phil a1 summer revision Flashcards
5 pros of Bentham’s utilitarianism
— treats everyone EQUALLY 🟰
— theoretically leads to POSITIVE OUTCOMES 😁
— simple + straightforward ➡️
— can be applied to different societies; is RELATIVE 🌍. FLEXIBLE
— empirical and PRAGMATIC: based on what the world is currently, not what it should be
5 weaknesses of Bentham’s utilitarianism
— TYRANNY 👿 OF MAJORITY (doesn’t consider individual liberty/rights)
— problems with CALCULATION ✖️➗➕➖ (subjectivity) (predicting consequences)
— issues around PARTIALITY 😣
— ignores INTENTION 🧐
— NOZICK
describe Mill’s utilitarianism
- hedonistic rule utilitarianism
- certain rules generally create more pleasure and less pain, these rules should ALWAYS be followed universally regardless of the individual situation
- HARM PRINCIPLE: always pursue own happiness unless it infringes on others’ ability to pursue happiness
- INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY: people being free to do unconventional things prevents dead dogmas, challenging and refreshing societal rules and status quo
- higher and lower pleasures
4 pros of Mill’s utilitarianism
— treats people EQUALLY 🟰
— theoretically leads to POSITIVE OUTCOMES 😁
— solves tyranny of majority
— allows for different forms/qualities of pleasure
7 cons of Mill’s utilitarianism
— problems with CALCULATION ➗✖️➖➕ (subjectivity, predicting consequences, what beings to include)
— issues with PARTIALITY
— ignores INTENTION 🧐
— higher and lower distinction may be SNOBBY and unnecessary
— who decides the RULES?
— rulesl might clash 💥
— NOZICK
outline Nozick’s argument against hedonism (5)
- if experiencing as much pleasure as possible is all that matters, we should always do what gives most pleasure
- plugging into the experience machine gives us the most pleasure
- if all that matters to us is experiencing the most pleasure, we have no reason not to plug into machine
- we have reason not to plug into the machine
- so, experiencing the most pleasure isn’t all that matters to us: we aren’t truly (or simply) hedonists
describe Singer’s utilitarianism
- preference act utilitarianism
- “an action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless the preference is outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong”
- concerned with preference (not pleasure) of all conscious beings
(those who experience pain/pleasure and can anticipate future) - must take pov of impartial spectator
5 pros of Singer’s utilitarianism
— SOLVES NOZICK’s thought experiment
— considers INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and liberty
— treats all equally 🟰 (animal rights) 🐄 🐷
— theoretically creates POSITIVE OUTCOMES 😁
— simple and straightforward ➡️
5 cons of Singer’s utilitarianism
— values animal’s preferences equally to humans??
— doesn’t value non-conscious beings (babies, coma etc) 👶
— prioritises preference over other things (intention, virtue, value of life etc)
— issues with partiality
— certain preferences are antisocial and irrational and we shouldn’t indulge: what should we count?
define the categorical imperative
Based on reason alone;
Maxims that always apply and are always morally correct regardless of our feelings/situations etc
6 pros of Kant’s ethics
— moral autonomy 💪: only focuses on motives which we can control (others actions don’t impact your morality e.g. Jim and Indians)
— don’t have to rely on unpredictable consequences ❓
— SIMPLE 😌
— RATIONAL: ➕✖️➗➖can’t be blinded by emotion
— UNIVERSAL and can be applied at any time and place (egalitarian)
— HUMAN RIGHTS 🕊 are supported
6 cons of Kant ethics
— PROBLEMS with UNIVERSALISING maxims (some universalisable maxims aren’t moral and vice versa)
— some duties CONTRADICT and clash 💥
— CONSEQUENCES do matter!!
— ignores motives beyond goodwill (sympathy, love etc)
— ignores commitments to family/friends: TOO IMPARTIAL
— INFLEXIBLE 📏 : no grey areas allowed
what is Philippa Foot’s theory and how does it counter Kant
— morality doesn’t equal rationality. An immoral person can act rationally
— goal of morality is different for everyone
So, concept of categorical imperatives is fundamentally flawed and morality is about achieving hypothetical imperatives
what is Aristotle’s virtue ethics
teological theory
arguing that we should focus on human character
and achieving eudaimonia by becoming virtuous over time
rather than focusing on individual actions
what is the function argument (7)
- everything has a function
- so, humans have a function
- what makes us human is our rational soul
- so, to function as humans we must be rational
- something fulfils its function well (i.e. its good) by having the right virtues / arete
- so, a good human is one who is virtuous their rational soul
- so, we reach eudaimonia by being virtuous through our rational soul
what is the doctrine of the mean
virtues are the average/mean between two extremes (vices of deficiency and excess)
e.g. cowardice — courage — recklessness
shy ———— modest —- shameless
what is phronesis
practical wisdom: a general understanding of good so that the person can think through and act according to what is good
(developed through habituation)
what does ari say about moral responsibility?
we should praise/condemn actions depending on if they were done voluntarily/involuntarily
what is the lack of guidance criticism of ari’s VE
doesn’t offer a specific practical guide of how to act: too subjective and therefore inapplicable to reality
ari’s responses to the problems with virtues arg against his theory?
— conflicts between virtues are impossible (as they aren’t rigid, unbreakable rules): use phronesis to know which virtue to follow
— all virtues link back to 1 of his 12 so the list is essentially exhaustive
— Aristotle would say his list of virtues is correct, even if other cultures disagree (but this is kind of a shit response bc how do we know he’s right and others are wrong)
explain the problem of eudaimonia
there is a difference between eudaimonia and moral good: people can lead morally good lives without achieving full human flourishing, happiness and eudaimonia
so, Aristotleian virtue ethics fail to fully explain what morality is
ari’s response to the problems with eudaimonia argument against his theory
Aristotle was never trying to answer the question of what a morally good life is.
eudaimonia + virtue ethics is about a good life in GENERAL… being morally good is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia
what did Mary Anscombe say about ari’s virtue ethics?
- rejected deontology and consequentialism
- acts can’t be moral in themselves, we must consider them in relation to the character of the person committing them
- we need to oil a machine not bc oil itself is ‘good’, but because its good for that machine
- so we need to do certain acts not bc they’re ‘good’, but because they’re good for our character
ALSO
- to have absolute moral rules, we need a rule-giver (God)
- without God, we can’t have moral system of laws
—> so virtue ethics is the only appropriate ethical system
