Module 3: Key Terms Flashcards
Ethics
branch of philosophy that studies morality, or right and wrong behaviour
Metaethics
studies the foundations of morality itself; what is morality? what is nature of morality?
Relativism (Normative Cultural Relativism)
it’s not your beliefs, but moral facts themselves that differ from culture to culture
Descriptive Relativism (Descriptive Cultural Relativism)
people’s moral beliefs differ from culture to culture
Flaws of Relativism
- if every culture is the sole arbiter of what’s right for it, that means no culture can actually be wrong
- if true then concept of moral progress is wrong
Moral Progress
- if what everyone is doing right now is right, relative to their own culture, then there’s never any reason to change anything
Moral Absolutism (Absolutism)
absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged
Moral Subjectivism (Subjectivism)
- Moral statements can be true and false– right or wrong– but they refer only to people’s attitudes, rather than their actions
- it is a preference which are keys into personal attitudes, but not into actual objective moral facts
Utilitarianism
- all beings share a common desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain
- focuses on results, or consequences, of our actions, and treats intentions as irrelevant
Kantian Deontology (Kantianism)
- moral rules to distinguish right and wrong
Hedonism
good = pleasant (we pursue pleasure and happiness, and work to avoid pain)
What does utilitarianism suggests you to do when making decisions?
- make moral decisions from position of disinterested spectator
- to have disposition of good will and is not emotionally invested
Act Utilitarianism (Classical Act Utilitarianism)
- in any situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the great number
Rule Utilitarianism
- version of the theory that says we ought to live by rules that in central are likely to lead to the greatest good for the great number
What did Kant pointed out?
- most of the time whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice– instead, it’s just contingent on our desires
Hypothetical imperatives
- commands you follow if you want something
- it’s about prudence instead of morality
- if you want money, you ought to get a job
- if you want to get an A, you ought to study
Categorical Imperatives
- commands you must follow, regardless of your desires
- moral obligations are derived from pure reason
- doesn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not– the moral law is binding on all of us
Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be understood in terms of various formulations
- basically different ways of phrasing or looking at the same essential idea
- 4 formulations but we shall look only 2
Maxim
a rule or principle of action
Universal Law
something that must always be done in similar situations
Universal Law version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only on those maxims that you can can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”
- when acting, think about maxim and if u can universalize the law or not
As Kantian, always ask what’s the maxim of my action? General rule that stands behind the particular action I’m considering? Banana example
- very hungry to decides to steal
- is it okay morally to do this?
- the action to consider (taking something from merchant without paying = stealing)
- if you approve of the maxim of stealing (which u r doing whether u admit it or not)- then what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action: everyone should always steal
- this leads to contradiction and moral actions cannot bring contradiction (against rule)
What is the contradiction in the banana example? And what is Kant really trying to say?
- no one would say that everyone should steal all the time cus then everyone always steal and never end and nobody would eat it so stealing isn’t universalizable
- not fair to make exceptions for yourself
Kant’s view can be counterintuitive
- absolute no lying, even if life is on line (lying to a killer)
Kant’s formulation 2: Humanity Version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means”
- treat others like how u would treat urself
- never use others as mere means
Mere means
to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit to the thing you’re using
Ends in ourselves
- we are not mere objects that exist to be used by others
- we are rational and autonomous and have ability to set our own goals and work toward them
End in herself
- to recognize humanity that person u r encountering and realize she has goals interests of her own and keep in mind
Cannot use others as MERE MEANS because…?
- of autonomy as unlike other things in the world, we’re self-governed
- able to set our own ends to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills
Autonomy basically gives us…?
moral worth meaning we shouldn’t be manipulated or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit
Why is lying and deception not okay with Kant’s C2?
- if is deceived, can’t make an autonomous decision about how to act, cus decision is based on false info
- agree to loan $ to buy books for school and not for xbox and that robs the other person’s ability to autonomously decide to help you
- treated me as a mere means to accomplish ur goals with no thought to my own goals and interests and thats a violation of kant’s second categorical imperative
What does Kant think about proper, rational application of categorical imperative will do?
- will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents
