Ethical Theory Flashcards
1
Q
Define descriptive ethics.
A
The attempt to describe a certain population’s beliefs about some ethical issue.
Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. Those working on descriptive ethics aim to uncover people’s beliefs about such things as values, which actions are right and wrong, and which characteristics of moral agents are virtuous.(Wikipedia)
2
Q
Define normative ethics.
A
Normative ethics attempts to determine not what people happen to believe but what they ought to believe about some ethical issue.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical behaviour, and is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the questions that arise regarding how one ought to act, in a moral sense. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics in that the former examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, whereas the latter studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts. (Wikipedia)
3
Q
Define meta-ethics.
A
Meta-ethics involves the attempt to understand the nature of morality.
Meta-ethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics (questions of how one ought to be and act) and applied ethics (practical questions of right behavior in given, usually contentious, situations). (Wikipedia)
4
Q
Why are meta-ethics and normative ethics of particular interest to philosophers while descriptive ethics is not?
A
Descriptive ethics seeks to describe a population’s moral beliefs; normative ethics seeks to determine what people should believe about ethics and why; and meta-ethics seeks to understand the nature of morality.
Normative ethics and Meta-ethics are areas of philosophical ethics, because they rely primarily on the use of reason or argument, as opposed to empirical investigation, in order to solve their questions.
5
Q
What is a normative ethical theory?
A
A normative ethical theory is a set of very general principles which attempts to explain what makes morally right acts right, and morally wrong acts wrong, as well as what makes laws or policies just or unjust, character traits virtuous or vicious, etc.
The Golden Rule - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” - is one familiar example of a normative ethical theory.
6
Q
Define applied or practical ethics.
A
Normative ethics involves the examination of concrete moral problems, like euthanasia, abortion, animal rights, etc. Sometimes this branch of normative ethics is called applied or practical ethics. Bio-Medical ethics is one area of applied (or practical) ethics. (Other areas of applied ethics include Business Ethics, Environmental Ethics, Engineering Ethics, etc.)
Applied ethics refers to the practical application of moral considerations. It is ethics with respect to real-world actions and their moral considerations in the areas of private and public life, the professions, health, technology, law, and leadership. (Wikipedia)
7
Q
Describe the conclusion and the premises of an argument.
A
The conclusion is the claim that one is trying to establish, and the premises are the reasons offered in support of the conclusion.
8
Q
What is an argument?
A
An argument is a set of claims; one of these is the conclusion and the others are premises.
9
Q
What are two features of a good argument?
A
First, all of the premises are true.
And second, the premises logically support the conclusion.
Thus, when evaluating arguments, we need to ask two basic questions.
First, are all of the premises true?
Second, do the premises support the conclusion?
If the answer to both of these questions is “yes,” then the argument is a good one and we have good reason to accept its conclusion.
If, however, the answer to either question (or both) is “no,” then the argument is bad and we do not have good reason to accept its conclusion.
10
Q
What is a valid argument?
A
It is impossible for all of the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Put a little differently, if all of the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion → valid argument.
It is very important to note that valid
arguments need not have true premises. In
saying that an argument is valid, we are
not claiming that the premises are true.
We are claiming, rather, that the prem-
ises, if true, guarantee that the conclusion
is true. In other words, to say that an argument is valid is to say something about the logical relationship between the argument’s premises and its conclusion: the relationship is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
11
Q
What is a sound argument?
A
A sound argument is a valid argument with all true premises. A virtue of sound arguments is that they always have true conclusions.
12
Q
What is an inductive argument?
A
In some arguments, the premises, if true, may not be intended to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead, the premises provided may be intended to demonstrate only that the conclusion is probably true. In that case, the argument is inductive.
13
Q
What makes an inductive argument strong?
A
The more support provided by the premises of an inductive argument, the stronger the argument.
14
Q
What is a moral argument?
A
What we call a moral argument is an argument in support of a substantive moral claim—that is, a claim about the moral status of acts, policies, persons, and so forth.
15
Q
What is a counterexample?
A
To evaluate or test moral principles, and philosophical claims and analyses in general, philosophers often employ counterexamples and thought experiments.
- A counterexample is just that—an example that counters a given claim or argument.
- A thought experiment is a kind of mental experiment one performs through an exercise of imagination. Thought experiments are a very useful way to generate counterexamples.
16
Q
What is reflective equilibrium?
A
Reflective equilibrium, in the context of moral philosophy, is the end point of a process of moral deliberation that involves going back and forth between moral principles and what they imply about specific cases.
The ultimate goal of this process is to attain a state of coherence or consistency between the moral principles we accept and our considered moral beliefs.
We have achieved reflective equilibrium when we have achieved this state of consistency.
17
Q
Explain the fallacy of circularity.
A
A circular argument is one in which the truth of the conclusion is presupposed by one or more premises. The most blatant form of circularity occurs when the conclusion you are arguing for appears as a premise in your argument.
18
Q
Explain the straw man fallacy.
A
The straw man fallacy is the fallacy of misrepresenting your opponent’s argument so that it is easily shown to be unsound or weak. The fallacy is so named because a straw man argument is easily blown down.
19
Q
Explain the fallacy of equivocation.
A
Manipulation of language in order to attempt to support a conclusion (i.e., using ambigious language)
20
Q
Explain the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
A
Misuse of language (i.e., inflammatory words), often executed so as to get the reader to accept the conclusion without having to think carefully.
21
Q
Explain the ad hominem fallacy.
A
One commits the ad hominem fallacy when one tries to refute an argument by attacking the one who offered the argument.
22
Q
Explain the false dilemma fallacy.
A
Presenting fewer options than are actually available when arguing for a view is known as the false dilemma fallacy.
23
Q
What is standard form?
A
In standard form, each premise is numbered and stated on its own line, and then the conclusion is stated last. Usually, the conclusion is separated from the premises by a horizontal line, with the premises above the line and the conclusion below it.
24
Q
What is an unsound argument?
A
An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is either invalid or has at least one false premise. Unsound arguments are therefore bad arguments. They are bad because if an argument is unsound, it has failed to establish the truth of its conclusion. Note, however, that this is not to say that the conclusions of unsound arguments must be false.
25
What is a deductive argument?
A deductive argument is an argument where the truth of the premises is intended to guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
26
What is an invalid argument?
To say that an argument is valid is to say something about the logical relationship between the argument’s premises and its conclusion: the relationship is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Deductive arguments that do not have this property are said to be invalid.
27
Definition of Ethical Relativism.
A general skepticism about morality: specifically, denial that there can be objective truths in ethics. That is, denial of the existence of ethical claims that are true independently of whether some particular group or individual wants, believes, or feels that they are true.
28
Explain two objections to Ethical Relativism.
The problem of **moral infallibility** and the problem of **moral equivalency**.
* Ethical relativism implies that an individual’s or group’s moral views can never be mistaken, so ethical relativism loses much of its appeal, for few are prepared to say that their own moral views, much less the moral views of their culture, are incapable of error.
* Because the relativist denies that there are standards of right and wrong that are independent of what individuals or cultures happen to think, the relativist is in the uncomfortable position of being unable to view one person’s or group’s moral views as objectively better than another’s.
29
Explain two arguments for Ethical Relativism and discuss their difficulties.
1. Desire to be tolerant of other cultures’ values and ways of life, and to avoid the kind of cultural imperialism and ethnocentrism that has characterized so much of European and North American history.
* Those who argue in this manner are being inconsistent. They are simultaneously saying (1) that there is no objective right or wrong in ethics, and (2) that cultural imperialism is objectively wrong and respect for differences is objectively right.
2. General puzzlement about how ethical claims could possibly be objectively true (or false). Many argue that, unlike the claim that tables and chairs exist, or that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, moral claims are not subject to empirical verification. Instead, they say that moral claims seem closer to judgments of taste or preferences.
* Moral arguments are objective since they require rational justification/defence.
30
# Define Cultural Relativism.
There is no objective truth in ethics. Morally right and wrong are solely determined by one's culture.
31
Explain the Cultural Differences Argument.
**The Cultural Differences Argument (CDA)** is the principal argument for Cultural Relativism. It is an argument that takes the fact of moral disagreement between cultures as evidence for the claims that there is no objective truth in ethics and that right and wrong are merely culturally determined.
* In standard form, the CDA is:*
(1) Different Cultures have different moral codes.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in ethics. Morally right and wrong are solely determined by one's culture.
32
Explain two reasons why the Cultural Differences Argument is Unsound.
The CDA argument is both **logically invalid** and contains a **weak premise**.
* The CDA's premise fails to prove the conclusion (= is logically invalid) because it is a logical mistake to infer the conclusion that there is no truth about some subject from the mere fact that disagreement exists about that subject (the premise). So just because people disagree about moral matters is no proof that there is no truth to morality.
