Normative ethical theories

Question 1

what is utilitarianism

Answer 1

a consequentialist theory, that says its the consequence of an action thta makes it wrong or right

Question 2

what does a utilitarian seek to do with their action s

Answer 2

look to minimise pain and maximise pleasure

Question 3

what are the types of utilitraianism

Answer 3

act, rule and preference

Question 4

what are the three main claims of Act util

Answer 4

1. Whether an action is right/good or wrong/bad depends solely on its consequences
2. The only thing that is good is happiness
3. No individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s

Question 5

what is the hedonic calculus

Answer 5

a way to calculate pleasure

Question 6

who created the hedonic calculus

Answer 6

Bentham

Question 7

who created act util

Answer 7

bentham

Question 8

what are the properties of the hedonic calculsu

Answer 8

• Intensity: how strong the pleasure is
• Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
• Certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
• Propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
• Fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
• Purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
• Extent: the number of people affected

Question 9

example of hedonic calc being used to make a desicion

pleasure

Answer 9

for example, if two different courses of action lead to two different intensities of pleasure, then the ethically right course of action is the one that leads to the more intense pleasure.

Question 10

what do act utilitarians say is the morally good action

Answer 10

Act utilitarians would agree that the morally good action is the one that maximises the total happiness.

Question 11

calculation

probs with act/preference util

Answer 11

there are all sorts of difficulties with calculating utility.
* how do you measure each of the seven variables
* how do you compare these seven variables against each other e.g a longer-lasting dull pleasure and a short-lived but more intense pleasure
* which beings do we include in this calculation? Animals can feel pleasures and pains too, so are we supposed to include them in our calculation?

Question 12

future

probs with act util

Answer 12

you can’t predict the future. For example, saving a child’s life would presumably a good way to maximise pleasure. But if that child went on to become a serial killer as an adult, saving their life could have actually been a bad thing according to utilitarianism

Question 13

tyranny of the majority

probs with act util

Answer 13

imagine a scenario where a nasty murder has taken place and an angry crowd are baying for blood. In other words, it would make the crowd happy to see the perpetrator apprehended and punished for his crimes.
* But what if the police can’t catch the murderer? They could just lie and frame an innocent man instead.
* If the crowd believe the murderer has been caught (even if it’s not really him) then they would be just as happy whether it was the actual perpetrator or not.
* And let’s say the crowd is 10,000 people. Their collective happiness is likely to outweigh the innocent man’s pain at being falsely imprisoned. After all, there are 10,000 of them and only one of him (hence, tyranny of the majority).
In this situation an act utilitarian would have to say it’s morally right to imprison the innocent man. In fact, it would be morally wrong not to!

Question 14

moral status of relationships

probs with act util

Answer 14

Certain people – namely, friends and family – are more important to us than others. But act utilitarianism is concerned only with the greatest good for the greatest number. There are no grounds, then, to justify acting to maximise their happiness over some random person on the street.
e.g That £10 you spend buying your mum a birthday present made her happy, sure, but it would have made Joe Bloggs in Mozambique happier. So, buying your Mum a birthday present was morally wrong according to utilitarianism

shows Act util is too idealistic OR some relations have a special moral status that Util forces us to ignore

Question 15

crit of hedonic calc

act util

Answer 15

We saw how Bentham’s felicific calculus seeks to quantify happiness. However, we can argue that this quantitative approach makes utilitarianism a ‘doctrine of swine’ in that it reduces the value of human life to the same simple pleasures felt by pigs and animals.

Question 16

response [from Mill] to crit of hedonic calc

act util

Answer 16

Mill rejects Bentham’s felicific calculus and argues that not all pleasures and pains are equally valuable. Mill argues that people who have experienced the higher pleasures of thought, feeling, and imagination always prefer them to the lower pleasures of the body and the senses.
* qualititative rather than quantittave approach
* in response to *‘doctrine of swine’ mill says humans prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures because they value dignity – and dignity is an important component of happiness
** “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pg satisifed”

Question 17

other values

crit of act util

Answer 17

situations where we might prefer something even if it makes us less happy,
* Nozick’s experince machine thought experiment– despite maximising happiness, many people would prefer not to enter the experience machine. These people would prefer to live a real life and be in contact with reality even though a real life means less happiness and more pain compared to the experience machine.

Question 18

How does Nozicks experi show a prob with act/ rule util

Answer 18

This example illustrates a problem with Bentham and Mill’s hedonism (the idea that happiness and pleasure are the only things of value). We realise there are things in life more important than simple pleasure – such as being in contact with reality – but act utilitarianism ignores our preferences for these things.

