PHIL 335 Midterm Flashcards
Objective List Theory
Perfectionist theory of goodness
Variety of kinds of non-moral value for humans
Objective List Theories
Goodness is desire independent
Goodness can be indexed to different people
List of objective goods often linked to development and exercise of distinctive rational and affective capacities of human beings
Whether goodness can be achieved by a person may depend on the endorsement constraint
Standard entries on the Objective List Theory
Life
Friendship
Knowledge
Pleasure
Significant accomplishments
Aesthetic experience and creation
False consciousness and Adaptive preferences
Some preferences do not track peoples well-being accurately because they were formed under distorting conditions
Utilitarianism: Basic Idea
- A theory of goodness- where goodness is defined in terms of utility
- A criterion of rightness- rightness is defined in maximization of utility
3 competing methods of Ethics
Rational Egoism
Dogmatic Intuitionism
Utilitarianism
Rational Egoism
Each person has most reason to maximize their own happiness
Dogmatic Intuitionsim
Follow the intuitive dictates of common sense morality and treat these dictates as normatively basic
E.g. justice, promissory duties, truth telling, courage, humility
Dualism of Practical Reason
Rational egoism and Utilitarianism are equally credible accounts of practical reason, insofar as they diverge that practical reason is intermediate or contradictory in the guidance it offers
Measurement of Utility
Intrapersonal measurement of utility
Interpersonal measurement of utility
Intrapersonal measurement of utility
Possible to compare utility a !given person! receives from different things
Interpersonal measurement of utility
It is possible to compare the utility !different persons! receive from things
2 types of consequentialism
Generic consequentialism
Technical consequentialism
Generic consequentialism
consideration of consequences is relevant to making moral judgements
Technical Consequentialism
Rightness consists in the maximization of non-moral goodness (happiness)
2 types of utilitarianism
Simple Utilitarianism
Sophisticated Utilitarianism
Simple Utilitarianism
Utilitarian criterion of rightness is also employed as a decision procedure.
Simple utilitarianism’s set out to maximize overall utility and determine what course of action is right by explicitly engaging in utility calculations
Sophisticated Utilitarianism
Utilitarian criterion of rightness need not be employed as a decision procedure.
Criterion of rightness still identified with overall utility maximization but the utilitarian is guided most times by principles that are not utilitarian
Context sensitive
Blameless wrongdoing
Sophisticated wrongdoing allows that there are agents given their justified decision procedure have reason to perform even when the actions do not maximize overall utility and are therefore wrong
In these cases a person is wrong but not blameworthy
Ex: Parfits example of a woman helping her child rather than a stranger
Praiseless Right Doing
Can occur when a person performs an action that cannot reasonably be expected to generate a good outcome and indeed can be expected to have a bad outcome but as things turn out, generates a good outcome
E.g. a doctor administers a drug that is expected to kill the patient but actually saves the patient
Utilitarianism divided into…
Direct Act Utilitarianism
Indirect/Rule Utilitarianism
Direct Act Utilitarianism
The utilitarian criterion of rightness is applied in the first instance to the evaluation of acts.
Rights acts are acts that maximize overall utility.
Indirect/Rule Utilitarianism
The utilitarian criterion of rightness is applied in the first instance to general social rules.
Rule utilitarians attempt to identify rules which, if generally obeyed, will maximize overall utility.
A particular act is judged right or wrong by reference to these rules
Simple Direct Act Utilitarianism
Criterion of rightness applies in the first instance to acts & criterion of rightness serves as decision procedure
Simple/Indirect Rule Utilitarianism
Criterion of rightness applies in the first instance to rules & criterion of rightness serves as decision procedure
Sophisticated Direct Act Utilitarianism
Criterion of rightness applies in the first instance to acts but criterion of rightness need not be used as decision procedure
Sophisticated Indirect/Rule Utilitarianism
Criterion of rightness applies in the first instance to rules but criterion of rightness need not be used as a decision procedure
Actualism
Right action is a function of what actually maximizes utility
Probablism
Right action is a function of what is likely to maximize utility
Total View Utilitarianism
As moral agents, our primary moral obligation is to the promotion of valuable states of affairs as such rather than to other persons.
