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
In Mill’s System of Logic, why does he argue that utilitarianism is superior to many other moral theories?
- A system in ethics is necessary and desirable
- There must be a standard to determine goodness/badness and objects of desire
It is best to have a unified doctrine - Utilitarianism provides one
- Therefore it is superior to other theories that do not supply this sort of systemization
Bernard Williams two case examples that demonstrate negative responsibility
1) The Case of George
2) The Case of Jim
Integrity requires that…
…
Consequentialism
it is never permissible to do less than the impartial best (state of affairs)
Non-consequentialism
it is sometimes permissible to do less than the impartial best (state of affairs)
Constraints
In some cases it is wrong to bring about the impartial best
Options
In some cases it is permissible not being about the impartial best
Partial vs. Impartial Best Example: Safety and Security
A: put constraint on the world because we have the right to not be tortured, therefore it is impermissible to take route B and permissible to do less than impartial best
B: a world which is more secure and safe, but by means of threaten and torture
Negative Responsibility
“If I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow to fail to prevent, as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday sense, bring about.”
The impartial best in the case of George
What does Williams say?
George is negatively responsible to take the job so that the other candidate does not because by stepping aside and denying it, George will allow for a quicker advancement in the chemical weapon industry
Williams: George should NOT take the job
The impartial best in the case of Jim
What does Williams say?
Jim is negatively responsible to kill one man because by not doing so he is allowing 20 people to die instead of 1
Williams: Jim SHOULD kill the person
Integrity requires that…
…one’s actions and one’s decision have to be seen as the actions and decisions which flow from the projects and attitudes which one is most closely identified We care bout our people, projects and commitments)
Consequentialism requires that…
….one’s actions and one’s decision have to be seen as actions and decisions that flow from what promotes the impartially best states of affairs.
Why is integrity incompatible with consequentialism? Why does Williams argue that there is no room in consequentialism for integrity? How does consequentialism undermine integrity?
Integrity and consequentialism are not compatible because consequentialism requires putting aside what you acre about. Consequentialism requires putting aside what you care about whenever it is impartially best.
My Objection to Williams’ Argument (that consequentialism always undermines integrity)
Consequentialism does not ALWAYS have to undermine integrity because one can be committed to consequentialism. A person’s life could be shaped by a commitment to consequentialism, and in that case, consequentialism would be compatible with integrity.
Though, I do not believe it is the case that many people have commitments to consequentialism, and of those who do, that their commitment to consequentialism is strong enough to override all of their other commitments in life (e.g. their partner, their children, etc.).
Therefore, this fault does not entirely undermine Williams’ conclusion, but merely shows a minor weakness by presenting a way they can be compatible.
Consequentialism is committed to
Negative Responsibility
Why is integrity incompatible with consequentialism? Why does Williams argue that there is no room in consequentialism for integrity? How does consequentialism undermine integrity?
Integrity and consequentialism are not compatible because consequentialism requires putting aside what you acre about. Consequentialism requires putting aside what you care about whenever it is impartially best. Thus, there is no place in consequentialism for integrity.
The purpose of Kant’s groundwork
to locate “the supreme principle for morality”
What is the task of morality?
to discover how humanity is universally sound by objective principles of behaviour
Kant thinks humans have the capacity to know right/wrong, but
the difficulty lies in human weakness (humans are weak: we have the power to act moral but fail to)
Kant thinks seeing the __________ will motivate us
supreme principle
Humans are special because we can
1) reflect
2) act rationally on reflections
(humans are rational beings)
Free will is key for Kant because he aims to show that
humans are responsible for their actions (liberty is necessary for morality)
We must investigate what kind of ______ we have. According to Kant it is a _____ _____.
Will
humans have a Good Will
Good Will
a predisposition to act from duty and to always be sensitive to moral consideration
What are the 3 features of the good will?
the good will…
1) its goodness is unlimited/unconditioned
2) its good in itself
3) it is the highest good
What are the 3 features of the good will?
1) its goodness is unlimited/unconditioned
it is good in all possible worlds and never limited by other goods
It can never be bad/harmful
Can never have too much
Compare with gifts of nature…
i) talents of the mind: intelligence, judgement ii) qualities of temperance: courage, perseverance iii) gifts of fortune: power, wealth, happiness (1) in excess, these can be bad (2) these could be evil without a good will
What are the 3 features of the good will?
