Ethics Flashcards
What does aristotle attempt to describe and specify in the Nichomachean ethics
He attempts to describe and specify what the good life for human beings amounts to
Understand by way of the concept of human nature
What is a good x?
what the good life for human beings amounts to
Understand the idea of a good human being by first considering what it means to that something is good
virtue ethics
What is a good hammer ?
When it performs the tasks that are specific to hammers
The function of hammers
A good hammer optimally performs its function
What is a good father ?
What is a good father?
What is the function of a father?
Help children grow into loving, responsible, independent adults
A good father is one who optimally performs that function
So what does being a good X depend on ?
So to be a good X depends on the function, goal, or purpose of X
And what it takes to be good depends on the X (good father vs. good pianist)
What did artistole think would happen on ce we figured out what the function of a human being wa s
Aristotle thought that once we figured out what the function of a human being was, we’ll thereby know what a good human being is. This will tell us what the good life amounts to.
virtue
What is The characteristic that distinguishes human beings from other organisms
the development of rationality – the capacity for abstract thinking.
Definition of theoretical and practical reasoning
Theoretical Reasoning: This is pure reasoning done for its own sake, aimed at seeking knowledge and truth. For Aristotle, the best life is one dedicated to theoretical reasoning, or contemplation. He believed this is the happiest and most fulfilling life because it aligns with our rational nature.
Practical Reasoning: This involves reasoning about how to act and make decisions in everyday life. It’s about applying reason to practical matters, guiding our actions toward achieving good outcomes.
So what is a good life for human beings ?
The good life for human beings is one in which rational capacities are developed and exercised to a high degree
Human beings will then find the best sort of happiness for them
What is the good life according to artistole
The good life is one in which those traits that are specifically human are brought to a high life of cultivation
Views on happines and pleasure accoridng to aristotle
Happiness is not the same as pleasure (happiness is about a flourishing life)
How can we not discover principles of morality
We cannot discover principles of morality by generalizing from specific cases.
What corrects our 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. Quite the moral balancing act, wouldn’t you say? Anything specific you’d like to unpack about utilitarianism?
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.
Nietszsche theory critcism
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 argued that there is a qualitative difference in pleasures. He stated that people prefer pleasures that engage higher faculties. Evidence of this is that no one would choose to become a lower creature. As Mill said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (NIP 792)
: 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
Too demanding to be constantly thinking and acting for the general interests of society
Reply:
This confuses the rule which guides action with the motivation for right action. Right action can be done for many motives.
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
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 the surprising claim (SC) is false
In the SC what makes (a) We have strong moral reasons to not cause intense pain to animals is that animals have moral status.
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
