Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy A Level > Moral Philsophy > Flashcards

Moral Philsophy Flashcards

1
Q

The principle of utility

A

If it produces good it is good, if it produces bad it is bad.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism - The utility calculus

A

7 criterias:
- Purity
- Remoteness
- Extent
- Duration
- Intensity
- Certainty
- Fecundity

The action that creates the most pleasure is favourable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why is Bentham’s utilitarianism a form of act utilitarianism?

A

It emphasises the evaluation of individual actions based on their specific consequences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Mill’s proof

A

Happiness is not only good, it is the only good, everyone desires their own happiness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Higher and lower pleasures

A

Higher - satisfy the mind e.g., reading a book.

Lower - satisfy the body e.g., drinking alcohol.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Strong rule utilitarianism

A

Never break the rules, no exceptions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Weak rule utilitarianism

A

Some exceptions made - falls into act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Non-hedonistic utilitarianism - Preference utilitarianism

A

Singer says that we should aim to maximise the satisfaction of people’s preferences rather than their pleasure/happiness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Non-hedonistic utilitarianism - Ideal utilitarianism

A

Maximum happiness for the greatest number of people - trying to make everyone as happy as possible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Issue with util. - The tyranny of the majority (fairness and individual liberty/rights)

A

If someone was wrongly accused of murder but it satisfies an angry crowd who want the ‘murderer’ to be punished then the most happiness is occurring.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Issue with util. - Problems with calculating utility

A

How do you measure each of the 7 variables?

Which beings do we include in this calculation? Humans? Animals?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Issue with util. - Partiality

A

It fails to account for the importance of fairness, justice and the protection of individual rights.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Issue with util. - Moral integrity

A

The moral value of an action should be assessed based on individuals intentions and the intrinsic moral worth of their choices.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Issue with util. - Is pleasure the only good? (Nozik’s Pleasure machine)

A

Other important values and goods in life: justice, autonomy, human rights.

Pleasure alone fails to account for the diversity of human experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Good will as a source of moral worth

A

Good will represents the only ‘pure’ good in the world. A good will is one that acts for the sake of duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Humans as imperfectly rational beings

A

We act from instinct and desire. Despite our imperfections we have a moral obligation to use our rationality to make moral choices based on universal principles.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Acting in accordance with duty

A

To do what is morally right, whatever ones motive for doing so.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Acting out of duty

A

Perform an action because its a duty regardless of whether or not one is inclined to do it or is in ones best interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Universal moral laws

A

Rules that are believed to apply universally and help guide individuals in making moral decisions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

First formulation of the categorical imperative: The universal law formulation

A

When making moral decisions we should consider whether we would want everyone to act in the same way in a similar situation, if it can be without contradiction then the maxim is permissible but if not then no.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Second formulation of the categorical imperative: The humanity formulation

A

It is always wrong to treat a person in any way that involves using them without their consent, undermining their autonomy to compete an action - using someone as a means to an end.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Contradiction in will

A

Asks whether we can rationally will a maxim.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Contradiction in conception

A

Something that is self-contradictory e.g., is stealing morally acceptable?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Issue with Kantian ethics: Morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives

A

Foot argues moral laws are not categorical - there is no categorical reason to follow them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Issue with Kantian ethics: Competing duties

A

Kant says it is NEVER acceptable to violate our duties but what if we have to lie for example to keep a promise?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Issue with Kantian ethics: Not all universal maxims are moral (and vice versa)

A

Change a maxim from ‘to steal’ to ‘steal from people with 9 letters in their name’.

27
Q

Issue with Kantian ethics: Ignores consequences

A

Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie - even if telling a lie would save someone’s life.

28
Q

Issue with Kantian ethics: Ignores other valuable motivations

A

Kant seems to say we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care. Being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth.

29
Q

The concept of ‘The Good’ for humans

A
  • achieving our goals to add value to our lives.
  • The Goods -> Pleasure, Wealth, Honour, Goodness, Contemplation.
30
Q

Eudaimonia as the final end

A

We don’t try to achieve eudaimonia as a means to achieve some goal but instead it is something that is valuable for its own sake.

31
Q

The relationship between eudaimonia and pleasure

A
  • Pleasure is necessary in order for a person to reach eudaimonia.
  • Pleasure is not one thing, nor a end, rather it is something that arises from activity (virtuous act) itself.
32
Q

The function argument

A

The function of a human being is to fulfill reason - if you are a reasonable human being you will fulfill eudaimonia.

33
Q

The relationship between virtues and functions

A

The function of humans is to use reason but reason alone does not mean we achieve eudaimonia. Aristotle’s claim is that humans choose their actions for some reason - good or bad.

34
Q

Virtues

A
  • Kindness
  • Resilience
  • Courage
  • Respect
  • Integrity
  • Strength
35
Q

Vices

A
  • Arrogance
  • Selfishness
  • Inconsiderate
  • Not understanding
  • Uncompassionate
  • Destructive
  • Psychological tormenting
36
Q

Virtues and Vices

A

The good life for a human being (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to good reason.

37
Q

Practical reasoning

A

What lies behind us making the right choice and so requires us to have decision making skills.

38
Q

Practical wisdom

A

Excelling in practical reasoning by having the right desires and making an effort to achieve that.

39
Q

Issue with Aristotelian ethics: Does it give clear guidance?

A
  • Util. gives the hedonic calculus
  • Kant gives the categorical imperative

The doctrine of the mean says virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes.
E.g., vice of deficiency = shy
virtue = modest
vice of excess = shameless
- Isn’t very helpful as a practical guide of what to do.

40
Q

Issue with Aristotelian ethics: Are there clashing/competing virtues?

A
  • Scenarios where applying two different virtues would suggest two different courses of actions.
  • You can’t do both so either way you are neglecting a virtue and being unvirtuous.
41
Q

Issue with Aristotelian ethics: Is the argument circular?

A

Aristotle says:
- A virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do.
- And a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts.

He is defining them in terms of each other which is circular and says nothing meaningful about what the two really are.

42
Q

Issue with Aristotelian ethics: Do virtues have to contribute to eudaimonia?

A

Argued that some virtues should be valued for their own sake e.g., honesty, compassion, rather than solely for the purpose of achieving a good life. They are considered to be moral qualities that are important in and of themselves.

43
Q

The origin of moral principles: Reason

A

Kant says that only good will can be intrinsically good, acting out of duty to do the right thing.
- A rational exercise using the categorical imperative.

44
Q

The origin of moral principles: Emotions

A

Hume says that feelings motivate us to take moral action.
- Training in good manners and compassion leads people to have an emotional response leading to good action.

45
Q

The origin of moral principles: Society

A

Moral relativism (Mackie and others) claims that there are no moral facts or absolute goods.
- Each society/culture has its own moral truths.

46
Q

Cognitivism

A

When people make ethical statements that are making assertions (claims) about mind-independent reality.

47
Q

Non-cognitivism

A

Hold that people are doing something else such as expressing emotions, prescribing actions etc.

48
Q

Realism

A
  • it is truth apt.
  • Belief in moral facts, when something is good/bad or right/wrong its because there is an external standard/truth out there that shows it to be.
49
Q

Anti-realism

A
  • moral facts do not exist.
  • When I make a moral claim there is no external standard proving me right or wrong.
50
Q

Moral realism: Naturalism

A

The belief that there are ‘natural’ properties that our moral terms pick out (internal).

51
Q

Moral realism: Util. and moral naturalism

A

Mill + Bentham = believes moral judgements pick out natural properties (the experience in sentient beings of pain and pleasure).
- Because moral judgements refer to the world through pleasure and pain they are capable of being truth apt (realist).

52
Q

Moral realism: Non-naturalism

A

There are special, non-natural properties (metaphysical e.g., God) which our moral terms refer to and which can be Known through our moral intuitions.

53
Q

Moral realism: Moore’s intuitionism and moral non-naturalism

A

Via the faculty of rational intuitionism, we can directly reflect on the truth of moral judgements e.g., ‘murder is wrong’. The truth/falsehood of such moral judgments is said to be self-evident.

54
Q

Issue with moral realism: Hume’s fork + Ayer’s verification principle

A

Hume’s fork:
- moral facts are not matters of facts or relations of ideas so they have no meaning.

Ayer’s verification principle:
- moral facts are not analytic or synthetic so they cannot be verified and are meaningless.

55
Q

Issue with moral realism: Hume’s is-ought gap

A
  • problem with naturalism
  • Any attempt to base a value claim on a descriptive statement is invalid.
  • There is a jump from what is to what ought to be e.g., we used to all eat meat so we should all eat meat now.
56
Q

Issue with moral realism: Hume’s argument that moral judgements are not beliefs since beliefs alone could not motivate us

A

This is a criticism of cognitivism (and therefore realism).

It distinguishes between statements/beliefs about the state of things(judgements of reason) and feelings about those things (passions).
According to Hume, moral judgements motivate us into action. We judge something to be wrong, and act on that judgement.

He says that moral judgements cannot be claims about the state of things (either natural or non-natural “facts”), because such claims don’t motivate people into action.
E.g. “Torturing people causes them pain.” (in itself does not provide motivation for action)

Therefore, only my emotions can motivate me into action – how I feel.
E.g. “I feel bad for people suffering through torture”.

57
Q

Issue with moral realism: Mackie’s argument from relativity and arguments from queerness

A

Relativity:
People and cultures disagree so much on moral judgements, that the most likely explanation is that no moral facts exist.

Epistemological Queerness:
For non-natural moral properties to exist, there is no clear way in which we could come to know them.

Metaphysical Queerness:
For non-natural moral properties to exist, they would have to be unlike anything we can imagine.

58
Q

Moral anti-realism: Mackie’s error theory

A
  • A mix of anti-realism and cognitivism because Mackie claims that moral facts do not exist BUT that our language about them assumes so.
  • There is no objective right or wrong.
  • So we make an error when we assert moral facts.
  • 2 parts: critique of moral realism and argument from relativity & arguments from queerness.
59
Q

Moral anti-realism: Ayer’s emotivism

A
  • All a moral statement is, is a person’s FEELING or EMOTION towards a certain situation so are meaningless by verification principle standards.
  • BOO-HURRAH theory -> ‘BOO! Stealing!’ OR ‘HURRAH! Giving to charity!’
60
Q

Moral anti-realism: Hare’s prescriptivism

A
  • Anti-realist and non-cognitivist
  • It rejects the existence of moral facts and that moral statements are assertions.
  • It accepts that moral statements are expressions of a moral opinion but they are more than BOO-HURRAH, they prescribe.
61
Q

Issue with moral anti-realism: Failing to account for how moral language is really used

A
  • In non-cognitivism, moral discourse is impossible, two people cannot discuss the morality of a given action ans get anywhere.
62
Q

Issue with moral anti-realism: Accounting for moral progress

A
  • Our moral values have changed over time e.g., no slavery BUT if anti-realism is correct then there would still be slavery now.
  • It says that there is no moral progress BUT we Know there has been so anti-realism is false!
63
Q

Issue with moral anti-realism: Moral nihilism

A

By denying moral facts anti-realists are saying that there is no meaning to reality at all like moral nihilists.

Philosophy A Level (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions