normative ethical theories 3 and 5 markers

Question 1

define act utilitarianism (3)

Answer 1

act utilitarianism determines the rightness of an action by the consequences and whether it maximising pleasure and minimises pain; it relies on the principle of utility. it is a hedonistic, consequentialist theory

Question 2

define rule utilitarianism

Answer 2

rule U is a hedonistic, qualitative theory which argues that an action is good if it adheres to individual happiness or to rules which are in place to provide the greatest happiness to the aggregate

Question 3

what is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism (3)

Answer 3

-act utilitariansim determines the rightness of an action by the consequences and whether it maximising pleasure and minimises pain; it relies on the principle of utility. it is a hedonistic, consequentialist theory
-rule U is a hedonistic, qualitative theory which argues that an action is good if it adheres to individual happiness or to rules which are in place to provide the greatest happiness to the aggregate

Question 4

define higher and lower pleasures (3)

Answer 4

• mill
• higher pleasures: more demanding pleasures that require harder work to develop and understand
• lower pleasures: pleasures of the body that we share with animals
• higher pleasures are intellectual pleasures and we should seek them whereas lower pleasure e.g sex, pleasure of food or drink are more base-quality

Question 5

define non-hedonistic utilitarianism (3)

Answer 5

modern version on non-hedonistic utilitarianism that replaces the idea that an action should be judged on the amount of pleasure it brings with the argument that an action should be judged on the extent to which it conforms to the preferences of those involved. the right thing to do is the act that maximises the satisfaction of the preference of all the people involved

Question 6

outline bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism (5)

Answer 6

• determines the goodness of an act by how much pleasure of pain it produces
• we are ruled by two sovereign masters; pain and pleasure, which exist in the natural world–> naturalist theory. therefore, an act is good if it reduces the most amount of pleasure possible.
• principle of utility; something has ‘utility’ if it contributes to your happiness, which is the same as what is in your interest; happiness is pleasure and absence of pain
• it’s a consequentialist theory which determines whether an act is right or wrong by its consequences rather than intentions
• hedonic calculus which can calculate the most amount of pleasure and least amount of pain gives 7 factors. e.g one factor is extent which looks at the number of people affected by the act, which reinforces that quantitative aspect of the theory
  – it’s not about what the type of pleasure is, but about the amount produced on a wide scale

Question 7

outline mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism (5)

Answer 7

• argues that there should be a set of rules created using the principle of utility in order to give a framework for the correct action. It is a refinement of act utilitarianism; rather than determining whether an action is good purely from its consequences, it judges it by how a person sticks to a rule
• QUALITATIVE rather than quantitative because whilst it calls for maximising utility, it avoids ‘tyranny of the majority’ by focusing on individual people rather than the total aggregate
• HARM PRINCIPLE: e.g act utilitarianism would have to say that torturing a child was correct if it created the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people. however, mill’s harm principle and adherence to rules means that the rule ‘do not torture’ protects the individuals happiness
  HIGHER AND LOWER PLEASURES: higher=ones of the mind, rational and intellectual. lower=pleasures shared with animals
• mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle: only evidence capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it, similarly, the sole evidence that something is desirable is that people desire it.
• each individual person desires their own happiness and it is good to that person and therefore general happiness is good to the aggreagate of all happiness. whatever we desire for its own sake, such as truth or knowledge, is part of happiness and therefore happiness is the only good

Question 8

outline non hedonistic utilitarianism (5)

Answer 8

• doesn’t focus on maximising pleasure like hedonisticU does. preferenceU (e.g a modern version) argues that an action should be judged not on the amount of pleasure it brings, but argues an action should be judged to the extent to which it conforms to the preferences of those involved
• Singer: there is a distinction between preference and pleasure. e.g i might derive pleasure out of being plugged into Nozick’s experience machine, because pleasure and pain are intrinsic to our nature and don’t really include rationality. however, my preference that derives partly out of rationality, is to be in touch with reality
• singer argues that an action is right if it maximises the satisfaction of the preference of all people involved, and we should do what we prefer unless it is outweighed by other people or sentient beings’ preference

Question 9

outline the issue faced by utilitarianism, that pleasure is the only good (5)

