Moral 3 markers

Question 1

U) Briefly outline Bentham’s utilitarianism

Answer 1

Bentham is a quantitative hedonistic utilitarian.
He argues that actions are morally right to the extent their consequences maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the greatest number.
For Bentham all pleasures are equal and should be judged only on the amount of pleasure produced.

Question 2

U) Briefly outline Mills utilitarianism

Answer 2

Mill is a qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism.
He argues that the right action is one which follows a rule which if generally followed will maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
For Mill not all pleasures are equal, some pleasures are “higher”, and these should be prioritised even if in the moment they are less pleasurable than another option.

Question 3

U) What does it mean for a utilitarian theory to be non hedonistic?

Answer 3

In general utiliarians base ethical decisions on maximising utlity (or benefit). A non-hedonistic utilitiarian would claim that it is not pleasure that should be maximised, but instead something other than pleasure, such as maximising the satisfaction of preferences of all morally interested parties.

Question 4

U) What is act utilitarianism

Answer 4

Act utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is one which, as a consequence, maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the greates number.

Question 5

U) What is moral hedonism?

Answer 5

Hedonism is the view that the only or ultimate good for humans is pleasure. The sole motivation for human action is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

Question 6

U) What is meant by utility?

Answer 6

The utility of something is the extent to which it provides benefit (eg happiness, satisfying a preference etc). Bentham’s principle of utility states that the morally right act is one which maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the greatest number

Question 7

U) What is preference utilitarianism?

Answer 7

Preference utilitarianism argues that the morally right/good action is the action which as a consequence fulfils the greatest amount of interests of the greatest amount of people/morally relevant beings.”

Question 8

U) What is rule utilitarianism?

Answer 8

Rule utilitarians claim that an act is morally right if it is in accordance with a rule which, in general, if accepted by everyone, maximise utility.

Question 9

U) What is the principle of utility?

Answer 9

The “principle of utility” is the principle that actions are to be judged by their usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.

Question 10

KD) What does it mean to act in accordance with duty?

Answer 10

Acting in accordance with duty is where what the person does is what duty commands that they do, but she has not carried out this action because she has recognised this as her duty and rather has done it for some other reason. She does not have (and has not acted out of) a good will. Her action does not have moral worth.

honest shopkeeper

Question 11

KD) What does it mean to act out of duty?

Answer 11

Acting out of duty is where what the person does is what duty commands that he does, and he has carried out this action because he has recognised this as his duty and not for some other reason. He has a good will.His action has moral worth.

Question 12

KD) What does it mean to say an ethical theory is deontological?

Answer 12

It is based on the idea of duty, what is right, or rights. It focuses on acts (and sometimes, in addition, motives) conforming to certain rules. It is not based on achieving good consequences or developing a particular character

Question 13

KD) What does Kant mean by good will?

Answer 13

The ‘good will’ is the only thing that is good in and of itself and without qualification, to have a good will is to do your duty because it is your duty (other motivations are irrelevant).

Question 14

KD) What is a catagorical imperative?

Answer 14

An imperative is a statement commanding a course of action; it is a statement about what one ought to do; it is a command / an order. A categorical imperative must be followed regardless of a person’s goals or circumstances etc, it is binding at all times on everyone.

Question 15

KD) What is a contradiction in conception?

Answer 15

A maxim fails Kant’s test of the Categorical Imperative if universalising it leads to a contradiction. A contradiction in conception is one of the types of contradictions Kant discusses, it is a logical contradiction which leads to perfect duties, which are duties to never to X.

Question 16

KD) What is a contradiction in will?

Answer 16

A maxim fails Kant’s test of the Categorical Imperative if universalising it leads to a contradiction. A contradiction in will is one of the types of contradictions Kant discusses, they contradict something that we rationally must will which leads to imperfect duties which are duties to do Y to at least some extent.

Question 17

KD) What is a hypothetical imperative?

Answer 17

An imperative is a statement commanding a course of action; it is a statement about what one ought to do; it is a command / an order. A hypothetical imperative is a statement which applies to agents on the condition that they have specific ends/goals, so a statement of the form ‘Do X if you will that Y’. Whether such an imperative applies will depend upon an agent’s ends/goals.

