Final Exam Flashcards
What are the three categories of moral philosophy?
1) Metaethics
2) Normative Ethics
3) Practical Ethics
Metaethics
about moral arguments…
1) Semantics: the meaning of moral terms
2) Epistemology: what is the NATURE and JUSTIFICATION of moral knowledge?
3) Metaphysics: to what extent are moral claims true?
Normative Ethics
1) What is non-instrumentally good/bad?
2) What is non-instrumentally right/wrong
Practical Ethics
1) How ought I to live?
2) How ought my society be organized/constituted?
non-instrumental
intrinsic; something is worth it for its own sake and not for what it can produce
examples of (potentially) non-instrumentally good bad things
good: pleasure, knowledge, achievements, friendship
bad: pain, ignorance, failure, loneliness
for every non-instrumental good, there is
its opposite; a non-instrumental bad
instrumental
things worth having not for their own sake, but for what they produce (i.e. what they can get you; they are worth it for what they enable)
examples of instrumental goods
money, nutrition
Can things be both instrumental and non-instrumental? provide an example
What would a moral skeptic say????
Yes
Example: Easting Meat
Case: Ought that you avoid eating meat
Argument: Satisfies pleasure and nutrition but such trivial interests outweigh the cruelty and pain that animals undergo therefore sacrificing animal interest for human interest is NOT justified
Moral Skeptic: choosing between these is meaningless because the weight/values do not differ
Moral Skepticism
The meta-ethical theory that no one has (or can have) any moral knowledge, thus we are ever justified in stating/believing that moral claims are true
What do some moral skeptics deny?
Some deny that moral claims are true/that a moral theory could be true
What two arguments does Mackie (the moral skeptic) present in his book?
1) The Argument from Relativity
2) The Argument from Queerness
1) The Argument from Relativity
P1: Widespread variation of moral codes from society-to-society
P2: People are not reasoning inaccurately, but merely participate in different ways of life
C1: Therefore, there are no universal moral truths or objective values, rather, the truth of moral norms is relative to society
2) The Argument from Queerness
A moral judgement must be
OBJECTIVE (true and unchanging)
PRACTICAL (guiding our actions)
Mackie thinks this a queer (strange) idea
Parfait’s 3 Replies to Mackie’s Relativity Argument
1) Find the objective moral theory that resolves our disagreement
2) There are reasons for action (Companions of Guild Argument)
3) Moral skepticism is not all or nothing (some might be objective)
Parfait’s Reply to Mackie’s Queerness Argument
Mackie’s Argument presents premises and conclusions contradictory to his criticism of morality
My Objection to the Companions of Guilt Argument
Parfit’s Companions of Guilt Argument jumps from a claim about a priori survival instincts to a posteriori moral decisions, therefore fails to provide sufficient evidence that there are moral reasons for actions.
Moving out of the way is not a rational decision, since claiming such would involve claiming that animals, too, are rational (since animals move out of the way of cars, for example). It is an instinctive decision, and provides no grounds for basing a claim about moral decision making.
According to Parfit, why study ethics?
We should have high hopes in making progress, since few have made non-religious ethics their life’s work, thus it is rather young and there is such room and hope for progress.
- Peace
- A nuclear war that kills 99% of the existing population
- A nuclear war that kills 100% of the existing population
According to most, 2 is such worse than 1. According to Parfit and Utilitarians,
3 is much worse than 2 because the loss of humanity is the worst thing that could happen
According to Classical Utilitarians, why is the loss of humanity the worst thing that could happen?
The loss of all of mankind is bad because of the “vast reduction in the possible sum of happiness
(We ought to maximize happiness (achieved through pleasure) and avoid pain as much as possible, this is the purpose of our lives)
According to Ideal Utilitarians, why is the loss of humanity the worst thing that could happen?