Answer 9

• hedonistic utilitarianism argues that pleasure is the sole good and determines whether an act is morally good or not
• bentham argues that it is a natural fact that pain and pleasure are the two sovereign masters
• mill: we desire pleasure/happiness and so the good is happiness to the total aggregate
• however, we value some things independently of pleasure that show it is not the only good
• this is illustrated through Nozick’s experience machine: imagine a machine where if we plug into it, it produces the most amount of pleasure; when we plug into it, it is for the rest of our life and we forget that we have done that
• if it is a matter of fact that all we desire is happiness/pleasure, then we would have no good reason to NOT plug into the machine
• however, we do have good reason to not plug into the machine because we care about what actually is the case rather than what seems to be the case— we want to be connected to reality and for our moral actions to have an impact on reality
  – therefore, the claim that we all desire happiness/pleasure (hedonism) is not true and pleasure is not the only goooood

Question 10

explain the issue of fairness and individual rights faced by utilitarianism (5)

Answer 10

actU says an act is morally good if it produces the most amount of pleasure for most amount of people, however this negates both individual rights and fairness
-Pleasure is the only good.
Rights:
- the point of rights is that they should be protected
- there are certain moral constrains you can never violate, e.g the preservation of life
- however actU would say that if killing me and donating my organs would lead to the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people, then it would be morally good, however this violates my individual right to life
- this could lead to tyranny of the majority where we have a society that fails to protect the rights for some people > this is emphasised by the problem of fairness, fairness is to do with justice;
- if you are innocent, you should not be punished in order to create the most amount of pleasure
- a judge could prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person and imposing a severe punishment > we value liberty, fairness and individual rights as ends in themselves and they need to be protected independently of whether they maximise happiness
– this shows there is a conflict between rights and utility, pleasure and happiness are not the only good
—- therefore, hedonistic utilitarianism is wrong

Question 11

explain why partiality is an issue for utilitarianism (5)

Answer 11

• utilitarianism makes a commitment to equality: society sum of individual interests
• the good=greatest happiness for greatest number=maximising utility
• utilitarianism demands ‘agent neutrality’ or objectivity; we have to recognise everyone alike who experiences pleasure/has interests, be it family or strangers
  — problem: MORAL WORTH
• where you care for your family, this has moral worth irrespective of strangers and society and utility
• there are certain moral commitments we have to our family or friends
• the problem is that utilitarianism is too demanding, because it requires us to bring about the best outcome; everyone’s happiness counts equally and the happiness of those i love, has no special weight in guiding my actions
• almost everyone believes that we have special moral duties or commitments who are near and dear to us. as a result, most people would reject the notion that morality requires us to treat people we love and care about no differently from people who are complete strangers as absurd

Question 12

explain why utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and intentions of the individual (5) (12)

Answer 12

> utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory and says an action is morally right or wrong solely depending on whether the consequences maximise the pleasure or preference of peoples
- however intentions have moral worth irrespective of consequences
- if a person gave to charity with the intention to look good (reputation) and the consequences were good and more people were fed but someone else gave to charity only with the intention of helping. both have the same moral worth according to utilitarianism but intuitively they should not

integrity is also a problem as it has moral worth irrespective and in spite of consequences, -george example: PhD, offered a job working in biological and chemical warfare, cannot find another job, needs to provide, problem is he is against working in welfare
- george considers that if he doesn’t take the job, someone else will get it and have no qualms about it, if he takes it then he can slow the process down and lessen pain. on the basis of utility, he would have to take the job. — with utilitarianism i am as responsible for the things i do as the things i fail to prevent-there is no distinction
- there is a conflict between project and action-asks us to forget about integrity and to disassociate george/jim from his feelings/emotions and moral commitments
- it fails to consider the moral commitment of the agent and that an agent’s project should be given special weight>and so it is wrong because it doesn’t take into account moral integrity

Question 13

outline bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism and explain the problem with calculation (12)

Answer 13

an issue with the principle of utility as well as the calculus
- with the principle of utility: the good entails a maximising of pleasure but what and who does this include?
- if i cannot calculate pleasure, i cannot maximise please, and i cannot work out what the right thing to do is - this is what makes utilitarianism an impractical theory of ethics –> it cannot do what it sets out to do

