Philosophy Test - Ethics Flashcards
Leonard (in Memento) has this condition….
Leonard’s condition is captured by the film’s plot structure, where the majority of story events unfold in reverse chronological order.
This device is revealed at the outset of the film when the shaking of a Polaroid photograph leads to its fading rather that being rendered clear.
This early scene represents Leonard’s condition – ‘everything fades’. Indeed the entire structure of Memento places us in the same epistemic position as Leonard – neither of us knows what happened before.
John Locke & Memento
John Locke (1632-1704,) argued that consciousness is key to the self and, as such, continuity of consciousness is central to the enduring survival of a person over time.
The continuity of the conscious self is, for Locke, guaranteed by memory, which plays a very important role in identity.
For Locke, the reason that I am the same person that I was twenty years ago is that…
I remember being that person.
I can now bring to mind the subjective conscious experiences I had as a teenager through the faculty of memory. I remember (for the most part) what I’ve done, who I’ve met, how I felt at a given time, what I like and dislike.
This is why, after waking from a night’s sleep, I find myself to be the same person in the morning.
Furthermore, it is for this reason that I bear moral responsibility for my past actions. As such, memory is of paramount importance to our experience of ourselves as responsible agents.
Self-deception & Memento
Then there is the issue of self-deception. If I commit an act but effectively deceive myself into believing my version of events, am I responsible? It isn’t a simple act of me lying - I actually believe my version of events.
Freud said that we are so good at deceiving ourselves that we don’t usually know when we are even doing it. As the goal is hiding anxiety-producing knowledge, if we knew, we would have to find another way to hide it.
Memento and Free Will
Free will is the cornerstone idea of existentialism. Does Leonard Shelby have free will? Or is he under the control of Teddy, Natalie, and even Bert?
When in the film does he exert any free will?
Other Issues in Memento
- If Leonard never knows the reason for events, can he ever be a moral person? What does that mean to us?
- At one point, Leonard says, ‘My Actions still have meaning, even if I don’t remember them.” Is this true, even to him?
- What does this mean for the idea of objective knowledge?
Theories of Action
This is simply descriptive. Theories of action examine what groups of people actually do.
This does not actually give any judgements about the actions, it simply describes what it is that people do in those circumstances.
Example - According to a recent poll, 95% of people are more likely to believe sentences that contain statistics.
Theories of Character
These deal with questions about character traits that are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
They are sometimes called Virtue theories: courage or honesty or wisdom would probably be described as virtues.
Theories of Value
These are assessments about what people deem to be valuable.
Values are assessments of worth. What is good? What is bad? Are they the same thing across cultures? Do they change based on time and place?
METAETHICS
Meta - meaning beyond or of a higher order than
Metaethics involves examining the meanings of the terms used in the study of ethics, and the methods used to carry out this study.
Example - “Why should I do good things?”
What do you mean by should?
What do you mean by good?
Three Kinds of Belief
- Ethical Absolutists
- Ethical Universalists
- Ethical Relativists
Ethical Absolutists
There are standards that are right and wrong across time and across cultures.
They will never change, no matter what happens.
Example: Slavery is wrong, and always was wrong. It will never be right. Anyone who participated in owning slaves throughout history was morally wrong.
Ethical Universalists
A moral decision in any given circumstance, is the moral decision of everyone in a similar circumstance. Your specifics do not matter.
Example: If stealing is wrong for me, it is wrong for everyone. It doesn’t matter if you are starving or really hungry, or not hungry at all….stealing is still morally incorrect.
Ethical Relativists
Ethics and morals change over time, and the morals that we believe are correct today, will change as well. There are no universally correct ‘right & wrong’
Example: Would stealing be morally correct if you used the theft to get food for starving children?
Utilitarianism was created by…
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE
This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.
Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or consequences are called consequentialist.
Bentham’s Formulation of Utilitarianism
The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a hedonistic perspective)
Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are ‘good’.
Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus
In determining happiness, we evaluate the possible consequences by applying several values:
- Intensity
- Duration
- Certainty or uncertainty
- Propinquity (proximity) or remoteness
- Fecundity (reproduce)
- Purity
- Extent.
Two Types of Utilitarianism
Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (Jeremy Bentham)
Rule: An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (John Stuart Mill)
Application of Utilitarian Theory
If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war, and thereby attack an enemy force and kill several hundred enemy soldiers, that is a morally good choice even though the eighty might be lost.
Criticisms of Bentham’s theory
Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be happy watching a man being eaten by wild dogs, it would be a morally good thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone whose death would not cause grief to many others) and throw the man into a cage of wild, hungry dogs.
John Stuart Mill’s Adjustments to Utilitarianism
Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the happiness, not merely the quantity.
Turpin’s 4 Criticisms of Utilitarianism
- What happens if the thing that makes you happy is detrimental? If someone likes drinking or drugs is it morally correct to give out drugs to as many people as possible?
- For religious people, it is a philosophy without God. If lying, stealing, or killing could lead to an increase of happiness for the greatest number, we are told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a rejection of God’s commands?
- Can we predict all the outcomes of action before we decide? This seems impossible.
- Can the idea of human rights be made compatible with Utilitarianism? If ignoring rights brings about more happiness to the greatest number, should we ignore so-called rights?