Question 18

KD) What is the first formulation of the catagorical imperative?

Answer 18

The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is used as a way of deriving more specific duties and is stated thus: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Acting on a maxim which does not pass this test (ie cannot be so willed) is morally wrong.

Question 19

KD) What is the second formulation of the catagorical imperative?

Answer 19

The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (the Formula of Humanity): “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Question 20

VE) What does Aristotle mean by a non-voluntary action?

Answer 20

A non voluntary action is one which arises from ignorance: The agent lacks knowledge of what it is she is doing or what its effects will be. (The ‘epistemic’ condition.) But once they are aware of the facts they have no regret and do not ask for forgiveness. A person is morally blameworthy for a non-voluntary action

Question 21

VE) What does Aristotle mean by a voluntary action?

Answer 21

“A voluntary action must:
1) Be knowingly/willingly caused by the person. (ie not from compulsion or ignorance)
2) Be done by a person who is aware of the relevant facts.

Question 22

VE) What does Aristotle mean by a involuntary action?

Answer 22

“According to Aristotle, a person is not blameworthy of an involuntary action, it has either of the following features:
Externally forced: It does not originate in the agent ie it is not under the agent’s control whether to perform that action. (The ‘control’ condition.)
OR Ignorance: The agent lacks knowledge of what it is she is doing or what its effects will be. (The ‘epistemic’ condition.)”

Question 23

VE) What is ‘The good’ for humans according to Aristotle?

Answer 23

The good’ for human beings, according to Aristotle is eudaimonia, which translates to ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well and doing well’. It is the ‘final end’ for human beings.

Question 24

VE) What is a virtue?

Answer 24

The virtues of something are those characteristics that enable it to perform its function well and so, in us, they are those intellectual/moral qualities that enable us to achieve eudaimonia: a life of reason (in accordance with virtue). Virtue is a mean between two extremes, excess and deficiency:

Question 25

VE) What is eudaimonia?

Answer 25

The good’ for human beings, according to Aristotle is eudaimonia, which translates to ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well and doing well’. It is the ‘final end’ for human beings.

Question 26

VE) What is the ‘final end’ of human action, according to Aristotle?

Answer 26

The good’ for human beings, according to Aristotle is eudaimonia, which translates to ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well and doing well’. It is the ‘final end’ for human beings.

Question 27

VE)What is the distinction between a virtue and a vice?

Answer 27

Virtue is a mean between two extremes, excess and deficiency: when we choose (or feel) appropriately/virtuously then we are avoiding vices of excess and deficiency. Moral virtues involve both “passion and action” and hence it is matter of both feeling and acting appropriately about certain situations/events.

Question 28

VE)What is the distinction between an ‘involuntary’ and a ‘non-voluntary’ action?

Answer 28

Both involuntary and non voluntary actions can involve the agent lacking knowledge of what it is she is doing or what its effects will be. (The ‘epistemic’ condition.) The difference is in an involuntary action the person is sorry and asks for forgiveness, in a non-voluntary action the person is not sorry. A person is morally blameworthy for a non-voluntary action, but not blameworthy for an involuntary action.

Question 29

VE) What is the distinction between Eudaimonia and pleasure?

Answer 29

Eudaimonia, translates to ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well and doing well’. It is the ultimate good for human beings, according to Aristotle. Pleasure on the other hand is not the ultimate good as it can be improved upon by adding another good, for example wisdom.

Question 30

Meta ethics) What is the difference between cognitivism and non cognitivism?

Answer 30

Cognitivism is the view that ethical claims are truth-apt (they express beliefs describe reality), whereas non-cognitivism is the view that moral claims cannot be true or false and are not therefore truth evaluable (they do not express beliefs, but sentiments or recommendations for example).

Question 31

MR) What is the difference between moral realism and moral anti-realism?

Answer 31

Moral realism claims that moral truths and facts exist mind independantly whereas moral anti-realism claims tyhat moral truths and facts are mind dependant.

