETICAL: "if you want X, then do X." Only command conditionally

2. CATEGORICAL: "do X." Commands unconditionally. (Only one to Kant)

1. Principle of Universalizability - an action is moral iff its maxim is universalizable

2. Principle of Humanity - always treat humans as ends in themselves, never as mere means

1. treat people with dignity

2. always treat people as ends in themselves, never as mere means

3. ADVANTAGES

a. doesn't depend on what can or cannot be universalized

b. gives content to morality; explains the whole purpose of morality

1. only things that are rational and autonomous are in the moral community

2. leaves out animals, babies, and the environment

1. MERE MEANS - to treat them as a thing with mere instrumental value

2. ENDS IN THEMSELVES - to respect them as something with value in its own right (non-instrumental value); possess dignity

1. elevates us above animals

2. we are responsible because of we had an option to do the good option

3. Principle of Humanity

1. we autonomously act according to universalizable actions or make exceptions for ourselves

1. EMPIRICISM - knowledge is derived from sensory experience

2. RATIONALISM - knowledge is derived from reason

3. Hume was an empiricist because he thought that reason can never tell us what we ought to do, there is nothing irrational about moral behavior, judgements of right and wrong depend on emotional responses, and we only behave morally if we desire it

4. Kant was a rationalist because he thought that to behave rationally was moral, immorality is a form of irrationality, the categorical imperative is derived as a truth of reason, and ethical behavior requires not being guided by our desires, inclinations, and emotions

1. Reason - cannot generate desire/motivation. discovers logical truths and matters of fact. Figures out how we can get what we desire

2. Passions - all motivation arises from feelings.

1. Passions should be in charge

2. Motivation comes from passions

3. Reason is to help out passion

1. No

2. Passions are not rational or irrational

3. Not a failure of rationality

1. No

2. Hume thinks that truth-apt sentences are actually expressing praise and blame (stealing purses = BOO!)

1. Moral judgements have to do with what we want

2. Moral praise or blame is derived from our passions

1. OBJECTIVISM - There are absolute moral standards that hold whether or not anyone acknowledge them

2. NIHILISM - there are no moral standards. Morality is just an illusion. No one is ever obligated to do anything

3. Relativism is a middle ground - moral standards are real, but subjective

1. CULTURAL RELATIVISM - moral standards are real and derived from culture

2. INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM - moral standards are real and derived from an individual's core ideals

1. no culture can ever be morally wrong (core ideals)

2. Iconoclasts go against cultural ideals

3. therefore iconoclasts are immoral

1. Subjectivism

2. everyone's core ideals are correct

1. everyone or every culture is always correct

2. therefore moral progress does not exist

1. any claim that entails a contradiction must be false

2. Culture A and B are both right, so they contradict each other (abortion is right and wrong)

3. resolved by saying the moral claims must be understood in culture-relative terms (according to culture a. . . culture b . . .)

4. New consequences: there is no moral disagreement (moral claims are about beliefs, not the issue in question)

1. NIHILISM - refuse to acknowledge something's existence

2. MORAL NIHILISM - claims that there is no such thing as normative morality

1. moral features are not real, objective part of the world (ontological/metaphysical claim)

2. no moral judgements are ever true

1. ERROR THEORIST - the person is trying to say something true about morality (committing error with moral judgements)

2. EXPRESSIVISM - we are not trying to say anything true (we are conveying emotions, commands, hopes, desires)

1. deny moral judgements are trying to make true moral claims

2. moral judgements are not assertions, just expressions

1. expressivists have no truth-apt sentences (no contradictions)

2. disagreements are emotional clashes ("moral" disagreements possible)

1. every morality is equally good

2. cannot justify attitudes (pro-murder)

3. sometimes moral perspectives actually are better or worse

1. it seems implausible that we never try to express objective truths with moral assertions

2. lots of moral claims are not easily translatable into mere expressions of emotion

1. we are all objectivists

1. subject matter is objective as long as it is true on it's own without or with our opinions.

2. true on its own

3. facts are waiting to be found, not thought of