Paper 1: Moral Philosophy

Question 1

What does utility refer to?

Answer 1

Utility was devised by Bentham and refers to an action’s usefulness in achieving the greatest pleasure over pain.

Question 2

What is the principle of utility?

Answer 2

The principle of utility was devised by Bentham and is the foundational idea of utilitarianism. It claims that an action is good if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Question 3

What are Bentham’s three claims?

Answer 3

An action is right / good or wrong / bad depending on its consequences, the only thing that is good is happiness and no individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s.

Question 4

What is the utility calculus?

Answer 4

The utility calculus is used to calculate an action’s net utility. It has seven criteria, which are duration, intensity, extent, fecundity, remoteness, purity and certainty.

Question 5

What are the two types of hedonistic utilitarianism?

Answer 5

Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. An act utilitarianist calculates the net utility based on the outcomes of a specific situation while a rule utilitarianist adheres to rules which generally promotes the greatest net utility.

Question 6

What are Mill’s higher and lower pleasures?

Answer 6

Mill believed that we have higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are exclusively human and are intellectual / mental while lower pleasures can be accessed by animals and are physical / bodily. Mill believes that we strive for the higher pleasures as they benefit humans more than lower pleasures do.

Question 7

What is the problem of the tyranny of the majority?

Answer 7

Bentham’s utilitarianism is quantitative and hedonistic, meaning the morality of actions are calculated in terms of numerical values. This results in situations such as an angry crowd punishing an innocent man who has been framed for crimes he didn’t commit. This is counter-intuitive as utilitarianism claims these types of situations are moral.

Question 8

What is the problem of whether pleasure is the only good?

Answer 8

The problem of whether pleasure is the only good is a thought experiment made by Nozick called Nozick’s experiment machine. This thought experiment depicts a machine which people can hook up to and experience unlimited pleasure. Nozick argued that most of people wouldn’t choose to hook up to the machine as they would prefer to experience free will and other emotions.

Question 9

What is meant by a ‘good will’?

Answer 9

‘Good will’ according to Kant means having the right intention to act which is to act out of duty.

Question 10

What is the distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty?

Answer 10

Acting in accordance means being motivated by something other than a good will, which is self interest and therefore never moral. Acting out duty means being motivated by a good will, meaning it is moral.

Question 11

What is the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives?

Answer 11

Hypothetical imperatives have two elements that are commands and desires, such as “tell the truth if you want to be trusted”, and are never moral. Categorical imperatives only have one element that is commands, such as “tell the truth”, and are universally moral.

Question 12

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

Answer 12

The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universality formulation. It is a system to test maxims to see if they are duties, both perfect and imperfect.

Question 13

What is the first question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

Answer 13

The first question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative is can this maxim be made a universal law without contradiction? For example, if everyone followed the maxim “to break a promise” and broke promises then the promise would not mean promise. The term’s meaning is contradicted and becomes a contradiction of the law of nature and is a perfect duty not to break promises.

Question 14

What is the second question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

Answer 14

The second question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative is would, as rational beings, we will that this maxim become a universal law? For example, the maxim “waste my skills / talents + potential” would be universalisable but would not be willed as it would lead to a world without progress. This becomes a contradiction in will and is an imperfect duty.

Question 15

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?

Answer 15

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is the humanity formulation. We are instructed not to use people as a means to an end.

Question 16

What is the issue of clashing and competing duties?

Answer 16

There are situations where two duties can clash, such as “keep your promise” and “do not tell lies”. This leads to moral stalemates, meaning no progress. Normative theories should be practical, however this has broken down.

Question 17

What is Kant’s response to the issue of clashing and competing duties?

Answer 17

Kant responds by saying this would never happen. We could see this as two different duties, one perfect and one imperfect. This means they do not clash as perfect have priority.

Question 18

What is Ross’ response to the issue of clashing and competing duties?

Answer 18

Ross, a deontologist and intuitionist, responds with his prima facie duties, which are seven ranked duties. Helping others is above being truthful, and as the situation dictates order through intuition, keeping your promise is above telling the truth.

Question 19

How does Rachels respond to Kant and Ross’ responses to the issue of clashing and competing duties?

Answer 19

Rachels demonstrates that you can have situations where this could happen using the example of the Dutch Fisherman. The Dutch Fisherman have to choose between hiding Jewish people or giving them up to the Nazis. Kant’s ethics fail on a practical level.

Question 20

What is the issue of not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral; not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral?

Answer 20

Some maxims can be applied universally but this doesn’t make them moral commands, such as picking your nose. Universalising is a poor test. Another example is “help the poor”, which is a contradiction in conception meaning it is a perfect duty not to help the poor. However, this issue is trivial and pointless as it is more of an attempt to discredit Kant’s system instead of showing how the system doesn’t work.

Question 21

What is Kant’s response to the view that consequences of actions determine their moral value?