* The premise may be inaccurate. For while some cultures may disagree on certain ethical issues, it seems necessary that all cultures will have some moral rules in common – namely, the rules necessary for the continued existence of a culture. Thus, to say different cultures have different moral codes is not quite accurate, for all cultures will have some common elements of a moral code. If this observation is correct, then the basic piece of evidence offered in support of CR – ethical disagreement – is undermined.
33
Explain three objections to Cultural Relativism.
1. **The Moral Infallibility of One's Own Culture**
1. IF CR is true, all of one's culture's moral values are necessarily true.
2. _But not all of one's culture's moral values are true._
3. Therefore, CR cannot be true.
2. **The Moral Infallibility of Other Cultures**
1. IF CR is true, all the moral values of other cultures are necessarily true.
2. _But not all of the moral values of other cultures are true._
3. Therefore, CR cannot be true.
3. **The Impossibility of Moral Progress**
1. IF CR is true, moral progress cannot occur.
2. _But moral progress has occurred. (e.g., slavery abolition, women's suffrage)_
3. Therefore, CR cannot be true.
34
Define classical act utilitarianism and its three parts.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory; that is, it seeks to determine which acts, rules, policies, laws, etc. are morally right (or wrong) and why. It is the view that the right actions, laws, and policies promote the greatest net amount of pleasure, or the least net amount of pain, where everyone’s pleasures and pains receive equal consideration.
1. **Consequentialism**: *The right act is entirely determined by its consequences; the right act promotes the most net good or the least net bad.*
2. **Hedonism**: *The sole intrinsic good is pleasure and the sole intrinsic bad is pain.*
3. **Equal consideration (impartiality)**: *No one's good is to be counted as more important than anyone else's.*
35
Explain objections to each part of classical act utilitarianism.
* **Against consequentialism;** over simplified - consequences are not the only morally relevant consideration; failure to consider long-term consequences, often we do not know what act will produce the most good; therefore, utilitarianism often will not be useful.
* **Against hedonism;** pleasure is not always intrinsically good and is not the sole intrinsic good.
* **Against equal consideration:** (1) Unable to recognize the importance of special relationships, and (2) too demanding (i.e., seems to require that we sacrifice too much of our own lives in order to satisfy some of the unmet needs of others.)
36
Consider and evaluate utilitarian _responses to objections_ to each part of classical act utilitarianism.
* **Non-hedonistic utilitarianism**: since hedonism is a flawed account of the good; instead, a different account of good consequences.
* e.g., the right thing to do is to maximize the net satisfaction of informed preferences for all concerned
* Objections are based on fanciful situations that would never occur in real life.
* Reconcile utilitarianism with common sense; it is not too demanding since maximizing 'the good' requires fostering meaningful relationships and embracing self-care.
* Bite the bullet: common sense morality has been mistaken in the past, so utilitarianism is preferable to common-sense moral beliefs even though it does prohibit accumulation of wealth and luxuries, and denies preferential treatment of family and friends.
37
What is the most distinctive component of classic act utilitarianism?
**Consequentialism**
The idea that only consequences matter in the evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of actions, and that the 'right' act is the **optimific** act—the one that does the *most net good*, or the *least net bad*.
In other words, consequences are the sole determinant of right action, and an act that fails to produce the best net consequences is the wrong thing to do.
38
What is a situational ethic? Give an example.
Whether an act is right or wrong depends on the particular situation.
The consequentialist aspect of utilitarianism is a situational ethic.
39
What is rule utilitarianism? Compare it to classical act utilitarianism.
* The right thing to do is to follow the best rule.
* The best rule is defined as the one that, if consistently followed, will produce the greatest amount of net good (well-being) for all concerned.
* While traditional (act) utilitarianism requires that one perform the optimific *_action_* in any particular situation, the rule utilitarian requires one to follow the optimific *_rule_*, even if doing so on that particular occasion won’t produce the best consequences.
40
Features of Classical Act Utilitarianism. [3]
Situational ethic
No absolute rules
Revolutionary outlook
41
Define supererogatory.
Morall good to do, but not morally required. (e.g., organ donation)
42
What are key objections to utilitarianism? [3]
* Incompatible with respect for individual **moral rights**
* Too demanding (i.e., give up all surplus wealth)
* Not useful (i.e., we don't know what will produce the best consequences)
43
Objections to rule utilitarianism.