Question 19

what is rule util

Answer 19

focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions

Question 20

who made rule util

Answer 20

Mill

Question 21

why was rule util created

Answer 21

to respond to tyranny of the majority– if you lived in a society where you knew innocent people were regularly framed, you would worry that it might happen to you. There would also be no satisfaction in seeing criminals ‘brought to justice’ as there would be no way to know whether they were guilty.

Question 22

what is preference util

Answer 22

a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism. It says that instead of maximising happiness (hedonistic utilitarianism), we should act to maximise people’s preferences.

Question 23

why was preference util created

Answer 23

provides a response to the experience machine objection to act utilitarianism above. Act utilitarianism says we should shove everyone into the experience machine – whether they want to go in or not – because doing so would maximise their happiness. However, preference utilitarianism can reject this by saying we should respect people’s preference to live in the real world (even if living in the real world means less happiness).

Question 24

carrying out wishes of the dead

how act and preference would respond

Answer 24

It can’t increase the happiness of a deceased person to carry out their will (because they’re dead). However, if a deceased person expressed a preference for their money to be donated to the local cat shelter, say, then it seems there is a moral obligation to honour this preference. Act utilitarianism, though, would say we should ignore the preferences of the deceased and just spend the money in whichever way maximises happiness – but this seems wrong. Preference utilitarianism can avoid this outcome and say we should respect the preferences of the dead.

Question 25

how does pref. util respond to higher and lower pleasures

Answer 25

Mill claims that higher pleasures are just inherently more valuable than lower pleasures, but preference utilitarianism can explain this in terms of preference: We prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures, and so should seek to maximise those.

Question 26

what is kantian ethics

Answer 26

• the only thing that is good without qualification is good will.
• Good will means acting for the sake of duty.
• You have a duty to follow the moral law.
• Moral laws are universal.
• You can tell is a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative.
• The categorical imperative is two tests:
  1. Contradiction in conception
  2. Contradiction in will
• Finally, do not treat people as means to an end (the humanity formula).

Question 27

kantian ethics

what is the good will

+ an example

Answer 27

Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty. This, according to Kant, is the source of moral worth.

1. So, if you save someone’s life because you expect to be financially rewarded, this action has no moral worth. You’re acting for selfish reasons, not because of duty.
2. However, if you save someone’s life because you recognise that you have a duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.

Question 28

what does kant say we4 have a duty to do

Answer 28

we each have a duty to follow the moral law. The moral law, according to Kant, is summarised by the categorical imperative.

Question 29

what are the 2 maxims in the categorical imperative

Answer 29

categorical
hypothetical

Question 30

explain hypothetical rules

categoical imperative

Answer 30

• Hypothetical rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement,
  E.g. “you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam.“

Question 31

explain categorical rules

categorical imperative

Answer 31

Categorical rules are not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, they apply universally.
E.g. “you shouldn’t steal” is a rule that applies to everyone, i.e. it applies universally.

Question 32

does kant say moral laws are hypothetical or categorical

Answer 32

categorical

Question 33

what is kants tests to see if a maxim passes the categorical imperative

Answer 33

1. contradiction in conception
2. conradiction in will

Question 34

explain condraction in conception

+example

Answer 34

• something that is self-contradictory
  Example: we might ask Kant whether it is morally acceptable to steal. I.e., we might ask whether “you should steal” is a universally applicable maxim.

If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense – as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do.

So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible.

Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim “you should steal” leads to a contradiction in conception

a contradiction in conception, = a perfect duty not to follow that maxim

Question 35

explain contrdaiction in will

+ example

Answer 35

whether we can rationally will a maxim or not.

Example: can we rationally will “not to help others in need”?

There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else. But we cannot rationally will it, says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes we have goals (Kant calls these ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others. To will the ends, we must also will the means.

So, we cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the means).

Question 36

what does Kant say about goals that dont help others

Answer 36

Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim “not to help others in need”.

Question 37

what is kants other formulaation of the categoricla imperative

Answer 37

the humanity formula

Question 38

what is the humanity formula

kantian

Answer 38

• Treating someone as a means to your own end means to use them. So Kant is basically saying don’t use people.

Question 39

example of the humanity formula

Answer 39

tricking someone into marrying you.

If you pretend to love someone to marry them and take their money, you treat them as a means to make money.

Question 40

explain why the example of the humanity formla is a problem according to kant

trick, marry

Answer 40

t’s the deception that is the problem here as it undermines the rational agency of the other party. By withholding your true intentions, you prevent the other party from rationally pursuing their own ends (e.g. to find a loving partner).

