deck_17097935 Flashcards
How can we not discover principles of morality
We cannot discover principles of morality by generalizing from specific cases.
What derives correct actions from laws and makes us carry it out.
Our reason derives correct actions from laws, and the will carries out these actions.
What provides a categorial imperative
Morality
Hypothetical imperative
what you ought to do to achieve some end
Practice volleyball
The categorical imperative
Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law (Universal Law Formulation)
No one should make an exception of herself – no one should exempt herself from the rules that everyone has to follow
Categorical imperatives
What you ought to do, regardless of any ends
Do not lie
Consider the maxim: ‘I will cheat in order to do well.’
if it were universal law then no one would use tests to assess people anymore so there would be no way to do well on tests
Contradiction
Fails the test
What is a maxim
A statement of what one is doing and why one is doing it
Examples/
I will study in order to do well on my test
I will cheat in order to do well on my test
I will make an honest promise in order to get a loan
I will make a lying promise in order to get a loan
What are perfect duties
Not to commit suicide
Not to make false promises
Alternative expression of the categorical imperative
Always act such that you use humanity always as an end, and not merely as a means.
What are imperfect duties
To develop one’s talents
To help others when one can
What is the universal law formulation
The Universal Law Formulation is one of the formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative. It states that you should act only according to maxims that you can will to be universal laws, applicable to everyone without exception. Essentially, it means acting in a way that your actions could become a rule for everyone to follow. It’s about fairness and consistency in moral decision-making.
Right thing to do (Mill)
The right thing to do is that which maximizes aggregate happiness.
The right thing to do is given by the categorical imperative.
The right thing to do is given by the rules to which reasonable people would agree.
The right thing to do is what the truly virtuous person would do.
The right thing to do is given by the generalization of our reasoned judgments about concrete cases.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning it judges actions by their outcomes. According to utilitarianism, the goal is to maximize overall happiness or utility. The best action is the one that increases the sum of happiness for the greatest number of people. It’s all about balancing benefits and harms to achieve the greatest good.
Criticism of utilitarianism
Actions are right for the wrong reasons.
Demands too much of moral actors
What are Kans deontological ethics about
Kant’s deontological ethics is all about duty and moral rules. Unlike consequentialist theories, it doesn’t focus on the outcome of actions but rather on the actions themselves and whether they align with universal moral principles. Respecting the value and equality of others means acting according to rules that everyone can follow, no exceptions.
What theories does Nietzcsche criticize
Nietzsche criticizes all theories that attempt to identify morality through careful reasoning. He argues that morality is a socially constructed set of rules designed to serve the interests of specific people. Instead of using reason to determine morality, Nietzsche believes we should search for the origins of these moral rules, revealing the power dynamics and historical contexts behind them.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Mill: Mill argues that the right thing to do is that which maximizes aggregate happiness.
Responds to objections
What is utilitarianism
Greatest happines principle, happiness, unhappines
Greatest Happiness Principle: actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness, wrong in proportion that they produce unhappiness.
Happiness: pleasure, absence of pain
Unhappiness: pain, absence of pleasure
Happiness is the only thing that is good in itself.
Doctrine worthy of swine
Objection: There is no higher end than pleasure? This critique, often referred to as the “doctrine worthy of swine,” suggests that such a belief devalues human pleasures, equating them to those of animals. Epicurus countered this by arguing that the objection itself underestimates humans and their capacity for higher, intellectual pleasures, as opposed to merely base, physical ones.
Is there a difference in the quality of pleasures according to John Stuart Mill?
Yes, John Stuart Mill made a significant distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He argued that pleasures of the mind, such as intellectual pursuits, artistic appreciation, and moral satisfaction, are of a higher quality than mere physical pleasures, like those derived from food, drink, or sensory indulgence. Mill believed that those who have experienced both types of pleasure would naturally prefer the higher ones, because they are more fulfilling and enriching.
: Whose happiness should be maximized according to utilitarian principles?
Not the agent alone, but the aggregate happiness of all concerned. Laws, social institutions, education, and opinions should be arranged to cultivate an association between one’s own happiness and the good of the whole.
Q: Why should happiness be maximized?
A: Because, in fact, every person’s ultimate goal is to be the standard of morality.
How did mill reply to the objection that utalitarianism is too demanding
Guiding Principle: The principle of utility serves as a guide for determining the moral rightness of actions—promoting the greatest happiness.
Motivation for Action: People can have various personal reasons for their actions, not just the duty to maximize happiness.
Balance: This distinction makes utilitarianism practical by allowing for personal motivations while still guiding actions towards overall happiness.
How did mill reply to the objection “think abotut everyone” in utalitarianism
Reply: Most of the time you just need to think about the particular people involved. Exceptional occasions where you will be required to consider the public more generally.
How did mill reply to the objection “not enough time” in utilitarianism
Not enough time to calculate the happiness that would result of actions
Reply: We have already been doing the calculation, we have the whole history of experience to draw on. And this is why it is good to train people in moral decision making.
What is the surprising claim (animal)
We have strong moral reasons to not cause intense pain to animals but we do not have strong moral reasons to not kill animals
What is an argument against the surprising claim
Harman argues that because animals have moral value, we should strongly avoid causing them intense pain. She believes this makes a strong case against the idea that killing animals painlessly is not as important. Recognizing the moral value of animals means we have good reasons to prevent their suffering. This is a key part of her argument against the idea that painlessly killing animals in their prime is less of a moral issue. Does that help clarify things?
What is her argument that SC is false
- strong moral reasons against causing intense pain to animals (which have moral status)
- part of the reason that is true is because it is impermissible to harm something with moral status
- painlessly killing a healthy animal harms the animal
- Given 1-4 painlessly killing a healthy animal is impermissible
- SC is false
Name the 3 views that might support SC
View 1 - Killing an Animal Does Not Harm It
Killing is bad for animals but it does not harm them
‘a being is harmed when it undergoes something this is in itself bad, but a being is not typically harmed when it is merely prevented from something good’ (NIP 717)
On this view premise 3 of her argument is false. Painless death does not harm the animal
View 2 - Death is Not Bad for Animals Because Animals Lack Sufficient Psychological Connection With Their Futures
More precisely:
Death is bad because it frustrates desires and plans
Animals don’t have plans and desires for the future
Therefore animal deaths aren’t bad for them
View 3 - McMahan’s Time-Relative Interests View
Jeff McMahan
Some reasons against killings but not strong reasons
‘badness of death […] is not simply a function what the being loses out in dying […] rather it also matters what the being’s psychological relationship is with its potential future life’ (NIP 719).
Animals have some connection to their future so killing them is bad. But they don’t have a strong connection so they don’t have a strong interest in continuing to live
So painless killing is a minor harm
What does the time relative interest view imply
Greater connection to nearer to future and less even insignificant connection to farther future life
2 cases of Billy and Tommy
What is marquis assumption about moral permissibility of abortion ?
Moral permissibility of abortion depends on the moral status of the fetus (that is the assumption Marquis goes from)
Why do some moral arguments against abortion focus on the characteristics of the fetus?
Some moral arguments against abortion claim that certain characteristics of a fetus (such as being a potential person, having a heartbeat, or the capacity for pain) are morally significant. These characteristics provide reasons why terminating the fetus is considered morally wrong. The arguments hinge on defining what characteristics give the fetus moral status and rights.
Q: What does Marquis believe is crucial to solving the problem of understanding why ending the life of a human being is wrong?
Marquis believes that solving the problem will come down to understanding the reason why ending the life of a human being is wrong.
What does the loss of one’s life deprive a person of, according to Marquis?
The loss of one’s life deprives a person of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted their future. Marquis argues that inflicting this loss is ultimately what makes killing wrong.
What are Marquis’ two key considerations supporting his view on the wrongness of killing?
1) Killing is one of the worst crimes. 2) People who are dying are especially sad about their loss of future.
Why is Marquis’ argument not restricted to biological humans?
Marquis’ argument applies to any beings with a future like ours, including extraterrestrial life and animals.