The loss of all of mankind is bad because of the loss of “the Sciences, the Arts and moral progress, or the continued advance towards a wholly just world-wide community”
(Very bad because the highest of these achievements (non-religious ethics) would come in the future centuries)
Classical Utilitarians
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill
Henry Sidgwick
Ideal Utilitarians
Hastings Rashdall
G.E. Moore
Monism (normative ethics)
only one things has value (e.g. hedonism)
Pluralism (normative ethics)
multiple things have value
Utilitarianism
the view that approves or disproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have argument or diminish the happiness of the party in question
Rightness and wrongness of actions are defined by the consequences they have on happiness and unhappiness
Bentham’s 3 Arguments for Utilitarianism
1) Psychological Hedonism Argument
2) Semantic Argument
3) Coherence Argument
1) Bentham’s Psychological Hedonism Argument
P1) We pursue all and only pleasure and avoidance of pain
P2) what we pursue = intrinsically good
C1) All and only pleasure and absence of pain is intrinsically good
2) Bentham’s Semantic Argument
P1) We ought to desire for its own sake what is good
P2) intrinsically good means pleasurable
C1) We ought to desire only pleasure for it’s own sake
3) Bentham’s Coherence Argument
P1) We should accept a theory that coheres with our reflective attitudes about intrinsic values
P2) Hedonism does
C1) We should accept hedonism
Hedonism
all and only pleasure (happiness) is non-instrumental good and all and only pain (unhappiness) is non-instrumentally bad(happiness is the ONE valuable thing;all else is instrumentally valuable)
Why is hedonism an empirical theory?
It is dependent on the person (pain/pleasure are subjective to the person)
Empiricism
all knowledge is based on/evidenced by appearance to the senses
Bentham’s Value of Pleasure: How might we measure happiness/pleasure? What pleasures are most valuable?
The value of something is determined by the amount of pleasure it causes
Quantitative Hedonism
The higher the magnitude of a pleasure, the more it is valued. We can determine its magnitude through how much pleasure it produces.
What are Bentham’s 4 Measures of Quantity?
1) Intensity (intensity of the feeling) 2) Duration (how long it lasts) 3) Certainty (how likely/probable it is to happen) 4) Propinquity (the proximity: LOCATION and TIME)
The value of a pleasure relies entirely on its
pleasurability (amount of pleasure it produces)
An important criticism of hedonism
Shaudenfreude
Shaudenfreude
evil pleasures (taking delight in others’ misfortunes
Bentham’s Quantitative Hedonism is a response to what criticism of hedonism?
Schadenfreude (he ranks evil pleasures as low)
Why did many call Bentham’s hedonism a doctrine of swine?
For the hierarchy/value of life it suggests, it values other lives over humans (e.g. oyster < human)
How does Mill respond to the challenges that Bentham’s hedonism faces?
Mill respond while retaining a commitment to hedonism…
He views the objection would be right if it were true that swine pleasures were the ones that utilitarianism advocates humans to seek out
However, this is not the case because human beings have faculties more elevated the animal appetites
Qualitative Hedonism
Why does Mill believe that hedonism is not only quantitative, but also qualitative?
Human beings have faculties more elevated the animal appetites
Humans have pleasures of
1) intellect
2) imagination
3) moral sentiments
all of these human pleasures are greater than mere bodily pleasures
therefore,
intellectual pleasures < bodily pleasures
Qualitative Hedonism
pleasure are defined by their kind, as well
We can argue that intellectual pleasures,t themselves, are more pleasurable than bodily pleasures (humans are capable of both, while animals are only capable of bodily)
Mill’s Value of Pleasure
Quantitative + Qualitative
2 Examples of Qualitative Hedonism
1) When I buy chocolate, I don’t just consider how much but also what kind
2) I don’t buy multiple mediocre winter coats, I buy one really good winter coat
Mil’s Argument for Qualitative Hedonism (empirical)
P1) If of two pleasures, one is chosen over the other but all are capable of being felt/enjoyed equally, the chosen one is higher inequality and therefore more valuable
P2) Competent judges choose intellectual over bodily pleasures
C1) Therefore, pleasures associated with intellectual faculties are higher in quality, more valuable
C2) Therefore, they are to be preferred to mere bodily pleasures despite that bodily can offer greater quantity
4 Objections to Mill’s Qualitative&Quantitative Hedonism
1) The distinction b/w intellectual (higher) and bodily (lower) is unclear (e.g. sex is both)
2) Nor is it clear that all competent judges will desire mental < physical
3) Mill does not apply his view to pain (e.g. is intellectual suffering worse than bodily and, if so, is the pain worth it)
4) Mill has contradicted hedonism (factors other than pleasantness of pleasure determine value)
What is perhaps the upshot of Mill’s contradicting himself in his qualitative hedonism?