* If followed closely, rule utilitarianism collapses into classic act utilitarianism.
* Irrational rule worship; Why should one agree to act in accordance with some optimal rule if one could occasionally break that rule and produce even more good?
44
Explain Kant's conception of a morally good will
For Kant, then, in order to have a good will, and for one’s act to have moral worth, one must do the right act for the right reasons: namely, out of respect for morality. By contrast, if a person does an act not out of respect for morality, but because it furthers one of her own desires, then she may be doing nothing wrong, but her act has no moral worth.
Kant maintains that acts based on a hypothetical imperative have no moral worth; however, if one does an act out of respect for morality—out of respect for a categorical imperative—then one is said to have a good will, and so one’s act has moral worth.
45
Define, explain, and apply the universal law and humanity versions of the categorical imperative
* to act only on maxims that can be willed as universal law; Kant’s profound insight is that morality needs to be applied universally, or consistently: one should act only on principles that one can consistently will others to follow.
* **"Act only on principles that you could will everyone doing all the time."**
* (e.g., Echoes of the universal law test are found in such common expressions as “Don’t keep things that don’t belong to you, since you would not want others to do that if they found something of yours.”
* humanity version of the categorical imperative: Act so you treat every rational being, whether in your own person or that of another, always as a rational being, and never merely as a thing.
* (e.g., People sometimes say, “He used me as a means!” Or someone may condemn an act on the grounds that “the ends don’t justify the means.”)
46
Discuss objections to Kant's conception of a morally good will
What about someone who gives to charity for several reasons—she wants a tax deduction, she feels sympathy for the poor, and she believes it is the right thing to do? The answer here is unclear. Some believe that Kant would say that such an act still has moral worth as long as respect for moral duty was a sufficient condition to motivate the person to do the charitable act. Others read Kant differently. They believe that such an act would not have moral worth because it was “polluted” by the presence of hypotheti- cal imperatives. While it must be admitted that Kant is far from clear on this point, the former interpretation is the one we will adopt, since it seems to be both a reasonable interpretation of Kant’s writings and it is the more ***charitable interpretation.***
47
Develop objections to the universal law and humanity versions of the categorical imperative
* universal law objections:
* the same act can be both morally wrong and morally permissible depending on how its maxim is described.
* The universal law test is too strict and sometimes gives the wrong answers; specifically, it views some morally permissible acts as morally impermissible.
* sometimes it may view morally impermissible acts as morally permissible.
* humanity test objections:
* it does not seem to be a principle that covers all of our moral obligations (e.g., obligations to non-rational human beings and non-human animals)
* there may be occasion to treat rational beings as means. (i.e., inquiring murderer)
48
What is non-consequentialism?
The view that the rightness of an act is not solely determined by the goodness of its consequences.
49
What is a deontologist?
Some non-consequentialists are deontologists.
Deontologists see morality as a matter of doing one’s (moral) duty.
50
Differentiate between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical one.
Both types of imperatives can be expressed in terms of “oughts.”
* Hypothetical imperatives state what one ought to do given the presence of a particular desire or goal. (i.e., if I am thirsty, I ought to drink)
* Categorical imperatives state what one ought to do regardless of one’s desires. (i.e., tell the truth, don't steal)
* Kant calls these categorical imperatives the *imperatives (commands) of morality*. These imperatives are said to apply to all of us, and we ought to follow them regardless of whether they further our desires.
51
What is *the* categorical imperative?
The second part of Kant's theory, a test for determining whether a particular action is morally permissible or morally wrong.
52
What are the three steps of applying Kant's universal law?
* *Step 1:** Identify the maxim (principle) behind the action.
* *Step 2:** Universalize the maxim, i.e., transform the maxim into a universal law (everyone acts on that principle, all the time).
* *Step 3:** Consider whether the universalized maxim can be consistently willed.
* If it can be consistently willed, then the act is morally permissible.
* If it cannot be consistently willed, then determine why it cannot be consistently willed.
* If the maxim cannot even be consistently thought of as existing as a universal law, then the act violates a perfect duty and is morally forbidden.
* But if the universalized maxim can be consistently thought of as existing as a universal law but it cannot be consistently willed, then the act violates an imperfect duty—one that should not be ignored entirely but does not always have to be practiced.
53
Why do many philosophers continue to defend Kantian ethics?
