Keller Final Flashcards
Similarites between Act v. Rule Utilitarianism
Similarities:
Greatest Happiness Principle
we ought to always do whatever brings about the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by the action
- utilitarianim relies on this
- act ut. applies it to actions
Higher v. Lower Pleasures
- Jeremy Bentham had a hedonistic view of pleasure that defined pleasure on the basis of the physical stimulus produced by certain activities.
- John Stuart Mill revised Bentham’s view by making a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mill argues that to make a human happy, as opposed to an animal, one needs a higher sort of pleasure that is preferable to lower, physical pleasures.
- Mill argues that when applying the Greatest Happiness Principle, this distinction between higher pleasures and lower pleasures ought to be taken into account
- happiness consists of primarily of high quality pleasure and absence of pain
- Mill: only intrinsic good is pleasure measured in terms of quality plus intensity and duration
- Bentham: only intrinsic good os pleasure in terms of intensity and duration.
Utilitarianism
- form of Consequentialism
- say that happiness makesconsequescnes better or worse
- according the Utils: an action is right if and only of those acts available to the agent in those circumstances, it would produce greatest total net happiness
Consequentialism
- permissibility of action depends on goodness or badness of conseqeunce of it
- right actions maximize good consequences
Main objection to Act U
- makes false prediction about what is right (carving someone up to harvest organs, killing..)
- says says we should blame and punish people for things that aren’t their fault if doing so had good consequences
- If I must choose between these options:
A: involves killing, lying and stealing and produces 100 units of pleasure
B: involves none of the above and produces 99 units pleasure
I am morally required to choose A according to AU - But I am not morally required to choose A, morally it seems plausible to choose B.
- Hence AU is false
Other probs: no measure for happiness, no guaranteed consqueuences, killing lying stealing are immoral
Main objection to Rule U
- seems incoherent: avoids problems with AU by abandoning spirit of consequentialism/util. Doesn’t explain why we should follow the rules in circumstance where doing so will NOT produce net pleasure
- it seems like we should rule against killing stealing etc. BUT in some instances, breaking rules would produce most pleasure
- If all that matters morally are consequences of an action, how can it be wrong to maximize good consequences by carving me up?
- abandons Util, doesn’t modify it
Deontology (Kant)
focuses on intention (KANT)
actions (act types) are of primary and intrinsically moral value (lying is intrinsically wrong)
-the end never justifies the means
-fairness and justice matter, the morality of an action does not depend entirely on its consequences
-immoral actions are irrational
-two tests
-he thinks theory will stop lying stealing killing which contrasts consequentialism b/c there’s no prohibition
-looks for the goal, not the consequence
Maxims
- statement of reasons for your action
- states what you’re going to do (intention) and Why (reason)
- an actions rightness depends on its maxim and whether it was a good reason
Hypothetical reasons/imperitaves
a hypothetical reason resin in form of “If you have goal A, then do B”
- amolristis think all reasons are hypothetical and that the only reasons we have depend on our goals
- imperative that is based on some desired goal or outcome in the world. Since there are no goals in the world that can be demonstrated to be fully universal, “hypothetical imperatives” cannot be universal.
Categorical reasons
- in the form of “Do B”
- don’t depend on our goals
- Kant thinks all moral reasons are categorical
- uses the Principle of Universilizability and Principle of Humanity which means that whatever I do ought to be able to be universalized
- Kant evaluates the moral worth of an action based upon the principle calledThe principle is an “imperative” because it is a command or an “ought.” It is “categorical” because it is based on pure reason.
- universal because it is not based on any outcome in the world but is true on the strength of its own rationality
Formula of Unviersal Law
- categorical imperative, aka principle of universalizability
-emphazized fairness
-act is morally acceptable if its maxim is universalizable
right actions are those that are done for the right reasons and the right ones are universailaizable
-would it make sense for everyone to do it? Would your goal be achieved?
virtue
a good habit or excellent character trait
- intellectual: good thinking habits
- moral:good behavior and actions
The golden mean
the intermediate or “mean” between two extremes (two vices) is what we ought to do
- ex: courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness
- it takes practical wisdom to determine golden means
Aristotle thought:
- The distinctive function of something depends on its distinctive characteristics
- our distinctively human characteristic: rationality
- our distinctive function is to exercise our theoretical and practical rational capacities excellently
- so a good well functioning human exercises theoretical and practical rational capacities excellently
Virtue Ethics
an approach that focuses not he virtues as opposed to the consequences or reasons for acting (deontology)
-teleological
teleology
- goal oriented and has a function or purpose given by nature and for non natural things, purposes intense by their creators
- ex: function of knife is to cut
- can be eliminated or reduced to historical facts about the evolution of the heart, etc.