perhaps pluralism is the way to go (though this is not Mill’s aim)
What is Robert Nozick’s objection to hedonism (that all forms are susceptible to)?
The Experience Machine
How does the experience machine successfully object hedonism?
Suppose life in the machine is the best on offer, it is more pleasurable than life now
Hedonism says that the value of life is determined by the amount of pleasure it contains
Given the nature of the machine, it is best and one has strong reason to plug in
Though most would dissent from the claim that life in the machine is the best on offer
Nozick’s Argument
P1: Of the lives available to us, the experience machine offers us the life with the greatest amount of surplus pleasure
P2: If, as the hedonists claim, the best life is the one with the greatest amount of surplus pleasure, then we ought to believe that life inside the experience machine is the best life on offer
P3: It is not the case that life inside the experience machine offers us best life on offer
C1: Therefore, it is not the case, as the hedonists claim, that the best life is the one with the greatest amount of surplus pleasure
What is some evidence that Nozick points out to defend P3 of his argument?
P3: It is not the case that life inside the experience machine offers us best life on offer because…
1) We want to DO certain things
We want to BE certain people
The machine LIMITS us to a man-made reality
Sharon Hewitt defends hedonism against Nozzick’s EM objection. She argues for the following 2 conclusions:
1) There are good hedonistic reasons not to plug in
2) There are good reasons to question the reliability of the intuitions on which Nozick and those friendly to him rely (meta-ethics)
(Nozick’s judgments are unreliable)
Hewitt’s good hedonistic reasons not to plug in
1) leaves us at mercy of the machine: risky, safety is in others hands
2) potential to help others is wasted
3) machine/machine operators must be excellent problem solvers
4) is it sustainable/ environmentally friendly
Hewitt’s challenges t the reliability of Nozick’s judgements
1) We need pain to feel long term pleasure
- it motivates our future and teaches how to stay safe
2) To admit that reality < EM is to admit that there are other objective values
3) Intellectual Seemings, - Nozick relies on these but
- they are not
a. reliable
b. good indicators or
c. credible experience
- BECAUSE our desire for Nozick’s goods are shaped by
a. our preference for the familiar and
b. what others approve of value
4) Paradox of Happiness
- to be happy, you must pursue an aim/goal other than happiness
- happiness must be pursued indirectly
Intellectual Seemings (Hewitt)
An act of rational intellect; things seem to be the case
Paradox of Happiness (Hewitt)
To be happy, you must pursue an aim/goal other than happiness. Happiness must be pursued indirectly.
Utilitarianism is a view about
what we ought to do that includes the character we should be and is focused on surplus pleasure
Utilitarianism answers questions such as
What are the most fundamental requirements of morality?
What are the obligations?
What are we ought to do/think?
How can utilitarianism not be and how can it be proven?