Kant’s basic ideas—that we should act only on principles that could be applied to everyone alike and that we ought to treat rational beings with respect—have undeniable appeal. Beyond that, Kant's ethical insights, particularly the emphasis on respect for individual autonomy and the dignity of persons, continue to make their mark.
54
Who was the most influential ethical absolutist?
Other non-consequentialists believe that the consequences of an act play no role in making an act right or wrong. These non-consequentialists are sometimes called ethical absolutists. In part, that is because they believe some acts are always morally wrong (or morally right), regardless of their consequences. (Someone who thinks torture is always morally forbidden, for instance, is an ethical absolutist.) **The most influential ethical absolutist was Immanuel Kant.** Kant believed that there were some acts that were always morally wrong to perform, and he also believed that some acts were right (or wrong) regardless of their consequences.
55
What is a perfect or imperfect duty?
A perfect duty is one that must never be violated.
An imperfect duty is one that must be sometimes followed, but which need not be followed all the time.
56
What is a contradiction in conception?
One is sometimes not able to will a maxim as a universal law because the practice would be self-defeating or self-contradictory if it were practiced by everyone all the time.
Kant calls this a contradiction in conception, and he maintains that if the maxim of one’s actions yields a contradiction in conception when it is universalized, then the action violates a perfect duty and is therefore strictly forbidden.
57
What is a contradiction in will?
Kant admits that one can conceive of a maxim as a universal law, but still not be able to will it because a contradiction will arise between the universal law and what a person will (later) want—Kant called this a contradiction in will.
Kant claims that to act on principles that can be conceived but not consistently willed as universal law is to violate an imperfect duty—a duty that one must sometimes follow, but which need not be followed all the time.
58
Explain why Ross thinks utilitarianism and Kantianism are too simple
* **Against the utilitarian,** it seems that there is more to an act’s being right than whether or not it promotes the best consequences—factors like promise- keeping, justice, and obligations based on special relationships seem important, too.
* **Against the Kantian,** it seems that moral rules need to allow for some flexibility.
* Many (including Ross) therefore argue that we need a moral theory that recognizes a variety of moral duties and also recognizes that these duties can sometimes be overridden by other duties.
* *Prima facie* duties; conditional; not absolute
* Ross suggests that we should feel a certain level of regret (or at least discomfort) for having violated a *prima facie* duty.
59
Distinguish between *prima facie* duties, and duties all things considered.
* all things considered → the duty you should act on
* *prima facie* duties → conditional general moral rules
60
Explain Ross' views on how *prima facie* duties are known, and how one is to make a final determination about how to act
* *Prima facie* duties are known through what Ross calls **rational intuition;** they require no proof, and are not the result of rational argument or inference, but instead can be seen to be correct just by reflection. (i.e., just as 2 + 3 =5)
* duty, all things considered → not self-evident; Ross says, in judging what duty ought to be followed, one takes a moral risk.
* follow general rules, pay attention to which *prima facie* duties are present, then make a judgement
61
Discuss difficulties [2] with Ross' theory, as well as his responses to them.
* **Doubts that there are self-evident moral principles analogous to basic math and geometry principles.**
* Ross: Someone who cannot see that there is a reason to repay a debt is morally defective, just as someone who cannot see that the longest side of a triangle is opposite its largest angle is geometrically impaired.
* **It provides too little guidance when it comes to determining our duties, all things considered.**
* Ross: Any attempt to provide a formula to solve moral problems will be overly simplistic and will ultimately result in giving wrong answers to some moral problems → accept that morality is messy!
62
Why is Ross’s theory often referred to as both **intuitionism** and **pluralistic deontology?**
It is called “**intuitionism**” because Ross claims that the general principles of duty are self-evidently true (known through rational intuition).
And his view is known as “**pluralistic deontology**” because he recognizes that morality is a matter of balancing many competing duties.
63
What is principlism?
Certain principles can be used to guide ethical deliberations. These principles include respect for autonomy, benevolence, and justice.
No formal mechanism for prioritizing these principles when they conflict; rather, sensitivity to the particulars of the case, and judgment about which principle is most pressing, will need to guide decision-making, like Ross!
64
How does principlism differ from Ross's ethics?
They differ mainly in that Ross accepts a greater number of principles than do principlists like Beauchamp and Childress, and principlists avoid intuition as a justification for their favoured principles. Instead, the whole question of justification is left open.