Question 14

compare and contrast act and rule utilitarianism (12)

Answer 14

• act utilitarianism: hedonistic, quantitative theory which argues that an action is right if it produces the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain (principle of utility)
• rule utilitarianism: hedonistic, qualitative theory which argues that an action is right if we adhere to a set of rules which produce the most amount of happiness (principle of utility)

similarities:
1. both theories are hedonistic and based on the principle of utility and are naturalist because they argue that pain and please exist objectively and naturally in the world:
- bentham: pleasure and pain are the two sovereign masters that we are governed by
- mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle argues that just as we can tell an object is visible by people seeing is, we can tell something is desired in as so far as they desire it. happiness is desired by each person and therefore the good is the most amount of happiness –> mill however argues for the ‘good’ for each person whereas bentham is all about the total aggregate
2. both theories are consequentialist:
- the rightness of an action depends upon the consequences of the action rather than the intention
- if consequence is that the most amount of pleasure has been created, then it work
- they both therefore face a problem with unforeseen consequences and ignoring intention
3. both face a problem with moral integrity and partiality:
-act U argues for the total aggregate of people and therefore the individual does not matter
-rule utilitarianism focuses on the individual a bit more but it’s also about the happiness overall

differences: (link to similarities)
1. actU is quantitative, whilst rule U is qualitative
- for act utilitarianism, an action is good if it maximises pleasure for the most amount of people. It does not matter what this pleasure is. This is a problem because that implies that it doesn’t really matter than the action is. E.g. if 20 guards got pleasure out of kicking one prisoner, that action would maximise pleasure and therefore be good
- Mill’s theory however is qualitative and distinguishes between different types of pleasure. “higher pleasures” he argues should be sought after and have more value than lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are of the mind, rational and intellectual whereas lower pleasures are more animalistic. This means that a pleasure such as kicking someone isn’t really morally good
2. actU ‘tyranny of the majority’ whilst ruleU takes into account individual rights
- mill refines actU on the basis that it commits tyranny of the majority
- he argues in his proof of the greatest happiness principle for each person desiring their own happiness
- harm principle: can seek out own pleasure until it affects someone else
- actU ignores this because it is quantitative and therefore there is a problem with individual liberties and rights
3, actU does it on an act by act basis whilst rule U adheres to a set of rules:
- actU gives the hedonic calculus in order to work out whether an action is moral e.g purity and duration
- ruleU argues that this is too complicated and instead argues that morality should be based on a set of rules that produce the most amount of happiness in the long term and are simpler to follow

Question 15

what is the good will for kant (3)

Answer 15

good without qualification; to have a good will is to do your duty. it is the only good thing in itself

Question 16

define deontological ethics (3)

Answer 16

deontological ethics argues that the rightness or wrongness of an act is in the act itself rather than the consequences . this links to the idea of duty and the idea that we can discover our duty through reason, which is a distinct attribute of humans

Question 17

what does kant mean by contradiction in conception (3)

Answer 17

kant used the notion of a contradiction in conception to test whether a maxim is moral by its universalisability. a contradiction in conception occurs when it is inconceivable for a maxim to be universal because it is self-contadictory. for example, if lying was moral and universalised, the notion of truth would become redundant, or if stealing was moral and universalised, the notion of property wouldn’t exist and then it wouldn’t technically be stealing

Question 18

what does kant mean by contradiction in will (3)

Answer 18

a contradiction in will tests whether a maxim is moral by its universalisability. it is when one can imagine a world where a maxim is universal but would not will it to be. for examole, one would not rationally will that every talented pianist gave up their talent to pursue another

Question 19

outline the distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty (5)

Answer 19

• acting in accordance with duty is to do something because you are inclines to and wish to. it may be a moral action but it also may not
• acting out of duty is simply acting because it’s you duty as a rational being to do so
• acting out of duty is adhering to reason, the ‘supreme condition’
• kant’s shopkeeper example highlights this difference: shopkeeper gives every customer the right amount of change even though she could give them the wrong amount of change
• kant argues this is only moral if she is acting because it’s her duty to act according to the ‘good will’ and have moral intentions
• however if she was doing this because it would be bad for business, she is acting in accordance with duty
• this highlights that the difference is not in the consequences, but in the intentions

Question 20

outline the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives (5)

Answer 20

• imperatives are commands
• hypothetical imperatives are synthetic commands that depend on circumstances
• categorical imperatives however are universal and can be applied to all rational beings
• hypothetical imperatives involve actions which are necessary to achieve something a person desires
• categorical imperatives involve actions that are necessary in themselves
• for example, if i wanted to make a tea, a hypothetical imperative would be to boil the kettle
• my intentions are for myself, to make tea. this is neither moral nor immoral and is dependent on the situation (of making tea)
• categorical imperatives say ‘you must’ or ‘you must not’
• for example, ‘you must not murder’ would be a categorical imperative
• categorical imperatives tell us we have a certain duty, hypothetical imperatives are neutral
• categorical imperatives are unconditionally binding whereas hypothetical imperatives are conditional

Question 21

outline the first formulation of the categorical imperative (5)

Answer 21

• the first formulation of the categorical imperative adheres to ‘universalisability’
• it’s a way to test if a maxim can be applied to every rational being in the world and therefore if it can be a categorical imperative
• e.g the maxim ‘do not murder’ can be applied universally and if we adhere to this command, which appears similar to a law, we will be acting rationally
• kant provides two ways to test if a maxim can be universal:
  — if it is not a contradiction in conception: a contradiction when something is universalised e.g the maxim ‘you can lie’ if applied universally, it would make the notion of truth redundant - contradictory
  — contradiction in will: one where if a maxim is universalised, it isn’t a contradiction but not something any rational being would will. e.g if it was universal that every talented pianist gave this talent - no one would will this
• if a maxim passes these two tests then it remains as a categorical imperative

Question 22

outline the second formulation of the categorical imperative (5)

Answer 22

• second formulation is the humanity principle.
• this part of the categorical imperative focuses on human rights and how to treat people
• kant states that we should not use people simple as ‘means’ but must use them as a means to an end. e.g a man goes outside in the morning as he needs milk from the shops and sees there is milk on his neighbour’s door > to take the milk would make life easier for him, but that would be using the neighbour as a means for that man, rather than as a means to an end in their own right
• to treat someone as a means is to treat the person in a way that undermines their power of making a rational choices themselves
• kant argues that as rational beings, we have inherent value and so must treat people as ends in themselves
• the second formulation also requires that no rule of conduct applicable to all rational beings can favour one person over the other
• if we treat people as a means and not an end, we are taking away their freedom because we undermine their power of making a rational choice

Question 23

explain why kantian deontological ethics faces an issue with clashing and competing duties (5)

Answer 23

• the rigidness of kant’s ethics becomes a problem as he gives no guidance on how to pick between clashing or competing duties
• e.g in the axe murderer example, whilst we have a duty not to lie that is a categorical imperative, we also have a duty not to betray our friends
• whilst not lying would be a contradiction in conception, betraying our friend would be a contradiction in will
• this shows that kant does not give a way to choose between two duties
• kant responds to the axe murderer by stating that we have an imperfect duty to help our friend and a perfect duty not to lie, and we should choose the former
• however, this doesn’t work when we have two imperfect duties or two perfect duties
  e.g to go to war or to stay home and help one’s sick mother- two imperfect duties

Question 24

explain the issue for kantian ethics that not all universalisable maxims are distinctly immoral (5)

Answer 24

• the first formulation of the categorical imperative outlines that a maxim is only moral if it is universal
• one therefore assumes that universal laws are therefore moral
• the whole point of the categorical imperative is to give us clear guidance on how to act morally
• by definition, a categorical imperative is universal and thus moral
• it aims to allow us to distinguish between maxims that are moral and the ones which are immoral-but if some non-universalisable maxims appear moral and universalisable maxims appear immoral then the categorical imperative fails at what it aims to do
• therefore kantian ethics is wrong
• e.g not helping other people-universalisable but not moral
  >steal gifts from large shops when there are seven letters in my name- universalizable but not moral
  >helping the poor (if everyone helped the poor, there would be no poor left) opening the door for other people- moral but not universalizable
  >reasoning clashes with the categorical imperative- fails at what it aims to do

