Philosophy Memories > Moral Philosophy > Flashcards
Moral Philosophy Flashcards
Richard Taylor
The Meaning of Life
Mackie
Moral nihilism
Plato
Euthyphro
Berg
How could ethics depend on religion?
Joel Feinberg
Psychological Egoism
Hobbes
Leviathan
Gauthier
Why Contractarianism?
Hume
A Treatise of Human Nature
Ayer
Language, truth and logic
Harman
Moral relativism defended
Foot
Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives
Kant
groundwork for the metaphysics of morals
o’neill
consistency in action
mill
utilitarianism
bernard williams
a critique of utilitarianism
rawls
a theory of justice
feinberg
the nature and value of rights
rachels
active and passive euthanasia
foot
killing and letting die
robert p george
god’s reasons
thomson
abortion
don marqus
an argument that abortion is wrong
walter sinnot-armstrong
you can’t lose what you ain’t never had
singer
famine affluence and morality
arthur
famine relief and the ideal moral code
van wyk
perspectives on world hunger
wolf
moral saints
taylor argument
thinks that Camus is right that our lives are just like Sisyphus’s, but he thinks that we can
imagine Sisyphus being reconciled to his life if we imagine him having an intense desire to roll rocks up
hills, something he then gets to do over and over.
As Taylor sees things, this wouldn’t make give
Sisyphus’s life a point—he still wouldn’t be achieving anything of value—but it would mean he could live
his life with enthusiasm, as he’d be doing something he really wants to do.
Taylor’s optimistic thought is that our lives could be more like Sisyphus’s life as he imagines it. All that that would be required is that we do what we most want to do.
mackie argument
moral skeptic
argument from relativity (radical diffs b/t people’s firth order judg make it hard to treat as objective their moral sense)
argument from queerness (metaphysical peculiarity of values, and how do we know of them?)
plato argument
euthrypho dilemma, with its two horns
berg argument
how ethics could depend on god
motivational link? epistemic link? conceptual link?
no, moral atheists
there’s no proof which would convince a nontheist of any link b/t religion and morality
feinberg argument (egoism)
psychological egoism is incorrect;
why? nonempirical character of arguments
dissatisfaction attends fulfillment of desires
disinterested benevolence happens - lincoln
so does disinterested malevolenece
pleasure is ambiguous
paradox of hedonism challenges psychological egoists to explain how happiness happens
people think egoism is true b/c tautology, association of good feeling w. desire satisfaction; self-deception possibility, moral education’s structure
hobbes argument
civil peace and social unity best achieved by social contract
every aspect of human nature deducible from amterialism
state of nature is inherently violent, full of fear
the good is that which is the object of one’s appetites
sovreign and sovreign’s role in social contract
Hobbes tried to provide such an explanation. He argued that we must all have an instrumental desire to
cooperate with others because cooperation with others is a means to our getting what we intrinsically desire,
pretty much no matter what we intrinsically desire
gauthier argument
to obtain the stable voluntary compliance of rational individuals, they must be the objects of an appropriate hypothetical agreement
farmer example
deliberative justification vs moral justification dilemma
morals by agreement; morality as justified constraint
constrained vs unconstrained maximizers
hume argumen
Hume argued that not everyone has a reason to act in the way that morality demands, and that that doesn’t
matter, because when we say that morality demands that people act in certain ways, we aren’t saying
anything true or false, but are rather just expressing our feelings of approval or disapproval towards people
for acting in those ways
instrumental desires are criticizable
intrinsic ones arent
aj ayer argument?
logical positivism
gilbert harman argument
moral claims are expressions of belief about what there is reason for us to do. These are beliefs about what will realize our intrinsic desires. Not everyone has those, though, so moral claims are not really objective, or prescriptive. Still no way to rationally persaude people w/ diff intrinsic desires.