65
Explain the basic idea behind social contract theory
The fundamental belief that justified moral rules are the ones that rational individuals would agree to for their own benefit.
Contractarianism is the view that the justified moral rules are those that self-interested, rational individuals would unanimously choose, under certain conditions, for their own benefit. Social contract theories differ on what rules would be unanimously agreed to, and on the conditions under which moral rules are to be chosen.
66
Distinguish Hobbes's state of nature and the role it plays in his ethical theory from Rawls's original position and the role it plays in his ethical theory
* Rules of morality emerge as a tool that allows people to escape the misery of **the state of nature** (a time and place where there is no organized society and there are no recognized social rules, where everyone is free to do as they please), and to obtain the benefits of social living.
* Moral rules are justified because they are in each person’s self-interest: they are the rules that would be agreed upon by everyone so that all can live together and have a better life.
* **The original position** is a hypothetical situation from which people are to choose the principles of justice to regulate the major social institutions.
* Like Hobbes, Rawls assumes that the people who are choosing the principles of justice are rational and primarily self-interested, and want to have a good life for themselves; however, unlike Hobbes, Rawls imagines that the people in the original position are behind *a veil of ignorance*.
67
Explain, with examples, some of the moral rules that would be justified on Hobbes's theory, and some of the moral rules that would not be justified on Hobbes's theory
* Certain rules—those not needed for social living—would not be supported by social contract theory.
* For instance, on the one hand, rules prohibiting prostitution, same-sex relationships, or voluntary euthanasia would likely not be supported according to Hobbes’s theory, since we could allow for such behaviour without threatening to fall back into a state of nature.
* On the other hand, rules that protect life and property do seem justified because they are needed for social living and to keep us out of the state of nature.
* For example, rules against murder and violence, and rules that require keeping one’s promises and telling the truth are all justified. Further, racial and sexual discrimination are easily explained to be morally wrong.
68
Explain Rawls's principles of justice, and the reasoning from the original position that leads to these principles
As parties in the original position do not know their particular conception of the good life nor have any particular information about themselves, Rawls believes that they will be extremely cautious in the choice of principles of justice. Parties in the original position will adopt a choice strategy that Rawls calls **maximin**: *Choose in such a way so that you will be doing maximally well if you should turn out to be in the minimum (or worst off) position.*
_Rawls' principles of justice:_
1. **The principle of maximal equal basic liberties**: each person is to have maximal equal basic liberties
2. **The principle of fair equality of opportunity:** each person should have a meaningful opportunity to attain employment, education, and positions of power.
3. **The difference principle**: there should be social and economic equality, unless inequality benefits everyone, especially those in the worst-off group.
69
Discuss objections to Hobbes's moral theory and to Rawls's theory of justice
* **Against Hobbes' moral theory**; fails to explain all of morality (e.g., obligations to non-human animals)
* Views moral obligations as justified because it is in each individuals' interest to agree to them. One might not benefit from living in a society that recognizes a duty not to torture animals; nevertheless, it seems clear that one has a duty to not torture animals.
* Sees moral rules as existing as a product of agreement and not prior to agreement.
* **Against Rawls' theory of justice;** does not apply to all moral issues since it is only meant to regulate major social institutions.
* Further, Rawls' characterization of the original position is biased against certain religious groups who view their relgion as the source of truth; they may well view liberties, opportunities, and income and wealth as either not primary social goods or as positively harmful societal options.
* Rawl assumes that people in the original position want more primary social goods (liberty and rights, opportunities, income and wealth).
* The difference principle is compatible with the formation of economic classes; it is not sufficiently egalitarian.
* The difference principle is unfair (e.g., according to the difference principle, a person who is in the worst-off economic group because of illness or some other unfortunate circumstance has no greater claim to economic assistance than someone who is in the worst-off group because of laziness or choice)
* Rawls' theory of justice does not clearly settle problems of social justice, since it is sometimes unclear what the parties in the original position would choose.
70
What is the purpose of the veil of ignorance (Rawl)? [2]
* agreement facilitation: if self-interested people know their personal situations and values, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach unanimous agreement on principles of justice.
* to ensure fairness: Since people in **the original position** lack all knowl- edge of their personal circumstances and attributes, they cannot tailor the principles of justice to benefit their own particular circumstances and views of the good life. Instead, people will be forced to choose fairly, or in an unbiased manner.
71
What choice strategy do people in the original position adopt according to Rawl?