Our objective as moral agents is to increase the total amount of value (i.e., utility) in the world
Prior Existence Utilitarianism
Our primary moral obligation is to other (existing persons/sentient beings); must give equal consideration to each person’s interests; principle of utility is an interpretation of what impartial moral consideration of existing interests requires
The Utility Monster
Thought experiment - Robert Nozick
Imagine a person- unlike others- who is incredibly efficient at transforming resources into happiness
Utilitarianism would require devoting merely all resources to such a person
Objection to The Utility Monster
Objection by Derek Parfit
Such a person is not actually imaginable, it is a deep impossibility
Experiment does not provide an important objection to utilitarianism
Problem for Total View Utilitarianism (only)
The Repugnant Conclusion -Parfit
The Repugnant Conclusion
For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be a some larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living.
How to find total view utilitarianism plausible?
Non-Identity Problem
Non-Identity Problem example
Parfits 14 year old girl case
This girl chooses to have a child. Because she is so young, she give her child a bad start in life. Though this will have bad effects throughout this child’s life, his life will, predictably be worth living. If this girl had waited for several years, she would have had a different child, to whom she would have given a better start in life
Non- Identity Problem
Time Dependency Claim
“If an particular person had not been conceived when he was in fact conceived, it is in fact true that he would never have existed.”
Time Dependency Claim 2
“If an particular person had not been conceived within a month of the time he was in fact conceived, he would in fact never have existed.”One’s identity as a person depends (in the usual case) on when one was born”
he difficulty in reconciling our intuition that impersonal actions can be morally good or bad, with the fact that they do not improve or worsen the lives of any specific people
Person Affecting View
An act can be morally wrong only if the act harms an existing or future person
Person affecting view of wrongness in total view utilitarianism and non identity cases
This view seems intuitively plausible but the non-identity problem suggests that it is mistaken.Total view utilitarianism does not embrace the person affecting view and hence might seem like a way of explaining the wrongs in non-identity cases such as the 14-year old girl and ‘depletion’.
Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism
- Rightness consists in the maximization of non moral value
- Goodness is not narrowly defined in terms of human welfare that have intrinsic value and should be promoted (eg. Knowledge, friendship)
View is associated with objective list accounts of what makes a life go well
Perfectionism
A variety of non-utilitarian (technical) consequentialism
What claims does perfectionism make?
Right consists in the maximization of goodness
Locates good to be promoted in distinctive features of human nature that have intrinsic value, often associated with Aristotles idea of eudaimonia
Goods that have intrinsic value include: knowledge, friendship
Utilitarian Impartiality
As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator
Negative Responsibility
Wiliams
An agent is just as responsible for the things they allow or fail to prevent as they are for the things they more directly bring about
Examples from Negative Responsibility
George the chemist
Jim the botanist
One Thought too Many Objection
For Williams Utilitarianism does not show appreciation for the relationship between man and wife
Utilitarianism via its mode of moral thinking can alienate people from personal attachements and commitments that supply their lives with meaning
Integrity Objection
Persons have special personal relationships and commitments to ideals (‘ground projects’) which are a source of distinctive value to their lives. ‘Ground projects’ are (partly) constitutive the very identity of moral agents. The integrity of moral selves requires deep (though perhaps not unqualified) fidelity to such ground projects. Utilitarianism (and especially negative responsibility) can generate alienation from ground projects. Utilitarianism is objectionable because it corrosive to integrity
Ashford 2 types of integrity
Subjective integrity
Objective integrity
Subjective integrity
Subjective integrity locates the ground-projects constitutive of the self as the one agents just happen to have irrespective of the moral character of those projects
Problem with subjective integrity
Agents’ integrity in the sense of their current unified self-conception can be incompatible with undoubtedly overriding moral demands.
So, revisions to an agent’s ground projects required by utilitarianism cannot be objectionable per se.