backed by methodological naturalism
his argument is that if an action isn’t due to some failure to think, reason, observe, it’s not irrational
foot argument
moral judgments aren’t based on categorical, but hypothetical imperatives (moree)
categorical imperatives sense: 1) apply to all, 2) when violated, one is being irrational - kant is claiming both, foot think’s second is wrong
morals are like claims of etiquette; we don’t withdraw them for people without the right desires, but we don’t think them irrational for ignoring them
same as harmon - not what irrational means, kant
o’neill argument
kantian university test grounds ethical theory in notions of consistency and rationality other than desire/preference
demonstrates inconsistency involved in violations of categorical imperative
kant argument
we act according to some maxim and freely adopt them - and are not pushed around by desires
hypothetical imperatives - must desire to do what you believe will promote a goal you have
categorical imperatives - desires because you’re a rational agent, presupposes no ends
formula of universal law, formula of humanity, formula of autonomy
in virtue of free autonomous agents, we ourselves will the categorical imperative
shopkeeper on moral intention
mill argument
consequtialism; happiness/pleasure is the good; suffering sucks
higher and lower pleasures - better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig joyful
inference to the best conclusion - utility can justify some cases; it can be pressed to justify right action in all cases
williams argument
george and jim examples
utilitarianism’s committed to strong conception of negative responsibility
utilitarian’s are attacking george’s integrity with their answer - my projects are treated as just one of many concerns
rawls argument
political justice has priority in normative ethical theorizing; it is the backdrop
fairness and autonomy are important
original position as heuristic to maintain these; veil of ignorance
people are controlled by restricting party’s from imposing own desires/beliefs
first principle, prior: equal basic liberties principle: everyone has equal right to extensive set of personal/political liberties as is compatible with others also having it
second: difference principle: all other primary goods are to be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution is to advantage of worst off
feinberg (rights)?
???
rachels argument
no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; we must either like both or neither
our reasons for letting die also justify active killing
moral weight given to irrelevant considerations between active and inactive behavior. Smit and Jones’s cousins - one is allowed to drown, other is drowned.
foot (killing and letting die) argument
diff between negative and positive duties; our duty to not interfere vs duties to give assistance - eg Trolley problem
thomson argument
even if fetus has right to life, woman’s right wins
ex. violinist and me; growing baby; two cold people who need a coat to stay alive, but where the coat is owned by one of them; needing the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow in order to stay alive - even when life’s not a stake;
right to life is a right not to be killed unjustly
good samaritan vs minimally decent samaritan
marquis argument
clearly wrong to kill those with lives like ours
so long as we would continue to have positive experiences, its wrong to deprive us of this sort of life in the future
same thing has to do with propoerty that gives us a right to life
considered judgment argument - fits with our considered judgment about misfortune of death
appeals to cases argument - yields correct answer to main life and death cases
worst of crimes argument - my being killed deprives me of more than my being stolen from, etc.
walter sinnot-armstrong argument
not that bad to deprive things of great value - consider a race between two friends. Neither friend has a right to victory.
robert george argument
principled difference between zygote and egg, sperm, etc - genetic completeness, unification, self-integration human organismness;
singer argument
- If it’s in our power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something comparably important, we should do it.
- Since we have money, we can donate it to charity to fight poverty without equal loss.
- We should give money to efficient charities working to fight poverty.
issues of distance and others being around doing nothing is stupid
wolf argument
moral sainthood sucks
loving saint vs rational saint
sometimes its rational to not do the saintly thing
when are moral reasons decisive??
“what do i have most reason to do?”
arthur argument
singer ignores way entitlements weight aginst reasont we have to prevent suffering
singer is justified by principle of equal consideration of equal interests
however, people have rights (kidney donation example, coat example, fruit of farm labor example vs lazy farmer)
people in first world are breadwinners!
robert van wyk argument
fair shares principle - we are only required to contribute our fair share to the problem
two people standing next to a pond - your fair share is getting the boat. But in an unideal world, do you ride it too?
issues dealt with privately vs publicly; poverty might be latter
