Final Exam Flashcards
Bentham’ s Principle of Utility
- An action should be done if it increases utility, and should not be done if it decreases utility
- basis of morality is happiness = pleasure/ absence of pain
- cannot be proven because if you start with a foundational value, and someone says to prove that that is where you should be starting, the only way you can go is to start with your own value
Utilitarianism
Focus on happiness as the basis of morality
Bentham= act utilitarianism
Mill= rule utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
– evaluation based on act-by-act basis
– acts are discrete, individual
– utility calculations:
1. try to measure the intensity, duration, certainty, and purity of happiness
2. Pleasures that will cause more pleasures in the future are more important than a big pleasure that will end now
Challenges to Act Utilitarianism
- There’s not enough time to do that math + who has the authority
- We still don’t know how to calculate future generations
- People experience happiness differently, experience happiness more intensely than other people do, people experience pain more intensely than others
- can it sustain a theory of justice? Likely no
Rule Utilitarianism
–General value of rules or practices
–Talks in the language of generality: Moves from case by case basis seen in act to application of general rules
–Rule utilitarianism generalizes around rules, principles, and practices that increase utility when followed.
1. Consider individual actions within the scope of the rules
Mill’s Higher and Lower Pleasures
–higher pleasures involve the mind; lower pleasures involve the physical
–Mill values those who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures, claiming that anyone who could experience both would obviously value the higher pleasures
Mill’s Theory of Justice
–combo of rule utilitarianism + instinct to punish
includes: personal liberty, property, right to life, freedom of speech
–instinct to punish: instinct to self-defense and sympathy for others
Critique of Rule Utilitarianism
– not all of the rules are rooted in utilitarianism
–might just devolve into act utilitarianism
–assumes there are universal rules
–there are many exceptions to the rules
–rules are not specific enough
Bernard Williams
–Utilitarianism is flawed bc the ends justifies the means
–creates a doctrine of negative responsibility which holds us responsible for too much. In particular, it holds us responsible for things that other people do. Thinking like a utilitarian is incompatible with retaining one’s integrity
George and Jim example
From Bernard Williams
Two people forced by Utilitarianism to abandon their personal identities because of pressures that would ensure communal good
–George is a biochemist going out for his first job, not many jobs open for him, he is offered a position from a company doing research in biochemical weaponry
–Jim is on a trip and he is with a cruel captain of something. There is a scenario where the captain will kill 20 native people, but Jim is given the option to kill one and then the 19 others will be saved as well.
● Wrong to be forced to do this
● Demonstrates the flaws of Utilitarianism
●violates personal integrity which violates one’s agency
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Central principle of ethics: formulate the central principle of your actions such that they can become a universal law
–embodiment of the golden rule
–you must impose the categorical imperative on yourself
–an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person’s inclination or purpose
Kant’s Free Will
–the starting point to the CI is goodwill
● A good will is good simply by virtue of the volition, it is good in and of itself
● This good will, which must be absolute in order to be without qualification, is also a good in and of itself
● The good is something that can be esteemed for itself and is good without qualification
● Thinks that what we can esteem, intrinsic to the good will, is the moral law
Virtue Ethics
Begins with good character, good life
➔ Should not be about calculation of virtue
➔ Become good persons and learn from other good person
◆ Good person = being a decent human being
–Virtue ethics are lived, you live your life in a virtuous way
–an action is right if it is completed by a person with a virtuous character
advantageous theory bc it is actually possible, doesn’t assume perfection, and is realistic
moral pluralism–> virtues are all of equal importance
Virtues include:
● Compassion
● Wisdom
● Courage
● Responsibility
● Trustworthiness
● Generosity
● Justice
two theories of virtue ethics
- Classical virtue ethics = lived theory of ethics
◆ Does not formulate a principle of virtue from others
2.Contemporary virtue ethics = abstract the grounded
◆ Does formulate a principle of virtue from others
◆ Most likely to fail because it is more than one thing
Critique to Virtue Ethics
- Doesn’t have a foundation, there’s no value that goes beneath all other values
–I.e. utilitarianism starts with happiness - Lack of a “should”, just says if you want to be a good person, do this. It gives you more of a how to rather than a should
- Could say there is a virtue more important than others namely wisdom or justice, but that might go against the value of pluralism of virtues
●bungling do-gooder
1. the bungling do-gooder can be a wonderful person who is just bad at what they do, they can have great intentions but cause a lot of harm
ex:
–Social worker is extremely generous person but doesn’t know how to be generous to help their clients. They might do too much to help their client which might disempower their client. The social worker might be too kind in an instance where tough love would be better, and by being kind they reinforced bad habits of that person
Moral Relativism
➔ Truth of an ethical claim is a reflection of cultural expectations
–All moral relativists presuppose cultural relativism
● Moral relativist has to say that it is relative to culture (it only exists because of culture, the relativeness part comes from moral truths as being relative to where you stand in a particular culture)
● It requires the question, what do we make of these differences morally
–Its not just about different moral norms or ethical practices, its about right and wrong. What’s relative here is rightness and wrongness itself
–Something in one culture can be right in one culture and wrong in another, so we then have to conclude that a policy is both right and wrong on a fundamental level
–Argue that they are talking about moral rightness and wrongness as carrying on the sense of the community
Euthanasia
Hooker and Velman
Hooker Definition
● killing; passing up opportunities to save someone for their own benefit
Kinds of Euthanasia
1. voluntary (explicitly consenting from an autonomous moral agent)
2.nonvoluntary (explicit consent is unavailable (e.g. coma, vegetative state)
- involuntary (not consented to; rebelled against)
Hooker
according to Rule-Utilitarianism we ought to have laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.
Euthanasia
Distinctions
● Active v. passive
● Forms of quality of life
● Least justifiable: involuntary-active
● Most justifiable: voluntary-passive/active
Voluntary-passive/active
● Fulfilling someone’s wishes
● Relieving one’s suffering
● Exemplifies the right to live one’s life
● Humanity: does this conflict with the “goodness” of the action?
Velman
Euthanasia
● argues against the right to choose/pursue Euthanasia
● Wants to free people from dueling
– Choices are burdensome
● Justifying the choice to live or die is controversial
–The default becomes not living
–One has to explain why they should live
This is problematic bc it
1. Devalues people
2. Not everyone has to make this justification
– Diminishes the value of some people’s lives
● Even if there is consent, cannot guarantee it is free
● Dignity can be misunderstood
–Duped into believing being cared for is dignity
Critique of Velman
- he is just a paternalist (making decisions for others against their will)
- slippery slope
–justifying one case requires justifying others, where is the line drawn - law & policy
–codifying the right to die legitimizes the choice for euthanasia - if people have a duty to die when they become a ‘burden’ to others, who decides they’re the burden and what if the people who decide suck
–a burden could be anyone who needs to be cared for (ex babies)
–referring to someone as a burden devalues humanity
Frey: Animal Rights
Frey: “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Specieism”
● Unequal value (Frey)
○ Some animal life is more
valuable than other animals
○ Human life is more valuable
than animal life
■ Humans can make
themselves into
something/act with
agency
○ Humans are owed different
things than
animals
○ Criticism: speciesis
Regan: Animal Rights
Regan: “The Case for Animal Rights”
● Rights view (Regan)
○ Everyone is a subject of a life
(animals included)
○ Humans do not only have
inherent value
■ What distinguishes the
inherent values of
humans and animals?
Cohen: Animal Rights
argument in defense of animal testing
1.Animals do not have rights
2. Speceisism is just fine
○ Animals cannot make
moral claims against one
another
■ Only humans can do
this
○ Rights are grounded in
moral agency that
humans only have
■ Moral agency is the
highest quality of
human beings
■ Theory is the morality
of human rights
■ Circular; slippery
slope
Counterargument
■ Do babies have moral
agency? if not, do they
have rights?
■Cohen assumes
empirically that we
need animal testing
■It might be not as
necessary as we think it
is, or it might be
unreliable
Paternalism: Mill
Mill’s Anti-Paternalism
1. Individuals have the absolute right to make self-regarding choices on their own.
●Indivs of a ripe age have an
absolute right to choose
whatever they want to do in
their own life and in their
own private sphere, these
are rights against other
persons, groups, and the
state. These are choices that
have to do with your own
indiv pursuits, self regarding
activities
●the state can intervene
when you are harming
someone else
●Paternalism might always be
wrong in the case of moral
harm, but not always in the
case of physical harm