Objective integrity
For the agent to have objective integrity, her self-conception must be grounded in reality: it must not be based on her being seriously deceived either about empirical facts or about the moral obligations she actually has. In particular, her self-conception as being morally decent must be grounded in her leading a genuinely morally decent life
Ashford says that agents have a sure grasp on moral obligations
Does utilitarianism threaten objective integrity?
Yes it does, because in the correct world despite someone finding value in personal relationships and leisure in life, current world utilitarianism requires such ground projects to be forsaken.
Supererogation
A supererogatory action is one that brings about good consequences but which is not morally required. (It can be praiseworthy but persons cannot be morally criticized for failing to do it.)
Utilitarianism seems to deny that there any genuinely supererogatory actions
Different voice hypothesis
there are two distinct (and largely incompatible) ‘moral voices’ each associated with fundamentally different moral concepts. One focuses on ‘justice’, the other focuses on ‘care’
Gender difference hypothesis
the ethic of care is a characteristically female moral perspective and the justice-based ethic is a characteristically male moral perspective. [There are now doubts about whether the empirical evidence supports this claim.
Ethic of Justice vs. Ethic of Care
The ethic of justice is centered on maintaining obligation, equity, and fairness through the application of moral principles, rules, and established standards, whereas the ethic of care is centered on maintaining relationships through responding to needs of others and avoiding hurt
- Moral reasoning via abstract principles (‘justice ethic’) vs. moral reasoning focused on particularities & concrete fact
- Morality as impartial concern (‘ethic of justice’) vs. morality as fundamentally partial (‘ethic of care’)
Demandingness objection
Since consequentialism in its standard form requires us to maximize the good, impartially considered, it looks like producing good is a never-ending project.
Response to Demandingness objection
Acknowledge that morality CAN be demanding in some cases
Emphasize cooperative character of utilitarianism: the duty to maximize utility is shared by all
In most instances, when duty is discharged by all demands of utilitarianism are not excessively burdensome
Resist picking up moral slack of non-compliers
Justice Based objections to Utilitarianism
The maximization of overall welfare can justify:
- violation of legal rights
- violation of moral rights
- violation of considerations of moral desert
- violations of promises/contracts
- violation of fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens
Replies to Justice Objections
Constraint of Realism
Theoretical Sophistication
Priority of Theory over Intuition
Constraint of realism
Troubling tensions between considerations of justice and utilitarianism only arise in highly unrealistic cases
Theoretical sophistication
Justice considerations can be integrated into a sophisticated form of utilitarianism (e.g., by allowing that considerations of justice serve as decision procedures that generally serve the utilitarian criterion of rightness
Priority of Theory over Intuition
Where there are genuine divergences in realistic cases between the requirements of utilitarianism and our intuitive judgements we should revise our intuitive judgements in light of the overall normative power utilitarianism as a moral theory
Effective Altruism
a philosophy and community focused on maximising the good you can do through your career, projects, and donation
Skepticism about Practical Reason
There are no reasons for action per se but reason can reveal causal relations that are relevant to facilitating the achievement of an agent’s ends. (On this view, strictly speaking, we can never say that an agent has a reason to act in anyway
Instrumentalism
Non-sceptical view
reason can guide agents in the achievement of their ends and agents have reasons to pursue their ends but reason cannot assess the rationality or reasonableness of ends
Qualified Instrumentalism
Non sceptical view
reason can guide agents in the achievement of their ends and agents have reasons to pursue their ends but whether pursuit of a given end is rational can depend on whether the end adopted by agent is consistent with what the agent would adopt under certain idealized conditions – e.g., full-information, calm reflection, absence of distorting factors.
2 varieties of non-Instrumentalism
- Rational egoism
- Rational altruism
Rational egoism
Reason can illuminate what is in a person’s interest and directs persons to maximally pursue their own interest (Rational Egoism endorses the Normative Primacy of Self Interest)
Rational Altruism
There are many ends (including moral ends) that reason can identify as rational (or irrational/unreasonable) and reason can determine what it is most reasonable to do in given circumstances but reason does not always require agents to pursue their self-interest.
