applied Flashcards
what 4 moral issues are required to be known about?
- lying
- stealing
- stimulated killing
- eating animals
what is a moral dilemma
a situation where there are at least two options that pertain to moral choices that are unsatisfactory
how would a moral realist (cognitivist) interpret a moral statement such as lying is bad/good
- statements aim = to describe the world and whether they are true or false depends on if they match up to the moral property in the real world
- so they are meaningful
—> if lying contains a moral property of badness then the statement “lying id bad” is true
how would a moral anti realist for example one who believes in error theory (cognitivist) interpret a moral statement
- statements aim to describe the world BUT because moral properties DO NOT EXIST, they are always false
- moral properties not existing = supported by arguments from queerness and relativity
- meaningful but always false
- “lying is bad” “lying is good” are equally false
how would a moral anti realist theory such as emotivism (NC) interpret a moral statement
- statements DO NOT AIM TO describe the world because moral properties ARENT MID
- not meaningful
- express a particular attitude held by speaker
- boo hurrah
- “lying is good” means “I have a positive attitude to stealing” and vice versa
how would a moral anti realist theory such as prescriptivism (NC) interpret a moral statement
- statements DO NOT AIM TO describe the world because moral properties are not MID
- so not meaningful
- express an attempt at persuasion
- “lying is good” “you should lie”
what is lying?
knowingly making a false statement
– often negative intent
what is the axe murderer example - link to lying
- a murderer comes to your house holding an axe and asking where your friend is clearly having evil intent
- your friend is upstairs
- moral dilemma = lying or saving life of friend
- example created by KANT —> said lying is NEVER MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
- can use this example in deontology
U - LYING
how might an AU make moral decisions
- hedonic calculus —> each persons pain and pleasure = worth the same
- add this up
- action which minimises pain and maximises pleasure for max. people = MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
- doesn’t require reference to past/future decisions
U - LYING
how might a AU come to the kind of decisions they come to and what justifications do they have
- if telling a LIE = more pain than pleasure then NOT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE and shouldn’t be done
- if it minimises the most pain or causes more pleasure overall then it IS MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD BE DONE
- JUSTIFIED SOLELY on QUANTITY of pleasure/pain
RU - LYING
how would a RU make a moral decision?
- consider STRONG/WEAK RULES
- rules justified by AMOUNT OF PLEASURE/PAIN CAUSED
- if not lying is a strong rule it should never be done even if its hedonic + VICE VERSA
- not context dependant
- reference to H/L PLEASURES
RU - LYING
what kinds of decisions would a RU come to and what are their justifications for these
- if not lying = STRONG RULE then never morally justifiable and can never be done
- if not lying = WEAK RULE then IF HEDONISTIC then morally justifiable and can be done
- JUSTIFIED on the bases that RULES MAXIMISE/MINIMISE PAIN/PLEASURE FOR THE MAJORITY
- aim = consistency between actions so NOT NECESSARILY CONTEXT DEPENDANT
PU - LYING
how might a PU make a moral decision
- consider PREFERENCES of each MORALLY RELEVANT being
- if there is a CLEAR PREFERENCE then this action should be chosen as it is morally justifiable UNLESS the STRENGTH OF MINORITY PREFERENCES IS STRONGER in which case minority = wins
- requires agreement, time consuming
PU - LYING
what kind of decisions would a PU come to and under what justifications
- if telling a lie = majority preference then morally justifiable and vice versa
- JUSTIFIED ON BASIS OF CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the QUALITY OF PREFERENCES of all morally relevant beings and finding SHARED PREF.
- COMPROMISES can be reached if necessary otherwise MAJORITY WINS
D - LYING
describe how deontology would make a moral decision
a = put relevant maxims through 1st formulation of cat. imp. TO DETERMINE WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE and act OUT OF THESE DUTIES thus achieving good will then
b = consider the issue in relation to 2nd FORMULATION OF CAT. IMP to see whether or not all moral/rational agents are being TREATED AS SUCH
D - LYING
How would we approach the issue of lying if we used the 1st FotCI —> universal law
maxim = “make a promise you don’t intend to keep”
- “ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW”
- work out if there are contradictions —> in conception or will
- if we WILL LYING = UNIVERSAL LAW then anyone could lie whenever they want however IF PEOPLE LIED ALL THE TIME then lying = impossible because LYING ONLY SUCCESSFUL IF BELIEVED
- act of universalising lying CONTRADICTS ITSELF = CONT IN CONCEPTION
- so reverse becomes a perfect duty —> “you must never tell a lie”
- THEREFORE, lying is always wrong no matter circumstances
D - LYING
How would we approach the 2 FotCI
- means, ends
- “TREAY OTHERS AS AN END, EVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END”
- work out if doing the act would involve using the other person for personal gain
- if it does then REFRAIN FROM ACTION
—> lying takes away a persons ability to make a rational and free decision - lying = constrains others options
- so we take RESPONSIBILITY for their subsequent actions
- so wrong to lie under 2nd formulation
VE - LYING
how would a virtue ethicist make a moral decision
- consider what the mean of a RELEVENT VIRTUE would be in RELATION TO THE ACTION
- then aim to express that virtue in their actions
- draws on practical wisdom —> through HABITUATION + making mistakes
- should be GUIDED BY REASON, EUDAIMONIA
VE - LYING
how would a VE approach the issue of lying
- consider their HABITUATION —> what would a virtuous person do?