2) its good in itself
The good will is intrinsically good (it is not good for what it produces/results in, but willing it makes itself good)
What are the 3 features of the good will?
3) it is the highest good
It is more valuable than anything that can be brought about by it in favour of inclination
It is not the most complete good (the most complete good = Good Will + Happiness)
For Kant, the most complete good is
Good Will (virtue) + Happiness
Happy Villain Example: a villain who is happy is not good, because the possession of the good will makes us worthy of happiness
The Good Will is involved in estimating
the worth of an action
Only actions from what two things poses moral worth?
duty + good will
Duties done from duty + good will contrast with actions…
Example?
…done in accordance with duty, done from limitations such as inclinations/desires
Example: Shopkeeper vs. Self-Love
Maxim
intention
A maxim is not the result of the will, but the
activity of the will
When we act, we are motivated by a
maxim
Maxim (motivation) of Duty
doing something despite inclination not to
example: I don’t want to X but I will anyways because X is the right thing to do
Why do only actions done from motivation of duty possess moral worth?
because the worth of an action comes from the MOTIVE not the RESULT
According to Kant, happiness is
the sum satisfaction of our inclinations
We have an indirect duty to
promote our own happiness because unhappy people are more likely to transgress their duties
(people are inclined to do what makes them happy, though we have difficulties knowing what makes us happy)
What are Kant’s 5 Correct Moral Principles?
1) One ought to preserve one’s life (don’t kill self).
2) One ought to provide honest service (no lying/false promises).
3) One ought to be beneficent (promote others’ happiness).
4) One ought to make oneself perfect (improve understanding and to set ends within the limits of morality)
5) One ought to promote one’s own happiness (indirect duty because its purpose is to satisfy 4)
Kant’s 3 Prepositions
1) Only actions done from duty possess moral worth
2) the moral worth of an action is based on the principle with which the action was willed (worth comes from motive, not action)
3 )duty is the necessity of an act one out of respect for the law
What does Kant mean by: “I ought never act in such a way that I could not also will my maxim should become a UNIVERSAL LAW”?
Categorical Imperative = Universal Law Formation
For an action to be permissible, it must be capable of universality (an act anyone can do at anytime). Morality is not continent, it is objective and universal. Kant is negating any form of consequentialism (in which right wrong are situational/circumstantial). If lying is wrong, it is ALWAYS wrong for EVERYONE. Kant is an absolutist. Universality is a necessity.
Kant is an absolutist: it is NEVER okay to make a false prime because
it is a contradiction in conception
Two Kinds of Contradiction
1) Contradiction in Conception
2) Contradiction in the Will
Contradiction in Conception
Impermissible to act on (e.g. false promise)
Contradiction in the Will
Permissible to act on
Rational Beings
have the power to act in accordance with reason and against inclinations because they attain a will (the power to reason practically)
therefore, imperatives (ought judgements) only hold for rational beings with a good will
Good Will
humans
- capable of being moved by moral considerations
- sometimes fail
- rational being with a good will almost always experiences conflict between inclinations and duty
Holy Will
God
- distinct from good will
- NO failure
- NEVER experiences conflict between inclinations and desires
- no imperative because God is not ought to do anything
Different Rational Agents
1) God
2) Angels
3) Humans
Why don’t animals count as rational beings?
animals are always driven by inclinations
What shows that humans are rational beings with a good will?
the fact that we experience conflict between our inclinations/desires and what we are ought to do
Morality is founded on
holding people responsible (no responsibility = no morality
accidents vs. deeds
accidents: unintentional results of nature
deeds: intentional interventions of the world
Imperatives
something you ought to do; ought judgements
they are good/desirable
Categorical Imperatives
good/desirable in themselves
universal obligations
examples: ought that you don’t lie
Hypothetical Imperatives
not good in themselves, but for their results (for some end or purpose)
- some action is good “as a means” to an end
- action serves a purpose, necessary to achieve a goal
Two kinds of Hypothetical Imperatives
1) problematic (possible): rules of skill
2) assertoric (actual): counsels of prudence
Two kinds of Hypothetical Imperatives
1) problematic (possible): rules of skill
- things we might have; based on ends that are possible
- what one might desire
- example: education system is set up in this way
Two kinds of Hypothetical Imperatives
2) assertoric (actual): counsels of prudence
- things we have; ends we can presuppose
- example: I want to go home so I ought to buy a train ticket, show up to the train station on time, etc.