Cannot be proven in ordinary/popular meaning of the term because it cannot be derived/inferred from basic moral premises/truths (there is a larger meaning/proof)
Can be proved through rational considerations capable of determining the intellect in favour of the principle
Mill’s Proof for Utilitarianism is entirely
empirical (Mill is an empiricist)
Mill’s Argument for Utilitarianism
P1) The only consideration that establishes that something is visible is that people actually see it
P2) The only consideration that establishes that something is audible is that people actually do hear it
P3) The only consideration that establishes that something is desirable for its own sake is that people actually do desire it
P4) People actually do desire their own happiness
C1) Therefore happiness is desirable for its own sake
P5) In fact, happiness is the ONLY thing that is desired
C2) Therefore, to each person happiness is only desirable to an end
P6) Each person’s happiness is the only good to that person
P7) If each person’s happiness is the only thing desirable for its own sake to each person, then the sum of each person’s happiness is desirable for its own sake
C3) Therefore, Mill concludes, the general or aggregate happiness is a good “to the aggregate of all persons”
Fallacy of Equivocation (against P1-P3 and C1 of Mill’s Argument for Utilitarianism)
Mill has used “desirability” in one way in his premises and a different way in his conclusion
Premises: what appeals to us
Conclusion: what we want
Fallacy of Composition (Henry Sigdwick against Mill’s Argument for Utilitarianism)
Saying what is true of the parts is true of the whole
example: the parts of a car cannot drive on own, therefore a car cannot drive on own
Mill’s Associationism
We desire a thing other than direct pleasure for its own sake for its association with pleasure
Qs against Mill’s Argument
Is it plausible to hold that the only evidence that established somethings as desirable is that people desire it?
No, because us desiring something merely shows our capability to desire, not that what we desire is valuable
Qs against Mill’s Argument
Is Mill’s argument for the claim that all and only happiness is desired for its own sake plausible?
No, because people desire other things as we’ll that do not bring about happiness
Qs against Mill’s Argument
How plausible is Mill’s suggestion that desiring something and finding it pleasant are phenomena that are entirely inseparable (associationism)?
His associationism seems to be plausible, though I would argue against it stating that some desire promote short-term pleasures but have long-term consequences (e.g. cheating, eating poorly)
Qs against Mill’s Argument
Is the transition from P6 and P7 to C2 plausible?
No because it can require uncompensated sacrifice (sacrificing own well-being/happiness for others) thus my happiness is not only good to me
Qs against Mill’s Argument
Are a) and b) sufficient to justify the transition?
a) whenever you act, you act for the purpose of achieving some goal
b) all person’s happiness is equal to each other’s in value
Do we always act for the purpose of achieving a goal? If so, perhaps the goal is SURVIVAL, not HAPPINESS, or perhaps we have many goals (plurality)
2 worries about utilitarianism
1) It is too demanding
2) Not enough time for calculating and weighing effects of actions and their effects on aggregate happiness
Why is Mill’s Utilitarianism too demanding?
Cognitive Demands Cognitive (Epistemic) Constraints Uncompensated Sacrifice Radical Egalitarianism Conventional Morality/Reality
Cognitive Demands
demands that require us to make calculations/analyzations/connections about our actions
Cognitive (Epistemic) Constraints
things that make it difficult for us to accept the view
1) We don’t have time
2) Requires us to be free of various forms of biases and other corruptions (e.g. favouring the choice which benefits self)
3) Requires of us to be able to perform all these complicated calculations
Uncompensated Sacrifice
If the aggregate happiness of the whole requires the sacrifice of own happiness or those whom you care about, it is required that you do
Radical Egalitarianism
The happiness of all of society is regarded as equally valuable unless there are quantitative differences between them
(example: reading neighbour’s kids a book)
Conventional Morality/Reality
Mill must regard ALL happiness as equally valuable
Mill’s Response to worries about utilitarianism
“the promotion of aggregate happiness is best achieved by respecting the RULES OF MORALITY (MAPS) as the effects of some actions on aggregate happiness”
- you need “maps” to get to utilitarianism
- “maps” are found in the RULES OF MORALITY FOR THE MULTITUDE
- some maps are poor, but they are better than no guide
- For mill, rules of morality are reliable maps/guides which lead us to the principle of utility (aggregate happiness)
Mill’s
Indirect Utilitarianism/Two-Level Utilitarianism
1) Principle of Utility: we have the aim (destination)
2) Common Sense Morality: we have the rules of morality (maps)
Mill’s Indirect Utilitarianism
What do we do when maps conflict?
We reconcile by moving back to our main aim: the principle of utility
how to we get to our destination?
Mill’s Indirect Utilitarianism
Why does Mill think we need maps/rules to get to the destination/principle?
We always needs those SECONDARY RULES to help us achieve the principe of utility and utilitarianism gives us those