But if you’re honest with the other party, the other party can make an informed choice on whether this fits with their ends. Their goal might be to get married to anyone, regardless of whether it’s love or not. In this case you can both (rationally) use each other for mutual benefit. You acknowledge each others ends, even if they are not the same.

Question 41

what are the problems with Kant ethics

listed

Answer 41

1. not all universal maxims are morals
2. ignores consequences
3. ignores other valuable motivations
4. conflicts of duties
5. moral laws aren’t categoical But instaed hypothetical

Question 42

explain ‘not all universal maxims are moral’

prob with kant ethics

Answer 42

Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception. As we saw in the stealing example, the very concept of private property couldn’t exist if stealing was universally permissible. But by tweaking the maxim slightly, we can avoid this contradiction in conception and justify stealing.

For example, instead of my maxim being ‘to steal’, I could claim my maxim is ‘to steal from people with nine letters in their name’ or ‘to steal from stores that begin with the letter A’.

Both of these maxims can be universalised without undermining the concept of private property. They** would apply rarely enough that there would be no breakdown in the concept of private property.**

This shows that* just because a maxim can be universalised, that does not mean it is inherently good or moral.* By defining maxims cleverly, we can justify any course of action.

Question 43

response to ‘not all universal maxims are moral’

Answer 43

Kant would likely argue that modifying your maxim in this way is cheating because the extra conditions – such as the number of letters in a person’s name or the name of the store – are irrelevant to this situation.

The categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim I am acting on and not some arbitrary one I just made up.

Question 44

explain ‘ignores consequencves’

kant ans util

Answer 44

Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no, a utilitarian would say yes.

But what about 100 people? Or the entire population of the world? Surely if the consequences are significant enough we should consider breaking certain rules?

Another example is stealing. Many people would have the utilitarian intuition that it’s morally acceptable to steal food in some situations – for example, stealing food to save your starving family’s life. However, Kant says we have a perfect duty never to steal and so you should just let your family starve to death – but this doesn’t seem right.

The problem with such rigid rules is drawn out further in the lies section of applied ethics. Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie – even if telling a lie would save someone’s life.

These thought experiments seem to draw out absurd and morally questionable results from following rules too strictly.

intuition that consequences are important in moral decision making

Question 45

explain ‘ignores other valuabel motvations’

prob. kant etics

Answer 45

being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth.

So, imagine a close friend is ill in hospital. You pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they’re ok. According to Kant, this motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value.

However, if you didn’t really care about your friend but begrudgingly went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant.

But this seems absurd. Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care.

Question 46

response to ‘ignores other valuabel motvations’

kantianethics

Answer 46

Kant would respond by making a distinction between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty. There is nothing wrong with being motivated by motivations such as love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them. Instead, we should always act out of duty, but if what we want to do anyway is in accordance with duty then that’s a bonus.

Question 47

explain ‘conflicts between duties’

prob. kant etics

Answer 47

Kant argues that it is never acceptable to violate our duties.

But what if you find yourself in a situation where such a situation was unavoidable? For example, Kant would say we have a duty to never lie. But what happens if you make a promise to someone but then find yourself in a situation where the only way to keep that promise is by telling a lie? Whichever choice you make you will seemingly violate one of your duties.

Question 48

response to ‘conflicts between duties’

prob. kant ethics

Answer 48

Kant claims that a true conflict of duties is impossible. Our moral duties are objective and rational and so it is inconceivable that they could conflict with one another. If it appears that there is a conflict in our duties, he says, it must mean we have made a mistake somewhere in formulating them. After all, you can’t rationally will a maxim to become a universal law if it conflicts with another law you rationally will – that would be contradictory.

So, if we think through our duties carefully, Kant says, a true conflict is irrational and inconceivable. Applied to the example above, Kant could say we shouldn’t make a promise that could conflict with our moral duties.

Question 49

explain Foots prob ‘ MORALITY AS A SYSTEM OF HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES’

Answer 49

The motivation for** hypothetical imperatives is obvious: I should do my homework because I want to do well in the exam. I should leave now because I want to catch the train on time. These desires provide a rational reason why I should act according to these imperatives.**

However, the reason for** categorical imperatives is not so clear**. Why shouldn’t I steal? Why shouldn’t I tell lies? If I don’t care about these rules – if I have no desire to follow them – then why should I? Kant would say following moral laws is a matter of rationality and that reason tells us we should follow the categorical imperative but Foot argues that: The fact is that the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency. Nor will his action necessarily be irrational. Irrational actions are those in which a man in some way defeats his own purposes […] Immorality does not necessarily involve any such thing.