- nature has made it so that we can seek our own happiness (happiness: sum satisfaction of inclinations)
- happiness an act we can presuppose as humans that is a necessity of nature
- perfect happiness is a natural inclination therefore we ought to pursue it as humans
How are hypothetical imperatives possible?
What is a FLAW and how does Kant solve it?
when willing an end, one also wills all of the means which are INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY and in their power to achieve it
willing the means is analytically contained in willing an end
The problem is that you can get ought from what you want, so Kant fixes it so that it is not an ought…
Problem: If you want X, you ought to Y
(if you want to murder, you ought to get a weapon)
Solution: If you want X, then you Y
What are Categorical Imperatives?
objectively necessary and universal commands (of actions that are good in themselves)
- it is an inescapable, necessary, universal law
- these ought claims apply to everyone despite their situation/circumstances
How are categorical imperatives possible?
- hard to answer because it cannot be found empirically…
- it is synthetic a priori
synthetic: not true by definition
a priori: not found empirically - he must establish freedom to establish CI
- difficult to answer how they are possible but he will postpone search and instead examine the CIs concept and nature…
Kant’s 4 Derivatives (Duties)
1) One ought to preserve one’s life
2) One ought to provide honest service
3) One ought to perfect one’s talents
4) We ought to benefit others
1 & 3 are duties to self
2 & 4 are duties to others
1-2: Perfect Duties
because defying them is a contradiction in conception (no latitude/discretion in abiding by them)
3-4: Imperfect Duties
because defying them is a contradiction in the will (latitude and discretion in how one discharges these, we can imagine a would in which people don’t do them)
The opposite of each of Kant’s derivatives involves
using others as a mere means, not an end
What is the fundamental principle of the Categorical Imperative?
“act in such a way that you never treat humanity always at the same time as a means and never as an end”
as a means
using someone as a tool to achieve some foal
as an end
taking from someone in a way that respects their morality, authority, property and themselves as a limitation (end)
two kinds of END
1) subjective ends
2) objective ends
subjective ends
things we care about and have worth to us
objective ends
a thing which its existence has absolute worth (everyone should take up and respect it)
Kant’s definition of an END
not something we promote/advance, but something that sets a LIMIT that we must respect and abide by
they are objective necessary for Kant’s supreme principle
Why should humans never be treated as a mere means?
our rational nature is an objective end that imposes restriction on rational decision making
- humans are rational beings
- to be rational exists “as an end in itself”
- humans want to be treated as persons and not things
(we become a thing when someone uses us a means to achieve another goal)
W.D. Ross is a ______ and a _______.
non-absolutist and pluralist
Ross argues contra Kant, that
there are a plurality of duties and they are not absolute (they admit different exceptions because different reactions ground certain duties)
Prima Facie Duties
factors/characterizations of actions that are relevant to/make a difference in their morality (e.g. they cause harm/benefit)
Prima Facie Duties: Example
it’s fine to tell a lie in some cases (contra Kant)
it’s fine to tell a lie to promote a great benefit (almost obligatory to tell lie)
A BOMB: benefit of the lie is protecting people and this ought weighs the lie
However, it is not fine to tell a lie to produce a bit more good (contra Mill)
Prima Facie duties are not as much duties or obligations as much as they are
reasons/responsibilities (that are fundamental to take into account when making moral decisions)
Some refer to Prima Facie Duties as
Pro Tants (“to some extent”)
Ross’ 5 Prima Facie Duties
1) the duty of FIDELITY (tell truth; intend to keep promises)
2) the duty of REPARATION (make up for wrong doing)
3) the duty of GRATITUDE (return good for good)
4) the duty of BENEVOLENCE (maximize non-instrumental goods)
5) the duty of NONMALEFICENCE (do not harm others; avoid wrong doing)
- 5 is ranked higher than 4 (not okay to rob A to benefit B)
- 1-3 are imperfect duties because they depend on relations
Reason/Responsibility
what we have reason to do (Prima Facie Duties)
we can be certain about our reasons/responsibilities to do moral actions
Actual Duty/Duty Proper
what we ought to do
we cannot be certain about these, we can only have probably opinions/judgements about these
Contractualism
- a view about the subject matter of morality
- a more contemporary rivalry (alternative) to utilitarianism
- a version of both non-utilitarianism (contra Kant) and non-consequentialism (contra Ross)
Scallion takes a ______ approach and aims to arrive at _______ answers (outcomes)
Scallion takes a meta-ethical approach and aims to arrive at normative answers (outcomes)
Scanlan’s main idea
reasonable rejection
Reasonable rejection
the foundational moral concept (what others cannot reasonably reject)
Kant and Ross ask what “rules” no one can reasonably reject
Scanlon asks two meta-ethical questions:
1) What is morality about?