- generally = not lie
- consider consequences of actions
- need strong JUSTIFICATIONS
VE - LYING
What did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of lying
- claimed FALSEHOOD in itself = bad SO VIRTUOUS PERSON = AVOID IT
- lying = bad as it shows you are not a good person as you have bad habits
- some instances of lying = MORE MORALLY BAD THAN OTHERS
- lying got safety in AXE MURDERER is not as bad as lying for MONEY
- so some situations ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
what is stealing? how does Robin Hood link?
- taking others property without their permission
- Robin Hood = outlaw who stole from the rich and redistributed to the poor at a time when the rich were unnecessarily taxing high —> he thought he was doing the right thing
AU - STEALING
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- HEDONIC CALCULUS, levels of pain/pleasure, add it up, context dependant
- if stealing = MORE PAIN THAN PLEASURE then NOT morally justifiable and shouldn’t be done and VICE VERSA
- justified on quantity of pleasure/pain
RU - STEALING
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- CONSIDER STRONG/WEAK RULES, justified based on amount/quality of pain/pleasure for majority/minority, LYING = NOT A STRONG RULE then should NEVER BE DONE even if doing so would max pleasure/min pain VICE VERSA
- not context dependant
- HIGHER/LOWER
- justified on basis that rules = hedonistic, aim for consistency
PU - STEALING
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- CONSIDER PREF. OF EACH MORALLY RELEVANT BEIN, clear majority for one pref. = that action is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE, unless minority pref. outweighs majority, requires MOSTLY AGREEMENT, context dependant
- IF STEALING = MAJ. PREF THEN MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND VICE VERSA
- justified on basis of CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF QUALITY OF PREF.
- COMPRIMISE CAN BE REACHED
D - LYING
How would a D approach the issue of stealing under 1st catimp
maxim = steal a thing that you want
- ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
- work out if there are contradictions of conception in maxim
- if we were to will stealing as a UNIVERSAL LAW then everyone would steal all the time
- no concept of personal property
- stealing can only occur if personal property exists
- so stealing = universalisability = impossible
- CONTRADICTION INCONCEPTION
- PERFECT DUTY NOT TO STEAL
STEALING ALWAYS WRONG NO MATTER CIRCUMSTANCES
D - STEALING
how would we approach the issue of stealing under the 2nd formulation
- TREAT OTHERS AS AN END NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
- work out if act = own gain
- if it is = refrain from doing so, can’t take away others rational will + autonomy
- stealing takes away from another’s rational and free decision
- we CONSTRAIN THEIR OPTIONS so manufacture their POSSIBILITIES so should take responsibility for their subsequent actions
- so stealing = wrong under 2nd formulation
VE - STEALING
how would a VE approach the issue of stealing
- consider habituation —> what would a virtuous person do?
- consider consequences
- consider if the action is generally a bad thing? stealing almost always bad so NEED STRONG JUSTIFICATION
- small number of situations where it is morally justifiable
- HABIT OF STEALING = doesn’t have practical wisdom so is not virtuous
VE - STEALING
what did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of stealing
- NEVER morally justifiable
- always injustice
- DEPRIVES a person of acquiring something they have earned and have right over
- distinguishes between UNJUST ACTIONS and UNFAIR STATES OF AFFAIRS
- starving child = unjust state of affairs but the world is like that sometimes - womp womp?
what is stimulated killing?
- act of representing the killing of a morally significant being
- not real, no suffering, no real death
- in plays, films, video games
what evidence is there for the links between violent media in stimulated killings and acts of violence?
- generally no consensus
- possibly heightened aggression but this doesn’t always if ever translate to violent acts
AU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- use hedonic calculus, levels of pleasure/pain that each person involved would receive. each person = worth the sane, ADD THIS UP, best choice = hedonic = morally justifiable, CONTEXT DEPENDANT
- IF RESULT = MORE PAIN THAN PLEASURE THEN NOT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULDNT BE DONE VICE VERSA
- justified on quantity of pleasure/pain
RU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- strong/weak rules considered, rules justified on amount of pleasure/pain for maj/min, if killing = NOT A STRONG RULE then should NEVER be done EVEN IF doing so would max/min pleasure/pain and vice versa with WEAK RULES
- not context dependant, should be consistent
- higher/lower
- if NOT SK = STRONG RULE then NEVER morally justifiable and NEVER DONE
- if WEAK RULE then providing it foist maximise pleasure or minimise pain then it can be MJ and DONE
- justified on hedonism and consistency
PU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- CONSIDER PREFERNECES OF MORALLY RELEVANT BEINGS, determine overall preferences, clear majority - chosen act UNLESS strength of minority preferences outweigh the majority ones
- requires agreement, context development, non-hedonistic
- IF SK = majority pref. or STRONGLY HELD BELIEF then may be MJ and VICE VERSA
- justified by careful consideration of all morally relevant beings, compromises can be made
D - SK
how would a D approach the issue of stealing using 1st formulation
maxim = stimulate killing when you want to be entertained
- ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
- must work out contradictions in conception or will relating to maxim
- maxim doesn’t result in either so IS morally permissible
- HOWEVER KANT = WE HAVE AN IMPERFECT DUTY to develop morally, compassion to others = weakened by SK, resulting in ur not sticking to our PD so we should stay away from it
D - SK
How would a D approach the issue of SK using the 2nd formulation
- TREAT OTHERS AS AN END, NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
- first work out if doing the act = personal gain, if it does then this takes away from OTHERS RATIONAL WILL AND AUTONOMY so we should REFRAIN from it
- IF character = based on a real person without their consent and is treated awfully then this may go against this formulation
VE - SK
How would a VE approach the issue of SK
- important SK NOT REAL KILLING
- key = emotional attunement - does someone spend lots of time playing? do they take delight in the SK?
- this is NOT VIRTUOUS OR WISE
- context = crucial in determining if it is morally permissible
VE - SK
what did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of SK
- value lies in a persons ability to allow someone to experience CATHARSIS —> process of HIGH EMOTIONS - anger, fear, pity - in a CONTROLLED environment so they can practice their emotional attunement
- useful to help develop practical wisdom
- SO may be looked as morally permissible even if perhaps a KEY PART OF HABITUATION
why might eating animals be a moral dilemma
- all animals feel pleasure/pain and many are CAPABLE OF REASON
- process of producing meat = suffering and BROADER MORAL ISSUES - climate crisis
AU - EA
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- use hedonic calculus to determine LEVELS OF pain/pleasure. each person pain/pleasure = worth the same, add this uo, find morally justifiable act, CONTEXT DEPENDANT
- if eating animals will result in more pleasure than pain then it is morally justifiable and should be done
- justified based on QUANTITY OF PLEASURE maximised or PAIN minimised
RU - EATING ANIMALS
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- consider STRONG/WEAK RULES, justified on amount/quality of pain reduced for the majority
- if not EA is a strong rule then it should NEVER BE DONE
- if not EA is a weak rule then it CAN BE DONE under specific CIRCUMSTANCES
- consistent but not context dependant
- if not EA is a strong rule then can NEVER BE MJ and never done
- if WEAK RULE then if it maximises pleasure or minimises pain the is MJ and CAN BE DONE
JUSTIFIABLE on basis of rules than are hedonistic
PU - EATING ANIMALS
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?
- CONSIDER PREFERENCES OF MORALLY RELEVANT BEINGS
- if clear MAJORITY then this action will be chosen and IS MJ unless the STRENGTH of MINORITY PREFERENCES outweighs STRENGTH OF MINORITY PREFERENCES
- involves agreement, context dependant
- if EA is a majority preference OR strongly held one then it may be MJ and VICE VERSA
- justified based on careful consideration of QUALITY of preferences
- compromises can be reached
D - EA
how would a D approach the issue of EA if using the 1st formulation
maxim = eat animals when you want to
- ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS THAT YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
- first workout if there are any contradictions in will or conception
- this maxim doesn’t result in either contradiction so IT IS MJ TO EA
- however KANT = PERFECT DUTY TO DEVELOP MORALLY which involves developing compassion. if EA contributes negatively then we wouldn’t be sticking to our perfect duty
D - EA
how would a D approach issue of eating animals under 2nd formulation
- TREAT OTHERS AS AN END NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
- D = work out if act would result in using someone for personal gain
- if it is then this takes away their rational will and autonomy so we should refrain from the action
- ANIMALS = NOT RATIONAL so not morally significant
- CAN BE TREATED AS A MEANS TO OUR ENDS
- it IS MJ TO EA
VE - EA
how would a VE approach the issue of EA
- NOT MORALLY PROBLEMATIC
- non humans so not morally significant
-may not be indicative of practical wisdom IF someone has the wrong attatchemtn —> finding pleasure in the pain and suffering of animals or eating so much they become unhealthy
—> this would NOT BE VIRTUOUS OR WISE
VE - EA
what would Aristotle think of the moral dilemma of EA
- eudaemonia is concerned with humans not animals because they cannot reason so are not MS
- A = no moral issue
