Ethics Final

Question 1

Distinction between Hedonistic and Generic Utilitarianism.

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Actual consequence generic

Answer 2

Moral rightness of the action depends on the actual outcome it produces in terms of overall well being

Question 3

Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Value adjusted possible consequence

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Generic versions of act utilitarianism
Probable consequence

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism

Answer 5

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,

Question 6

Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism
Ethical hedonism

Answer 6

We ought to seek pleasure and minimize pain

Question 7

Hedonistic versions of act utilitarianism
Psychological hedonism

Answer 7

All human action are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

Question 8

Objections to act utilitarianism

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Rule utilitarianism

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Smart’s restricted utilitarianism

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Actual consequence version rule utilitarianism

Answer 11

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!

Question 12

Probable consequence rule utilitarianism

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Value adjusted possible consequence rule utilitarianism

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Hume’s view about ethical statements

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Key arguments for Hume’s view

Answer 15

Moral judgments motivate: ethical statements inherently influence actions.
Phenomenological Argument: examines emotional reactions “willful murder.” Appeal what is given to you in experience.

Question 16

Hume
The role of reason in behavior

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Hume is/ought passage

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Suggested modifications to Hume’s view

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Self-referential subjective descriptivism (SRSD)

Answer 19

Reflects your attitude toward a state of affairs.

Question 20

Moore’s arguments against (SRSD)

Answer 20

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!

Question 21

Stevenson’s reply to Moore’s arguments against SRSD

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Stevenson’s emotivism
Disagreement in belief V.S. Attitude

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Criteria for evaluating ethical terms Stevenson’s emotivism

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Stevenson
Conception of argument in Ethical Disagreement

Answer 24

Ethical arguments aim to align attitudes and resolve conflicts

Question 25

Conception of argument in Ethical Disagreement
Rational Psychological methods

Answer 25

One appeals to facts in hope that if one gets the person with whom one is arguing to accept those factual claims that will cause the person to change their attitude in the desired way.
Example- movie and symphony- trying to get them to see a movie instead. You would try to find a fact abut the movie to change their attitudes “you love Ryan Gosling! He is in this movie!Also the symphony is 4 hours long.” change in attitude is a change in action.

Question 26

Conception of argument in Ethical Disagreement
Non-rational Psychological Method

Answer 26

Ster people with emotional appeal. Taking advantage of the emotive meaning of terms in a language to sway the attitudes of ones audience

Question 27

Conception of argument in Ethical Disagreement
Logical method of argument

Answer 27

The consistency of one’s opponents attitudes. Change their beliefs bused on drawing on more facts than just one
Example- you try to get S to approve of X which he now disapproves of. You point out that S approves of something else Y which is in all “relevant” respects like X and hope that when S realizes this S will change his attitude to approve of X. Could backfire and S might change his attitudes from one of approval to one of disapproval towards Y.

Question 28

Hare’s prescriptivist
Meaning of “ought” judgements (non-cognivist

Answer 28

Ethical statements prescribe actions universally. Judgements are grammatically disguised imperatives. Saving “ S ought to do X “ one is issuing the imperative “Do X.” to accept a moral judgement/imperative, it is to act in the way prescribed. To accept the judgement that I ought to be generous is to accept the imperative “be generous.” accept a command to do it only if possible for you to do so.
Example - A severe drug addict might not be able to stop using drugs-but knows that it is the right thing to do.

Question 29

Universalizable Imperative

Answer 29

Meaning that in issuing the imperative on is committed to accepting some UNIVERSAL imperative which either alone or together with statements of fact entails that ethical imperative
An imperative is universal if it contains no reference to any particular person, place or time. Example- Be generous (everyone, everywhere, always).
A moral imperative judgement connects you to a universal imperative that supports that. Example- Always return what you borrow is a universal imperative. An imperative is when you have to give 20 dollars back to your roommate. You cannot not give it back. If you don’t you either have to abandon your moral imperative judgment or come up with a new universal imperative.

Question 30

Hare’s Evaluation of Metaethical View and Conception of Ethical Argument

Answer 30

Ethical reasoning involves consistency and universalizability. Also accept in imaginary situations as well
In trying to get you to abandon a moral judgement/imperative, I force you to universalize and come up with a universal imperative you claim to accept. Then I try to get you to realize that you don’t accept the universal imperative by drawing from it a consequence that you wouldn’t accept in some real or imagined situation. You are then forced to either abandon your moral judgment or come up with a different universal imperative to “back” that judgement.
Hypothetical person who has no moral judgements Hare says they can’t win chess if they don’t play the game with you. Can’t win or lose a moral argument if they don’t make moral arguments
Hare is not saying all moral judgements are universally imperative, it has to be universalizable and have to accept a universalizable.

Question 31

Hare’s Evaluation of Metaethical View and Conception of Ethical Argument Illistrations

Answer 31

Debtor and Debtor’s Prison: Analyzes moral obligations. The universal imperative here might be, “Everyone must repay what they owe.” To act inconsistently with this—by not repaying—would require the debtor to abandon or revise the universal imperative. For example, the debtor might argue for a new universal principle: “Only repay debts when convenient.”
Thomson’s Abortion Argument: Examines the universal application of ethical principles. challenges universalized imperatives concerning bodily autonomy. For example, consider the claim, “It is always wrong to end a human life.” If this imperative is universalized, it would prohibit not only abortion but also acts like self-defense or certain medical procedures. Forces proponents of this principle to consider whether they truly accept it universally or need to adopt a more nuanced imperative, such as, “It is wrong to end a human life unless doing so protects one’s own bodily autonomy.”
Medlin’s Argument Against Ethical Egoism: Ethical egoism claims individuals should act solely in their own self-interest. Critiques the self-centered nature of ethical egoism. I accept the moral imperative: maximize my happiness, but for it to be a moral judgment I need to universalize and come up with a universal imperative from which it follows. EX- I let everyone maximize their own happiness, but I can’t accept the consequence of that imperative. Consider a situation in which your doing X maximizes your happiness and my preventing you from doing X maximizes my happiness. In such a situation won’t I have to do the impossible in order to accept both your doing X and my preventing you from doing X?

Question 32

The difference between Rule and Act Utilitarianism

Answer 32

Act utilitarianism judges the morality of an action based solely on the consequences of that individual action, while rule utilitarianism judges an action based on whether it follows a set of rules that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest overall good