Ethics Final Flashcards
Distinction between Hedonistic and Generic Utilitarianism.
Hedonistic- focuses on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the ultimate good. “The only proof that something is desirable is that it is desired.” The experience machine raises a criticism of this idea thought experiment, which challenges whether pleasure alone is sufficient for a fulfilling life. Additionally, just because each person desires their own happiness doesn’t mean they desire the happiness of others, so the argument for general happiness as an end doesn’t logically follow.
Generic - focuses on maximizing our all well-being, which con include other values beyond just pleasure and pain. May struggle to resolve conflicts where maximizing overall happiness may require sacrificing a few individuals. Ex- choosing between saving everyone on a train or your mother on the trucks.
Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Actual consequence generic
Moral rightness of the action depends on the actual outcome it produces in terms of overall well being
Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Value adjusted possible consequence
The right action to take is the one where the sum of the adjusted values of its possible outcome is greater than that of any alternative action. Helps weigh the outcomes realistically by accounting for both their impact and likelihood.
Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Probable consequence
An actin, X, is the right action to take if the sum of the values of its likely consequence is greater thin the sum of the values of the likely consequences of any other option. Choose the action with the best overall likely outcome.
Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism
We can view the 3 versions of these versions similar to the 3 generic versions by adding that only happiness is intrinsically good and unhappiness is intrinsically bad
Experiment machine example- you don’t know you are in it you pick a scenario experiencing something you desire and you don’t come out,
Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism
Ethical hedonism
We ought to seek pleasure and minimize pain
Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism
Psychological hedonism
All human action are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
Objections to act utilitarianism
Thought experiments -
Surgeon case: Wild you kill someone to nerviest their organs to save 6 people? Questions whether sacrificing one life to save 6 is morally justifiable.
Trolly problem - walk you push a “big man” in front of a trolly to save them? Explores the ethical tension in life-and-death decisions.
Jeske’s Concern: Special obligations to family or friends.
Carritt’s Concern: Lack of consideration for justice.
Williams’s Concern: Ignores personal projects and principles.
Rule utilitarianism
What one ought to do is what is required by the correct rules of morality, rules of a game constitutes the game.
Con change act or rule into hedonistic view by adding a claim that pleasure is intrinsically good/bad
Smart’s restricted utilitarianism
Constructive rules: rules that define a practice
Rules of thumb/summary: General guidelines actions. The idea that what we ought to do is what is required by the correct rule of morality
Actual consequence version rule utilitarianism
The correct rule governing e certain kind of action is the rule such that if everyone were to follow it the net value world be greater if they were to follow any alternative rule.
Example- if a house was on fire and you held this view you would choose to so through the door and the family are all there resulting in you saving them all!
Probable consequence rule utilitarianism
Likely to occur. The correct rule is the rule such that the net value of the probable consequences of following that rule, is greater than the net value of the probable consequences of following any alternative rule.
Example- assessing the burning building you choose the best entry to go through. Say that is the window to save more people
Value adjusted possible consequence rule utilitarianism
Not just what is probable but possible. The relevant consequences of following rules are possible consequences whose value is adjusted for the probability of it occurring.
Example- within the burning building the kids are by the window and the parents are by the door. You would choose to save the children because it is the more valuable intrinsic value.
Hume’s view about ethical statements
Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives similar to Foot’s view
First view- The rules of morality therefore are not conclusions of your reasons. Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood.
Second view- labeling an action “vicious” does not arise from objective facts about the action itself. When you analyze the action examine its motives, thoughts or volitions. The sense of wrongdoing comes from within you as disapproval.
Key arguments for Hume’s view
Moral judgments motivate: ethical statements inherently influence actions.
Phenomenological Argument: examines emotional reactions “willful murder.” Appeal what is given to you in experience.
Hume
The role of reason in behavior
Reason is instrumental but does not directly motivate ethical actions.
Reason is instrumental - it helps us identify facts and means to achieve ends but does not determine what those ends should be. Ethical motivation arises from sentiments/passions rather than rational deliberation. Hume stated Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” This view positions reasons as a tool for achieving goals dictated by emotional and moral instincts not as the source of mural obligations itself.
Hume is/ought passage
Stevenson’s critique - The scientific is
insufficient to derive ethical conclusions.it rely’s on observation, hypothesis, testing, and empirical evidence to establish fact. Compared to ethical statements/questions transcends the realm of reality and factual correctness.
Factual observations about the world do not, automatically read to moral imperatives. Knowing that lying causes harm does not, by itself, provide a moral obligation not to lie; some moral sentiment or value is required.
Suggested modifications to Hume’s view
Hume believes that morality comes from emotion, but this doesn’t mean moral judgements are random. Certain emotions are common to all people and make moral rules more consistent. Human nature and shared experiences provide a solid foundation for morality
Self-referential subjective descriptivism (SRSD)
Reflects your attitude toward a state of affairs.
Moore’s arguments against (SRSD)
First argument- someone can approve of X while someone else can disagree. So if true, X could be both right Or wrong. Example- it can be both cloudy and 70 degrees outside. If SRSD is true X could be both right and wrong.
Second argument- S can approve of X which S formerly disapproved of. S could now say “x is now right but was wrong” - can’t be true -
Third argument- S can approve of X while R disapproves of X. If SRSD is true S can assert “x is right” and r asserts “x is wrong” they are not expressing any disagreement. Absurd to suppose that in this situation S and R are not disagreeing. Of course they disagree with each other!
Stevenson’s reply to Moore’s arguments against SRSD
First Reply - when Moore said, “If SRSD were true X could be both right and wrong.” Stevenson thinks it’s misleading and makes it sound as if SRSD is committed to the view that someone could truly say “x is both right and wrong, “ which is not true.
Second reply- A more plausible version of SRSD would hold that ethical statements regardless of tense always describe the attitude of the person making the statement at the time the statement is made.
Third Reply- Thinks that Moore’s argument will force one away from subjective descriptivism and toward non-cognitivism. He thinks that the argument presupposes a conception of disagreement that is far too narrow. SRSD should claim that people do express disagreement over ethical matters, but that the disagreement is disagreement in attitude, Tension=disagreement
Stevenson’s emotivism
Disagreement in belief V.S. Attitude
Ethical disagreements often involve conflicting attitudes, not just factual disputes
Disagreement in belief- Arises when 2 parties hold conflicting views abat a factual matter which can in theory be resolved by presenting evidence or appealing to objective criteria.
Disagreement in attitudes- Reflects a deeper conflict rooted in differing emotional responses, values, or preferences
Criteria for evaluating ethical terms Stevenson’s emotivism
Goodness must be a topic for intelligent disagreement - subjective attitude disagrees whether it is right or wrong
Must be magnetic- some acts have “pulls” to thinking that acts is right or good. Example- I feel like I should quit smoking - but doesn’t
Must not be discoverable through the scientific method - can’t be used because we tend to associate it with the world more than with the physical
Stevenson
Conception of argument in Ethical Disagreement
Ethical arguments aim to align attitudes and resolve conflicts