Question 25

explain the issue for kantian ethics that not all universalisable

Question 26

explain the issue for kantian ethics that consequences of actions determine their moral value (5)

Answer 26

• deontological ethics looks at the action and the intention to derive its moral worth and perceives consequences as redundant
• this is because one can do an action without intending to be moral, and yet it can have good consequences. this doesn’t make an action moral
• intuitively, humans regard consequences as well as motives
• with the axe murderer example, whilst kant would tell us not to lie because of the categorical imperative, one intuitively weighs up the consequences of their murdered friend against lying and sees the latter as less important
• stealing to help save a child’s life- whilst this may go against the first formulation of the categorical imperative according to kant, there is an element of an end goal that we all take into consideration rather than JUST an intent
• this demonstrates a wider problem that kant’s ethics goes against human intuition

Question 27

explain the issue that kant ignores the value of certain motives e.g love friendship and kindness (5)

Answer 27

• foot shows that kant’s argument fails because it fails to account for moral motivation
• e.g, an amoralist who understands what morality demands but simply doesn’t care, does acts of wrong but knows they are wrong
• he therefore has rationality which kant says ensures we do our duty
  — however he doesn’t do his duty
• if such a person is possible, then kant’s account of morality is one that cannot necessarily motivate
• according to kant, categorical imperatives are absolute commands that if you are rational, you cannot opt out of
• the amoralist can opt out of a categorical imperative and therefore they don’t exist
• instead, hypothetical imperatives that are a specific means to an end are motivating

Question 28

explain foot’s argument that morality is a system of hypothetical rather than categorical imperatives (5)

Answer 28

• foot argues that they go against our freedom to act how we please, contradicting kant’s claim that we are acting autonomously when we follow them
• foot argues that morality is actually a system of hypothetical imperatives
• whilst kant argued that hypothetical imperatives are not moral because they are to meet a desire, foot states that commands can be moral and also necessary to meet desires
• moral virtue can come from a acting out of the desre to achieve liberty, equality, fairness, justice
• these are desires that correspond to moral virtues and therefore are hypothetical imperatives that are moral

Question 29

what is the good for human beings (3)

Answer 29

the good for human being is to perform your function (ergon) according to relative duties and achieve a purpose (telos) leading to a final purpose in which we seek for its own sake - eudaimonia

Question 30

what does aristotle mean by eudaimonia (3)

Answer 30

• living in accordance with reason
• the highest human good
• flourishing

Eudaimonia is the final goal. According to Aristotle, it is “living well and faring well” and loosely translates to “flourishing.” Through habituating virtuous characteristics, performing rationally in accordance with relevant virtues, we can achieve eudaimonia. It is an end we desire for its own sake and is therefore the only self-sufficient good

Question 31

explain the relationship between eudaimonia and pleasure (5)

Answer 31

• eudaimonia according to aristotle is ‘living well and faring well’ - flourishing
• it is an end we desire for its own sake and it is the only self-sufficient good as it is desirable on its own
• pleasure can help us to achieve eudaimonia but it is not the sole factor in it nor does it decide if an action is morally good or not
• this is because eudaimonia is characterised as the activity of living one life and therefore cannot be about passive states of mind
• we also share pleasure with animals and eudaimonia is unique to human function
• pleasure can be derived both from good and bad actions: a murderer may obtain pleasure from killing someone
• therefore because eudaimonia also encompasses how we develop virtues and perform our actions, pleasure can help lead to it, but there is more to it

Question 32

outline the function argument (5)

Answer 32

• aristotle argues that every rational activity we engage in has a purpose leading to an aim- this is the good
• everything also has a function (ergon) and being good is to perform our function well

p1: the good for members of any kind is to perform their function distinctive of its own kind
p2: to perform the distinctive function well is to perform it in accordance with relevant virtues
c1: the good for members of any kind is to perform their distinct function in accordance with relevant virtues
p3: the function distinctive of human is rationality
c2: therefore the good for humans is rationality in accordance with relevant virtues
p4: happiness is good for humans
c3: therefore, happiness is rationality in accordance with relevant virtues

Question 33

outline the relationship between virtues and function (5)

Question 34

outline aristotle’s account of virtues and vices (5)

Answer 34

• aristotle attributes virtues and vices to character traits or dispositions
• there are two types of virtues: intellectual virtues which can be taught and moral virtues which cannot and have to be habituated
• we use the central intellectual virtue (phronesis) in order to do so
• virtues are part of our purpose; part of the means of reaching the end product and the end product in itself
• they are expressed in the choices we make and the reasons we act
• virtues are dispositions of me that lead to the good life whereas vices prevent it
• virtues lie in between two vices (doctrine of the mean)
• they help us to achieve eudaimonia and are necessary to do so
• they represent a commitment by a person to an ethical value that is habituated within their character

Question 35

define virtue (3)

Answer 35

virtue according to aristotle are ‘states of character, concerned with a choice, lying in the mean i.e the mean relative to us, determined by a rational principle, by that principle by which the person with practical wisdom would determine it’

Question 36

explain the role of education and habituation in the development of a moral character (5)

Answer 36

• a virtue is a stable state or trait of character. virtues are dispositions to think, feel and react in particular situations.
• we do not have the virtues by nature, rather we have the capability to become virtuous. we can understand how we ‘acquire virtues’ by drawing an analogy with how we ‘acquire practical skills’; you don’t learn how to play the piano just by acquiring knowledge about piano playing, but by actually practicing it&raquo_space;> you dont become virtuous just by acquiring knowledge of how to be good but by practicing being good
• therefore, we become virtuous through habituation and through the habits we develop when growing up

Question 37

explain the skill analogy (5)

Answer 37

• the skill analogy is a way to understand how we habituate virtues.
• just in the way we learn how to play a musical instrument by practicing it, this is the same with virtues. i can know the whole theory behind playing the piano but until i actually begin to practice it, i will simply not have the skill in playing it
  » similarly, i can know the theory behind virtues, but until i start practicing them, i cannot develop a moral character
• aristotle argues that the way we start to do this is by copying someone who has a narrow margin of error and has habituated virtues, i.e a role model
• the more i play piano, the better i become and the more able i am to recognise what to do and in the same way, the more i practice virtues, the more able i am to recognise how to act in a particular situation
• eventually, after practicing, it becomes natural to be able to play the piano, and in the same way, once i have practiced the virtue and habituated them, it becomes natural to use them

Question 38

outline the importance of feelings in virtue ethics (5)

Answer 38

• aristotle takes feelings into account because they dictate much of what we do
• aristotle argues that it’s important to feel strongly about developing virtues and therefore they are important in relation to moral virtues. moral virtues involve both ‘passion and action’ and we should feels passionate about our virtues
• therefore, just as virtues can be applied to the doctrine of the mean, so can emotions
• virtues involve appropriate feelings. moral virtues lie in the mean but that mean is relative to us and in the same way, our feelings lie in the mean relative to us. thus, we should feel ‘at the right time, towards the right thing, in the right way’ whilst maintaining passion about our virtues

Question 39

outline the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues (5)

Answer 39

• aristotle uses his doctrine of the mean to explain what virtues are and what is involved in living virtuously
• the virtues are those characteristics that enable one to perform its function well and so, in us, are these intellectual/moral qualities that enable us to achieve eudaimonia; a life of reason in accordance with virtue
• moral virtues involve both ‘passion and action’ hence it is a matter of both feeling and acting appropriately about certain situations/events
• 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
  ->a virtue can be understood as ““states of character, concerned with a choice, lying in the mean i.e. the mean relative to us, determined by a rational principle, by that principle by which the person with practical wisdom would determine it’
• the mean is relative to us
• to feel at the right times, with the reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way’

Question 40

explain the difference between voluntary, involuntary and non voluntary (5)

Answer 40

• aristotle gives three examples of actions because virtue ethics centres around human choice.
• a voluntary action is whereby i am conscious of my own action, conscious of the virtue i am exercising and using my phronesis to do so. i choose freely how to act through reason or deliberation. e.g choosing to give to charity is exercising my virtue of generosity when it is appropriate and this is my choose to do so> i am conscious of it> i am conscious of it. FREELY CHOSEN
• an involuntary action is one where the agent does not willingly choose the action and is compelled by an external force or an internal one. for example, a kleptomaniac stealing is compelled by their compulsion to steal whereas if i stole from a shop that would be voluntary. UNINTENDED, DONE UNDER COMPULSION
• a non voluntary action derives through a lack of knowledge and an inability to make an informed decision because of that rather than compulsio. UNINTENDED, DONE FROM IGNORANCE

Question 41

explain the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons and the role of practical wisdom (5)

Answer 41

• aristotle argues that developing virtues through habituation is how we develop a moral character. virtues are a ‘state of character, concerned with a choice, lying in the mean i.e the mean relative to us, determined by a rational principle, by that principle by which the person with practical wisdom would determine it.’
• there is a key connection between virtues and different types of action, and there are three types of actions; voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary. voluntary actions are virtuous as one willingly causes the action, using their phronesis (practical wisdom) and having been aware of all the non-moral facts involved. being free in an action is being able to deliberate, and deliberation is also about being able to choose, and thus phronesis is expressed through deliberation. a non-voluntary action however derives from ignorance and involuntary one from force. therefore, in both, we do not have freedom as there is a lack of deliberation and therefore the person is unable to exercise their phronesis— evidence that we have free will
• thus we cannot exercise our virtues because we are not acting freely and are not able to use our practical wisdom

Question 42

• explain whether aristotelian virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act (5)

Answer 42

• Aristotelian ethics is agent-based and argues that the good comes from acting rationally in accordance with relevant duties.
• in each action, aristotle argues that we should use the virtues we have habituated and use our phronesis to exercise them for that particular situation.
• however, this is very ambiguously and gives us very little clear guidance on how to act. it appears subjective which contradicts to its realist nature
• for example, the way i use my practical wisdom for a certain action could be completely different to someone elses because of the little guidance
• some philosophers adhere to the doctrine of the mean in order to determine this. however, the quantities ‘excess’ and ‘deficiency’ are also ambiguous and leave too much up to interpretation in order to give us clear guidance on how to act - makes it a weak theory

Question 43

explain the issue of clashing/competing virtues (5)

Answer 43

• aristotle places all virtues on the same level and doesn’t give clear guidance on what to do if two virtues conflict. for example, if i am a judge and someone stole some food because they are poor and need to feed their sick children, but my job is to deliver justice, there is a conflict between being merciful and justice.
  > neither of those are excesses or deficiencies. perhaps it is clear that if no one else was affected in the robbery then there is no clear clash because our phronesis would direct us to being merciful but if the shop owner was also poor/struggling, there is a clear problem between clashing and competing virtues.
• as aristotle’s theory is agent-based and we are responsible for habituating virtues and using our phronesis, there is no guidance on what to do in this situation which shows that it isn’t clear as an ethical theory

Question 44

explain the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and a virtuous person in terms of each other (5)

Answer 44

• aristotle argues that act is virtuous if it is one that would be done by a virtuous person in this situation; a virtuous person is a person disposed to do virtuous acts. these definitions do nothing to clarify what a virtuous act or person is because it is circular and therefore we can substitute one for the other.
• however a virtuous ‘act’ and a virtuous ‘person’ intuitively are different things because someone who is objectively not virtuous can make virtuous acts, such as hitler giving to charity
• we also cannot tell whether an act is virtuous without knowing whether a virtuous person would do it and we can’t know if someone is virtuous without seeing if they do a virtuous act
• the definition is circular because we have used the term ‘virtuous act’ to describe what a ‘virtuous act’ is and therefore the argument fails to define what a virtuous act or person truly is

Question 45

explain whether a trait must contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue and why is it an issue with virtue ethics (5)

Answer 45

• aristotle’s account of virtue: a trait that contributes to the individuals eudaimonia implies that any trait we develop, habituate or practice must lead to eudaimonia.
• however, this isn’t always the case . for example, a woman who works in a country as a medic, saving lives and helping people is constantly tired and ill, and so she suffers
• however the work she does is undoubtedly virtuous despite her not ‘living well and faring well’ or flourishing.
• this shows that the use of a final aim may take away the value of virtuous acts that we do for other people that negatively affect us. yet they are still virtuous. this implies that actual virtuous traits are more important than eudaimonia and we should not determine the value of them based on whether they contribute to eudaimonia