Question 32

MR) What is the difference between moral naturalism and moral non-naturalism?

Answer 32

Moral naturalism is the belief that goodness can be reduced to happiness as it can be discovered using our 5 natural senses. However moral anti-realism is the belief that goodness cannot be reduced to happiness so it exists alongside our natural senses

Question 33

MR) What is the verification principle?

Answer 33

Language is only meaningful is it logically verifiable or empirically verifiable. There are two forms of verification - strong and weak. Strong verification is when we can demonstrate it physically whereas weak verification is when we know what is required to justify something even if we cannot now.

Question 34

MR) What is intuitionism?

Answer 34

Ethical intuitionism is the idea that true, objective information about morality is accessible to people just through intuition. This means that true and false moral principles are distinguishable to people based on a sort of intellectual feeling about their accuracy.

Question 35

MR) What is the naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 35

Moore claims it is a fallacy to claim that good can be reduced to any natural property. A naturalistic fallacy is when one reduces goodness to any natural property. For example in utilitarianism, goodness can be reduced to pleasure.

Question 36

MAR) According to Ayer’s emotivism, what does ‘x is morally right’ mean?

Answer 36

For an emotivist ‘X is right’ might be seen as the equivalent of cheering and ‘X is wrong’ as the equivalent of booing (informally, the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory). So ‘Stealing is wrong’ means ‘Stealing, boo!’. Ethical language expresses emotions or attitudes – ‘pro-attitude’ or ‘con-attitudes’.

Question 37

MAR) According to Hare’s prescriptivism, what does ‘x is morally right’ mean?

Answer 37

For a prescriptivist the claim that ‘x is morally right’ means ‘do x’ (an imperative) and includes the commitment that everyone in the same situation should do x (universality).

Question 38

MAR) What is emotivism?

Answer 38

It is a non-cognitivist and moral anti-realist view and claims that the when expressing a moral claim it expresses the sentiments (pro or con attitudes) of the person. (The boo/hurrah theory)

Question 39

MAR) What is prescriptivism?

Answer 39

It is a non-cognitivist and moral anti-realist view and claims that the when expressing a moral claim it serves to command or commend behaviour so they are imperatives. The claim that ‘x is morally right’ means ‘do x’.

Question 40

MAR) What is error theory?

Answer 40

Error theory is a cognitivist moral anti-realist view that there are no mind-independent moral properties, so all moral propositions that assert or imply the existence of mind-independent moral properties are false.

Question 41

MAR) What is moral anti-realism?

Answer 41

Typically what all moral anti-realists have in common is that they claim either (a) there are no moral properties/facts at all (b) there are moral properties/facts but they are all mind-dependent

Question 42

MAR) What is moral nihilism?

Answer 42

Moral nihilism is the anti-realist view that moral facts and properties don’t exists and therefore any moral judgements are meaningless or false. A moral nihilist believes there is no right and wrong and there is not intrinsic purpose to being moral.

Question 43

APP.ETHICS) What would a prescriptivist say “it is wrong to tell lies” means?

Answer 43

For a prescriptivist the claim that ‘it is wrong to tell lies’ means ‘do not lie’ (an imperative) and includes the commitment that everyone in the same situation should not lie (universality).

Question 44

APP.ETHICS) What would an emotivist say “it is wrong to eat animals” means?

Answer 44

In emotivism, our moral judgements are (or at least involve) expressions of our emotions (pro-attitudes or con-attitudes). ‘X is wrong’ would be seen as the equivalent of booing (informally, the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory). So ‘Eating animals is wrong’ means ‘Eating animals, boo!’.

Question 45

APP.ETHICS) What would an error theorist say about the statement “it is wrong to steal”?

Answer 45

An error theorist would say that the statement “it is wrong to steal” is false, as it is an attempt to state a belief about a property (wrongness) that doesn’t exist.

Answer 46

It is a great honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791 – standing guard in the earliest days of the Republic and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.

For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War to our struggle against fascism, on through the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and it has ended.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived here at home. And for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. And then, on September 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire and metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What is clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. And this carried significant consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months, they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.