Answer 21

Kant says no as consequences are out of the control of a moral agent. You can control your intention. Kant uses the example of the inquiring axe-murderer, saying that it shows that we cannot predict the consequences and these might be that your friend tries to escape and the murderer finds him. However, we can be quite confident about the consequences. Rachels claims Kant is “overly pessimistic” about the ability to predict consequences. Kant is hypocritical as his ethics focus on consequences. Hare refers to Kant as a “rule utilitarian in disguise”.

Question 22

What is the issue that Kant ignores the value of certain motives, eg. Love, friendship, kindness?

Answer 22

Kant says that motive must be good will, meaning your motive is to do your duty and isn’t out of self-interest. The Jack and Jill example shows how Jack donates to charity out of duty while Jill donates because she feels like it, which has no value according to Kant. This is counter-intuitive and is an impersonal approach.

Question 23

What is the issue that morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives? (Philippa Foot).

Answer 23

Kant says that all moral commands are categorical because hypothetical imperatives have a desire element (Self-interests) that don’t apply to all. Foot states that morality is a system of selfless hypothetical imperatives. Categories give us NO MOTIVATIONAL ELEMENT. Foot describes people who follow categorical imperatives as “forced conscripts to a moral army.” An example of Foot’s ideas is how visiting someone in the hospital out of love and kindness is more moral than visiting them out of duty, which isn’t good as you don’t want to visit them.

Question 24

What is the possible response to the issue that morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives?

Answer 24

It could be argued that Kant’s theory requires a lack of desire, feelings and relationships in order to be fair and that we must accept these aspects as not as important as equality and fairness. However, Kant would only achieve equality and fairness if people chose to follow his system, which is highly unlikely.

Question 25

What is the meaning of Eudaimonia and pleasure?

Answer 25

Eudaimonia is the highest good, also known as summum bonum, and the final end. Eudaimonia can be described as happiness but it is better described as flourishing. Eudaimonia is the aim while pleasure is never the aim, but it can be a by-product.

Question 26

What is the function argument?

Answer 26

The function argument is an empirical approach to identifying human function.
P1) Everything has a function.
P2) Therefore humans have a function.
P3) A function is something distinctive to object.
P4) This can’t be to grow as we share this with plants.
P5) This can’t be to perceive (Sense) as we share this with animals.
P6) The distinct feature of humans is their ability to reason.
P7) This must be the human telos.
P8) Anything is good if it fulfils its telos.
C) Therefore, the function of humans is to REASON WELL.

Question 27

What is the relationship between virtues and function?

Answer 27

The relationship between virtues and function is that virtues belong to the soul and need to work together to enable humans to function well and achieve eudaimonia. The rational half of the soul features intellectual virtues such as understanding and wisdom. The non-rational half of the soul features moral virtues such as courage and temperance. Phronesis is practical reasoning that helps us achieve the virtue, which is the right balance.

Question 28

What are virtues as character traits / dispositions?

Answer 28

Not one-off acts but a reflection of YOU as an AGENT as a result of habituated actions.

Question 29

What is the role of education / habituation in the development of a moral character?

Answer 29

A Eudaimon is a flourishing character and a moral person. People can develop their intellectual virtues through education, specifically instruction and reading. For example, knowledge, wisdom and understanding. People can develop their moral virtues through habituation, repetition of the acts. For example, repeated acts of modesty.

Question 30

What is the skills analogy?

Answer 30

The skills analogy is what Aristotle calls ethica arete (Moral virtue). How we acquire skills is also how we acquire normal excellence.

• Observation of others and expert guidance.
• Starting to practice.
• Seeing progression and enjoying the practice and progress.
• Become independent and an expert for others to follow.

Question 31

What is the importance of feelings?

Answer 31

Feelings motivate us to act, inform us how we act in moderation, and help us reflect which can lead to different action. For example, remorse and guilt can re-direct future actions. This is Hursthouse’s ‘Moral Remainder’.

Question 32

What is the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues?

Answer 32

The doctrine of the mean is a way of identifying the virtue. The golden mean is found between two vices, not the mid-point. For example, courage is the virtue between cowardice and rashness. Foot’s example of the mean outlines this.
Generosity:
- The 1st person donates nothing to others, keeping all of their wealth to themselves.
- The 2nd person donates too much to others, leaving themselves with not enough.
- The 3rd person donates to others while keeping enough for themselves.

Question 33

Moral responsibility: What are voluntary actions?

Answer 33

Voluntary actions are intended as you want them to happen and you are aware of the factors included. For example, you decide to lie to keep yourself out of trouble. You are morally responsible as you own that action.

Question 34

Moral responsibility: What are mixed involuntary actions?

Answer 34

Mixed involuntary actions are not freely chosen as you have limited options however they are partly intended. For example, you are coerced into doing something. You are morally responsible as there is some agency but you can be pardoned when full circumstances are understood.

Question 35

Moral responsibility: What are physical compulsion involuntary actions?

Answer 35

Physical compulsion involuntary actions are physically compelled and the origin is not the agent, as external factors control the action. For example, trying to save someone in a fast flowing river. You are morally responsible as there is some agency but you can be pardoned when full circumstances are understood.

Question 36

Moral responsibility: What are non-voluntary actions?

Answer 36

Non-voluntary actions are not chosen and unintended, as the agent is misinformed or ignorant. For example, doing something without realising the consequences. You are morally responsible or not morally responsible depending on if afterward you show remorse or no remorse.

Question 37

What is the issue of whether Aristotelian virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act?

Answer 37

Aristotelian virtue ethics are agent centred not action based. How can we apply it to actions? For example, applying courage to abortion, is the courageous act to have an abortion or to not have an abortion? There is no guidance in practical situations.

Question 38

What is the issue of clashing / competing virtues?

Answer 38

This is using situations in which two virtues are required and yet this appears contradictory. For example, someone is dying and suffering. The virtue of compassion motivates us to assist this person to die (Euthanasia) but the virtue of justice requires that we uphold certain rules that protect society. The issue is that virtue ethics fails to provide a system to resolve such issues.

Question 39

What is the issue of circularity?

Answer 39

This issue is directed towards the skills analogy.
What is the virtuous action? - The one done by the virtuous person.
Who is the virtuous person? - The virtuous person is the one acting virtuously.
The question circles back to what is the virtuous action.

Question 40

What is anti-realism?

Answer 40

Anti-realism is the idea that moral properties / facts do not exist mind-independently. There are three meta-ethical anti-realist theories: Emotivism, prescriptivism and error theory.

Question 41

What is emotivism?

Answer 41

Emotivism is a meta-ethical and non-cognitive theory that claims that moral claims are not propositions and are not truth-apt. They have an instrumental purpose. Moral claims express / evince feelings and attitudes. Eg. “You were wrong to steal that money” = “You stole that money!” Moral terms do not add any information to a claim, only feeling. Moral terms are pseudo / false concepts. According to Stevenson’s dynamic language, good is aura / power to bring about a change in the listener.

Question 42

What is prescriptivism?

Answer 42

Prescriptivism is a meta-ethical and non-cognitive theory that claims moral claims are not propositions and are not truth-apt. They have an instrumental purpose. RM Hare developed emotivism but further. Moral terms recommend action and moral claims such as “lying is wrong” are IMPERATIVE (Commands). Moral claims have a descriptive and prescriptive nature. They identify features we promote. Eg. “You were wrong to steal that” = “Don’t steal”.

Question 43

What is error theory?

Answer 43

Error theory is a meta-ethical and cognitive theory that claims moral claims attempt to convey information and claim to be truth-apt. JL Mackie claims that all moral claims are FALSE. There are two elements, ontological claims and semantic claims. Ontological claims are moral properties that do not exist mind-independently. With semantic claims, we use language in a cognitive way as if expressing information, but this information is all false. All claims are in error.

Question 44

What is the issue with whether anti-realism can account for how we use moral language, including moral reasoning, persuading, disagreeing, etc?

Answer 44

The problem is accounting for moral progress, eg. Racism, slavery and the treatment of women. Progress is made through discovery. Anti-realists claim that moral properties are created, not discovered. Moral progress is impossible. All we can have is moral change.

Question 45

What is the issue with whether a trait must contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue?

Answer 45

P1) A virtue is an excellent acting in the right way, towards right people, at right time etc.
P2) In some circumstances this might be to lie / steal consistently.
P3) Habitually done, these acts become traits.
P4) Such traits do not lead to eudaimonia.
C) Therefore Aristotle’s theory is incorrect.

Question 46

What is Aristotle’s possible response to the issue with whether a trait must contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue?

Answer 46

1) Lying / stealing / cheating can never be regarded as virtuous acts (Right time / extent / reason) so there isn’t a problem. There are vices and should be avoided and we would never claim that they are excellences.
2) That eudaimonia is not something we can all achieve because to flourish, we need the opportunity to do so. Wars, famines, extreme poverty are situations in which flourishing is not possible. Eudaimonia, although an internal achievement relies on external factors.

Question 47

What is the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good?

Answer 47

Some have claimed that Aristotle’s approach is about the individual rather than the moral good. Bertrand Russell claimed that Aristotle’s ethics support the development of a driven and successful individual. All Russell can see in Aristotle’s approach is a lack of benevolence and philanthropy and a lot of self-development.

Question 48

What is the response to the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good?

Answer 48

Many argue that this is misrepresenting Aristotle’s views for several reasons.

1) In Aristotle’s time there didn’t seem to be a split between either altruistic or self-interested motivation. The two were intertwined.
2) We have seen Aristotle being very critical of self-interested motivations - Pleasure seeking as he was doubtful that this would be satisfying for the individual. Moral behaviour (The good for all) just so happens to be good for the individual.