Question 50

explain Foots prob ‘ MORALITY AS A SYSTEM OF HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES’

SIMPLE

Answer 50

Foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives. For example:

• You shouldn’t steal if you don’t want to upset the person you’re stealing from
• You shouldn’t tell lies if you care about having integrity
• You shouldn’t murder if you want to be a just and virtuous person

Question 51

difference about aristotles virtue ethics than kant and util.

Answer 51

Instead of answering “what should I do?” (action-centred) he addresses a question more like “what sort of person should I be?” (agent-centred). It’s basically the other way round: Instead of defining a good person as someone who does good actions, Aristotle would define good actions as those done by good people.

Question 52

what is eudaimonia

simple

Answer 52

the good life for human beings

Question 53

what are virtues

Answer 53

character traits that enable us to act according to reason

Question 54

brief summary of main points of virtue ethics

Answer 54

• The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human beings
• Human beings are rational animals, and reason is their unique characteristic activity (ergon)
• The good life (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to reason
• Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason
• The virtue is the middle point between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess
• Virtues are developed through habit and training

Question 55

what is eudaimonia

more detailed

Answer 55

Eudaimonia is a property of someone’s life taken as a whole. It’s not something you can have one day and then lose the next. Good people sometimes do bad things, but this doesn’t make them bad people. Likewise, people who have good lives (eudaimons) can sometimes have bad days.

Aristotle says that **eudaimonia is a final end. **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.

Question 56

what is ergon

Answer 56

function/ characteristic activity of a thing

Question 57

what is arete

Answer 57

property/virue that enable a thing to achieve its ergon

Question 58

example of ergon and arete

Answer 58

For example, a knife’s ergon is to cut things. And a good knife has the arête of sharpness because this enables it to cut things well.

Question 59

what does aristotle say the ergon of humans is

Answer 59

to use reason. Reason is what makes us unique from trees, plants, books, knives, animals – everything else in the world. However, this does not mean that we achieve eudaimonia by doing nothing but idly thinking and reasoning. Instead, Aristotle’s claim is that humans always choose their actions for some reason – good or bad. So, what Aristotle actually says is that the good life for a human being (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to good reason.

Question 60

what are virtures

Answer 60

Virtues are** character traits that enable us to choose our actions according to good reason. So, just as the arête of sharpness helps a knife fulfil its ergon to cut things, the arête of virtues help humans fulfil their ergon, which is to choose actions according to reason.
**
virtues are not something you have one day but not the next. If someone has a virtuous character but slips up one day and does something unvirtuous, this doesn’t make them a bad person. Likewise, a bad person whose character is prone to vice doesn’t suddenly develop virtuous character through committing one virtuous act. So, again, virtues are character traits – they are part of what we are.

Question 61

what is the doctrine of the mean

Answer 61

The doctrine of the mean says that virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes.

“the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way”

Question 62

example of virtues [and their vice of deficiency and vice of excess]

Answer 62

vice of deficiency- cowardice
vice of excess- recklessness
virture- courage

Question 63

what is the skill analogy

virtue ethics

Answer 63

• Nobody is born knowing how to play the piano, but we are born with the capacity to know how to play the piano. Likewise, nobody is born virtuous, but they have the capacity to become virtuous
• You don’t learn to play the piano by simply reading books and just studying the theory, you have to actually do it. Likewise, it’s not enough to just read and learn about virtue, you have to actually act virtuously until it becomes part of your character.
• When you first start learning to play the piano, you follow the rules and try not to press the wrong keys – but you don’t really understand what you’re doing. In the case of virtue, we start by teaching children rules for behaviour (e.g. “don’t eat too many sweets” or “if you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”) and they just follow these rules because they’re told to – not because they understand why.
• But as you progress with playing the piano, you become able to play automatically without thinking and, eventually, you might become so comfortable playing the piano that you’re able to improvise and understand what sounds good, what doesn’t, and why.
• Likewise, by following rules for acting virtuously, it eventually becomes part of our character (e.g. we develop the virtue of temperance by repeatedly refusing to indulge until it eventually becomes habit). Further, we begin to understand what virtue is and this enables us to improvise according to what the situation demands.

Question 64

definition of phronesis

Answer 64

practical wisdom

Question 65

apply phronesis to virtue ethics

Answer 65

• For Aristotle, what’s good/right will depend on the specific details of the situation.
• a joke whereas in another situation (e.g. at a funeral) it would be inappropriate. Knowing what virtue requires according to the specific details of the situation requires a practical wisdom
  1. Having a general understanding of what is good for human beings (eudaimonia).
  2. Being able to apply this general understanding to the specific details of the situation – the time, the place, the people involved, etc.
  3. Being able to deliberate (i.e. think through) what is the virtuous goal according to these specific details.
  4. And then acting virtuously according to this deliberation to achieve this virtuous outcome.

Question 66

moral responsability in virtue ethics

when to praise/condemn

Answer 66

we should only praise or condemn actions if they are done voluntarily. In other words, you can’t criticise someone for acting unvirtuously if their actions weren’t freely chosen.

1. Voluntary: acting with full knowledge and intentiom
2. . Involuntary/non-voluntary:
   Compulsion (i.e. involuntary): being forced to do something you don’t want to do – e.g. sailors throwing goods overboard to save the boat during a storm
   Ignorance (i.e. non-voluntary): doing something you don’t want to do by accident – e.g. slipping on a banana skin and spilling a drink on someone
   Aristotle says a person is only morally responsible for their voluntary actions.

Question 67

problems facing virtue ethics

Answer 67

1. no clear guidance
2. circularity
3. competing virtues
4. difference between eudaimonia and moral good

Question 68

no clear guidnace

problem facing virtue ethics

Answer 68

Aristotle describes virtues in the middle of the two extremes (the doctrine of the mean) and that this varies depending on the situation. But this isn’t very helpful as a practical guide of what to do.

Kant gives the categorical imperative and utilitarianism has the hedonic calculus

The doctrine of the mean doesn’t give actual quantities, only vague descriptions as “not too much” and “not too little”. If you genuinely don’t know what the correct course of action is, virtue theory doesn’t provide any actual guidance for how to act.

Question 69

response to ‘no clear guidance’

virtue ethics

Answer 69

Aristotle could reply that virtue theory was never intended to provide a set of rules for how to act. Life is complicated – that’s the whole reason why you need to develop practical wisdom in the first place, so you can act virtuously in the many complicated situations that arise. Plus, we can still reflect whether an action is, for example, courageous or stupid. We could also ask questions like “how could I be more friendly in this situation?” that help us decide how to act. Just because virtue theory doesn’t provide a specific course of action, that does not mean it provides no guidance whatsoever.

Question 70

circularity

problem facing virtue ethics

Answer 70

Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which doesn’t really say anything. He’s basically saying something like:

• A virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do
• And a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts

These descriptions are circular and so say nothing meaningful about what a virtuous person or a virtuous act actually is

Question 71

competing virtues

problem facing virtue ethics

Answer 71

We can imagine scenarios where applying two different virtues (e.g. justice and mercy) would suggest two different courses of action.

For example, if you’re a judge and someone has stolen something, you have to choose between the virtue of justice (i.e. punishing the criminal) and the virtue of mercy (i.e. letting the criminal go). You can’t choose to do both things, so whichever choice you make will be unvirtuous in some way.

Question 72

response to competing virtues

virtue ethics

Answer 72

Aristotle would reply that such conflicts between virtues are impossible. As mentioned in the no clear guidance objection, virtues are not rigid and unbreakable rules and the correct virtue and in what amount depends on the circumstances. Aristotle would say that practical wisdom would mean knowing what each virtue tells you to do and in what amount. So, for example, you could sentence a person according to justice, but show appropriate mercy if there are extenuating circumstances.

Question 73

difference between eudaimonia and moral good

problem facing virtue ethics

Answer 73

imagine a nurse who spends her entire life saving lives in some remote country. She doesn’t enjoy her work, but does it because she believes it’s needed. She’s constantly stressed and dies at age 30 from a virus caught while carrying out her work. With such an example, we tend to have a strong intuition that this nurse’s life is morally good (she’s done nothing but help other people) but she clearly did not achieve eudaimonia.

This suggests there is a difference between what is morally good and eudaimonia, and so Aristotle’s virtue ethics fails as an account of what morality is.

Question 74

response to ‘difference between eudaimonia and moral good’

Answer 74

You could respond, however, that Aristotle was never trying to answer the (narrow) question of what a morally good life is. **Aristotle’s inquiry and eudaimonia is concerned with the good life in general – human flourishing in a broad sense. **Further, Aristotle would likely argue that achieving eudaimonia does involve some level of commitment to others. So, the kind of altruism demonstrated by the nurse in the example above would indeed be part of eudaimonia – it’s just not the only part. In other words, being morally good is necessary, but not sufficient, for eudaimonia.