**Maximin**: Choose in such a way so that you will be doing maximally well if you should turn out to be in the minimum (or worst off) position.
72
What principles of justice does Rawls believe that rational, self-interested people behind a veil of ignorance will choose? [3]
1. **The principle of maximal equal basic liberties:** each person is to have maximal equal basic liberties
2. **The principle of fair equality of opportunity**: each person should have a meaningful opportunity to attain employment, education, and positions of power.
3. **The difference principle**: there should be social and economic equality, unless inequality benefits everyone, especially those in the worst-off group.
73
Explain the basic idea behind virtue theory
Rather than focusing on right and wrong action or justified or unjustified principles, virtue ethics is said to focus on *moral character.*
Learning to be virtuous (courageous, honest, and so forth) requires practice doing virtuous acts and being properly educated in the virtues; however, unlike some special skill (like playing the guitar well), merely doing the right actions does not mean that one has the moral virtues. One also must have the appropriate feelings when doing virtuous actions. For example, the virtuous person not only acts generously, but also enjoys acting generously.
74
Define moral virtues, and illustrate with examples
A virtue is a character trait that disposes one to act and feel in a way that is appropriate. Thus, for instance, a person who possesses the virtue of compassion acts compassionately when circumstances call for it, takes pleasure in acting this way, and feels badly for others’ misfortunes. (One does not have the virtue of compassion if one does the right act but feels nothing or feels pained while doing it.)
75
Explain the idea that virtues are in the mean between extremes
This idea is known as **the doctrine of the mean.**
Consider the virtue of courage. This virtue is the mean between the extremes of cowardice (*the deficiency*) and rashness (*the excess*). A coward fails to stand up and fight the battles that ought to be fought. The person who is rash rushes to fight (physically, verbally, or emotionally) when fighting is not wise (as when one cannot win, or when one could win more easily by being diplomatic). The courageous person, by contrast, fights at the right time and in the right way.
Another example is honesty. This virtue is the mean between the deficiency of being dishonest and the excess of being brutally honest. The dishonest person will conceal the truth when it ought to be told, while the blunt person will state the truth when it should not be told or in a way that is inappropriate for the situation. The honest person, however, will be honest in the right way and at the right time, conveying what needs to be said but in a manner that is appropriately tactful.
76
Explain the challenge that virtue theory lacks clear guidance
* Not a comprehensive doctrine since questions about how to design just institutions cannot be addressed.
* Different virtues may recommend different courses of action.
* e.g., would a virtuous person who has young children get a divorce if she is unhappy in her marriage? Loyalty, compassion, and concern for her children may speak against divorce, but courage, authenticity, and honesty might speak in favour of divorce. The virtue theorist tells us to do what a virtuous person would do, or to follow the virtues, but this seems unhelpful in a case where different virtues seem to push in different directions.
* The same virtue seemingly can point in opposite directions.
* In the case of the unhappy woman, courage may speak in favour of staying and trying to make the marriage better, but courage may say to leave and try to make a fresh start on her own. Thus, the instruction to be “courageous” appears unhelpful.
77
Explain the objection that virtue theory fails to fully identify what makes an act morally right or wrong
If it is frequently murky and unhelpful, then ultimately virtue theory is not a useful procedure for resolving ethical issues.
Alternatively, if it gives clear guidance about how to prioritize or interpret the virtues, then it risks disappearing as a distinctive ethical position—that is, it threatens to collapse into consequentialism, Kantianism, or some other principle of right action.
78
Who was the most influential virtue theorist?
The most influential virtue theorist is Aristotle. According to Aristotle, the best life for a human being is a virtuous life—a life in which one exercises the virtues.
79
What are three challenges for virtue theory?
* **How to identify the virtues** (e.g., industriousness may be a cultural bias and not a true virtue)
* **conflict of virtues**
* In cases of conflict, an ethic of principle is needed to determine which virtue is most important in that situation. Perhaps when the virtues conflict, we should decide to follow the virtue that does produces the most happiness for all concerned? But, then, virtue theory is in danger of just collapsing into utilitarianism. Alternatively, when virtues conflict, we might say that we should follow the virtue that would be universalizable in that situation. But then virtue theory seems to be in danger of collapsing into Kantianism, etc.
* **Can all of morality be reduced to living a virtuous life?**
* Consider, for instance, compassion. While it may be true that the compassionate person does better in the long run than the person who is unmoved by the difficulties of others, surely that is not the main reason one ought to be compassionate. Clearly the main reason one ought to be compassionate is because it will benefit others. Virtue theory, with its focus on tying ethics to the agent's flourishing or happiness appears to overlook this reality.