2) How do we discover the truth about morality?
(We must know why we care about it and what makes it important to give a plausible conclusion)
According to Scanlon, t is not necessary to know that acting morally is in one’s self-interest (contra Kant), but we must know
their reasons and why they take them seriously
Reflective Equilibrium
A coherent ordered set of our judgements (take all judgements, determine which are basic/peripheral, take basic and rid peripheral)
Kant and Ross provide an account of common-sense morality based on a Reflective Equilibrium, but Scanlon does not want to do this because it could have just involved going off of our socially-constructed beliefs
Normative Intuitionism
The view that there are plurality of basic principles (5 PFs) where there is no order and relationship between them
Ross defends a normative intuitionism
Meta-ethical Intuitionism
Various aspects…but a main one is:
an account of how we come to have knowledge of moral principles (e.g. on the basis of our reflections)
Philosophical Utilitarianism
“the only fundamental facts are about individual well-being”
What makes Philosophical Utilitarianism attractive?
What enhances or retards well-being motivates people (AND explains a lot of morality - but there are deep conflicts), it is factual
What is the basic idea of Contractualism?
“An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any system of rules for the general regulation of behaviour which no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement”
What is agreement about?
agreement amongst people who want too ind principles that no one can reasonably reject
Who Counts in reasonable rejection?
Beings with a P.O.V.
Principle of Distribution: Trade-Off Situation
Medical care to
A. 1 person who needs it
B. 5 people who need it
What do Hedonism, Utilitarianism and Contractualism say?
Hedonism: B, surplus happiness
Utilitarianism: B, surplus well-being
Contractualism: flip a coin, weighted lottery, do what no one can reasonably reject
To know whether I can reasonably reject the principle, I must
also ask how it impacts on others
If a principle imposes a certain burden (b1) on me, but every alternative imposes a greater burden (b2) on someone else, then…
…b1 does not give me a reason to reject the principle. If I am reasonable, then I withdraw my objection when I see that b2 is more pressing.
What makes Contractualism appealing for Scanlon
1) Neutral
contractualism is neutral, because unlike Rossianism, it does not reflect one’s moral judgments, rather reflects what no one can reasonably reject
2) Flexible
contractual reasons are more flexible than aggregate, because they allow us to reason directly rather than rely on some external principle (e.g. of utility)
3) Unprejudiced Motivations
it is motivated by a desire to justify one’s actions to others in a way that one could not reasonably reject
My Objection to Contractualism
- Contractualism seems to suffer the same objection that many pose to Utilitarianism: it is too demanding…
Cognitive Constraints - requires us to be free of biases and other corruptions, such as favouring the self-beneficial choice (or choice that benefits friends/loved ones)
Cognitive Demands - requires cognitive demands; we must make rational analyzations about our connections and not everyone is equally able to do this.
Uncompensated Sacrifice - requires uncompensated sacrifice, in which one must sacrifice their own personal interest for someone else.
Feminism focuses on
power
How does Lindemann define feminism?
Feminism is about the social, widespread pattern across cultures that distributes power asymmetrically, favouring men over women.
For Scanlon, Contractualism is attractive because it offers an account both of
(1) the authority of moral standards and of
(2) what constitutes rightness and wrongness
Why is gender crucially involved in the unequal distribution of power
there is an idea that the biological differences between men and women are linked to gender
therefore, gender is normative because there are gender norms and roles
Why is gender normative?