80
Explain the basic idea of the ethic of care
The ethics of care begins with the observation that there are different kinds of moral knowledge. There is moral knowledge that comes from the articulation and application of abstract principles, as evidenced by such theories as utilitarianism, Kantianism, and contractarianism. But there is also a kind of moral knowledge that comes from attending to the relationships one finds oneself in. Sensing and interpreting the needs and interests of self and others, and learning how to appropriately respond to those needs and interests, one might argue, is every bit as important as being able to universalize maxims. Yet, this second way of moral knowing and acting has largely been ignored in the male-dominated history of moral philosophy. The ethics of care aims at rectifying this omission.
## Footnote
**In short, the ethics of care rejects the idea of the individual as an isolated being and sees her embedded in a series of relationships. Further, the ethics of care seeks to discover ways to understand, nurture, and support these relationships.**
81
Describe why an ethic of care may be better suited than an ethic of principle when dealing with the morality of personal relationships
Feminists seek to deepen our understanding of such core notions as autonomy and competence, insisting that we become more sensitive to the background circumstances that affect people’s understandings and choices.
Individuals are not isolated subjects but are immersed in networks of relationships, traditional ethical theories have been blind to the importance of emotions, context is key to good moral thinking, and moral issues that arise in interpersonal relationships need to be elevated to more than just footnotes.
82
Explain why the ethic of care appears to be an incomplete view of morality
* One concern about the ethics of care is that it is doubtful that all relationships require “attending to.” Feminists are well aware that many relationships are exploitative or abusive. Often it seems best that these relationships be ended, and that the “needs” of the abusers not be attended to but eliminated.
* Another concern with the ethics of care is that one often finds that one is involved in several important relationships, but that it is not possible to simultaneously attend to all of them.
**The ethics of care needs to appeal to principles to help a person decide what to do.**
83
Explain the basic idea of status-oriented feminism
Status-oriented feminists move beyond the ethics of care by focusing their attention squarely on the question of oppression—identifying it in all its forms and seeing how it needs to be overcome so that people can lead fully autonomous lives.
This means, in part, that ethical issues are approached by looking at the broader societal ramifications of actions and policies.
Status-oriented feminists remind us that ethical analysis needs to concern itself with the effects of social policies and behaviours on those that are oppressed. It also reminds us to be critical of the questions that we are asking.
84
Apply status-oriented feminism to the analysis of a moral or social problem
To illustrate, consider the topic of abortion. Given existing powers of sexual dominance, women have little control over their sexual lives—many women do not feel free to refuse a man’s demands for intercourse. Further, no form of birth control is both fully effective and safe over the long term. Next, she emphasizes the fact that pregnancy takes place in a woman’s body and has profound consequences for her body. It is the woman and not the fetus that is the central focus of her analysis. The fetus’s status is relational, gaining value through the mother valuing it; it is not a person, for a person is a matter of being in relationships with others, and she claims this does not occur until after one is born. Finally, access to abortion is necessary for women to maintain control over their lives. Seeing as women are the primary child-rearers in our society, they need to be able to have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they can care for a child (or another child), for having a child dramatically affects their ability to govern their own lives in the future.
## Footnote
**Prohibiting abortions would work to impoverish women, trap them in relationships that are potentially dangerous to them and their children, and lead women to lose control over their own lives.**
85
Raise a challenge for status-oriented feminism
One challenge for status oriented feminism involves determining who can be oppressed. For instance, should status-oriented feminists be vegan in order to oppose the oppression of animals who are used as resources? What about nature itself? Can rivers and forests, themselves, be oppressed? And if so, what does this imply for those who are status-oriented feminists? And what about fetuses? Can they be oppressed? If not, why not.
Another challenge for status-oriented feminism is how to determine when a person’s choices should be recognized as autonomous (and so deserving of respect) and when those choices should be recognized as coerced or indoctrinated (and so less deserving of respect). A person might choose to have children, or choose to watch or make pornography, or choose to listen to or make a certain type of sexually explicit music. Should these choices be respected as women’s voices or critiqued as contributing to women’s oppression? Sometimes oppression is clear and obvious, but other times it is not.
Despite these challenges, status-oriented feminists do well to emphasize the fact of oppression and the need to overcome it.