1) it outlines how women should behave
2) it tells us what men are entitles to from women
3) this creates unequal power in marriage, education, medicine, etc.
Gender norms are built on
whose interests are more important. (a man’s)
Feminism is
1) descriptive
2) normative
3) political
Ethics of Justice
focuses on rights, impartiality, rationality and so on
Men tend to reason this way. These are issues that pertain mostly to men.
Ethics of Care
focuses on sympathy, care, contextual decision making, special relationships and so on
Women tend to reason this way. These are issues that pertain mostly to women.
Which type of ethics is dominant in philosophy?
Ethics of Justice
What are Gilligan’s two objections to the ethics of justice? What is her remedy?
1) It is an incomplete account of the moral life: it excludes important dimensions of moral experience
2) It is not gender neutral: it excludes the bits most relevant to women’s moral experience
Solution: the remedy might be to combine the two
What does Calhoun think of Gilligan’s “remedy”?
Gender neutrality requires more than accommodating the ethics of care. We must understand the thought that made ethics of justice more important than ethics of care.
What is Calhoun’s “charge of gender bias” to the ethics of morality?
People thought the issues of men were more important and focused on them. The traditional focus might have undesirable political implications for women.
Calhoun looks at 3 things
1) the implications of morality’s central preoccupations
2) the implications of traditional moral theorizing (of the self, moral knowledge, motivation and obligation)
3) how we can safeguard the interest of women in moral theorizing
Calhoun examines how the central preoccupations imply that issues which pertain to men are more important than women through 4 foci. Calhoun’s 4 Foci are:
1) The Self
2) Moral Knowledge
3) Moral Motivation
4) Moral Obligation
1) The Self
One focus in moral theory is how to broaden our moral horizons. There are impediments to expansion, such as self-interest and group identity.
Giligan’s solution suggests that these impediments are overcome by focusing on similarities between us.
Calhoun’s Problem: focusing on the similarities between us too much might lead to overlooking important differences between us.
For instance, a central occupation of moral philosophy has been property rights, though this has not been and might not be a concern for women.
The emphasis on similarities might also lead to us overlooking how our interests are warped in an “egalitarian social structure” (i.e. the problem we are trying to overcome here). It is important to discuss differences to avoid sexism.
2) Moral Knowledge
Moral knowledge focuses on the justification of moral principles and actions. It focuses on how to distinguish prejudices/biases from legitimate moral beliefs.
The emphasis is on how moral knowledge is acquired by and individual adult’s rational reflection.
Calhoun’s Problem: this ignores the role of moral education. This is important because women have been/are responsible for the moral education of children. The focus on rational reflection ignores the focus of moral education, and thus ignored the role women play in moral reasoning.
3) Moral Motivation
The emphasis of moral motivations is on the idea that we are pscyhologically constituted that duty must supply a primary motive.
Other motivations, specifically self-interest, can get in the way of our moral motivations and thus duty must be the primary motive.
Calhoun’s Problem: in women, sympathy tends to be the main obstacle.
Thus, the main issue (amongst moral motivations) for women is to regulate self-care, not self-interest as traditional philosophy centralizes. This is important if we are going to combat the fact that women’s care drives them.
4) Moral Obligation
In moral obligation, impartiality is key.
Calhoun’s Problem: a fully impartial ethics does not exclude special obligations to loved ones, but they are deemed less important than general obligations.
General obligations are associated with the public sphere, while special obligations are associated with the private sphere. Women are involved in the private sphere, thus this dismisses them.
It suggests that general obligations are encountered more, though this is not the case for women, since the role of a female involves caretaking, serving and so on.
As a result of favouring general obligations (the public sphere) over special obligations (the private sphere), male’s experiences of moral obligations are the central focus.
My Objection to Calhoun
Calhoun implies gender stereotypes and thus commits gender bias in her own work against gender bias.
An example of this is, in her criticism of moral motivations, Calhoun states that women have a hard time overcoming their drive to sympathize, while men have a hard time overcoming self-interest.
Calhoun is committing to the gender norms associated with each sex, specifically that a woman’s decisions are impartial to her inability to regulate their caring emotions.
How does Calhoun aim to solve gender bias in ethics?
Shift the priorities