Most Common Critiques of Utilitarianism
1. Distastefulness
Criticism: People often criticize utilitarianism because it doesn’t align with their personal feelings or sentiments. For example, they might argue that they would save a loved one over many strangers, which conflicts with utilitarian principles. Critics also claim that utilitarianism ignores individual rights and can justify morally unthinkable actions, like minor increases in suffering being ignored if they serve the greater good.
Counter: This criticism is based on personal bias, not on flaws in utilitarianism itself. Utilitarianism treats all interests equally, ensuring fairness. Rights, if they promote happiness and prevent suffering, fit within utilitarianism. Concerns about drug-induced happiness misunderstand the utilitarian pursuit of happiness, which includes long-term satisfaction and exemption from suffering. Thus, utilitarianism’s approach is fair and rational, addressing all interests without arbitrary exclusions.
Most Common Critiques of Utilitarianism
2. Impossibility
Criticism: Critics argue that happiness cannot be quantified or measured accurately, making it impossible to apply utilitarian principles. This includes challenges in comparing the intensity and extent of happiness and suffering.
Counter: Words like “happier” imply that happiness is measurable. People constantly make trade-offs and value judgments, demonstrating the practicality of utilitarian calculations. The principle of utility remains valid despite the subjective nature of individual valuations.
Most Common Critiques of Utilitarianism
3. Impracticality
Criticism: Utilitarianism is too difficult to apply due to the vast number of individuals and uncertain consequences. Critics claim it is impractical to calculate all effects for all individuals.
Counter: Utilitarianism describes what makes actions right or wrong but doesn’t imply perfect calculation. It’s a critique of human limitations, not the theory itself. In practice, utilitarians should seek a balance between planning and action, sometimes foregoing calculations in emergencies or familiar situations.
Most Common Critiques of Utilitarianism
4. Insufficiency (of scope)
Criticism: Utilitarianism is criticized for failing to consider other sources of value beyond happiness, such as life, friendship, and knowledge.
Counter: These other values typically promote happiness, which is why they are valued. If they didn’t promote happiness, they wouldn’t be valued. The scope of utilitarianism can accommodate these values if they contribute to overall happiness and the reduction of suffering.
Divine Command Theory is a meta-ethical theory:
A branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theory focus on what is moral, meta-ethics focuses on what morality itself is.
Ie. What does it mean to be moral? What is ‘good’ and ‘bad’?
Divine command theory is the view which claims that:
Ethical sentences express propositions
Some such propositions are true
Those propositions are about the attitudes of God.
God’s Commands are the determining factor. that decides morality.
To follow God’s commands is to be moral
To some followers, atheists, agnostics, and followers of other religions cannot be moral.
It is both subjective (relative) and objectivist (universal).
It is subjectivist because the foundation lies on the individual’s belief in a particular religion. It is objectivist because the rules from that particular religion are to be followed in an absolute fashion, regardless of interpretation. (but that doesn’t happen)
Some say that without God or a Religious WELTANSHAUUNG(Worldview)
- We could feel estrangement/despair
a. Life would have no meaning
b. There would be no transcendent Goals - We would have no reason to respect others
a. If humans were not made in God’s image, but unique
b. If humans were not all loved and valued by God - There would be no justice
a. If there was no divine reward and punishment for following or breaking the rules as given by God
4 Criticisms of Divine Command Theory
- Euthyphro Dilemma.
- God can’t be good and neither can you
- It’s a Naturalisitic Fallacy
- Epistemological criticism. How do you know the will of God?
- Euthyphro Dilemma.
It is saying that morality is based on God’s will. If God says ‘kill everyone’ then the action would be, by definition, good. Critics will say that God wouldn’t give an evil command like that - but this response would imply that things are evil before God says they are - which destroys the Divine Command Theory. This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma.
- God can’t be good and neither can you
Divine Command theory implies that God cannot be called ‘good’, because that wouldn’t make sense. If anything he says or does IS right, there is no free will to choose good or evil acts, and therefore God cannot be ‘good’.
It also COULD imply that followers of any particular religious faith could not be called ‘good’ as they are behaving in order to receive a reward. Is blatant self-interest, morally good?
Divine Command is seen as a Naturalisitic Fallacy
Often Divine Command is seen as a Naturalisitic Fallacy - things are good because God says they are, and God says you should do this, not any other factor. In other words, things are good not because they CAUSE good, but because God SAYS they are good.
Divine Command epistemological criticism
There is also an epistemological criticism. How do you know the will of God? How do you know that your religion is the correct one? Seeing as how every situation is not detailed in every religious text, how do you know what God would have you do?
The biggest question that still causes conflict because of Divine Command Theory is…
Can people be GOOD without GOD?
Charles Darwin
In The Descent of Man Darwin set out to explain the origin of human morality in order to show that there was no absolute gap between man and animals. For Darwin, morality was a problem of natural history
He believed that morality would have little selective advantage for the individual, but it would be adaptive for the group.
Henry Sidgwick
The moral philosopher Hengry Sidwick (1838-1900) claimed that evolution was irrelevant for ethics because it could not be used as a justification for ethics.
Evolution does not care about ethics, but about survival and breeding therefore, it is AMORAL.
GE Moore
He pointed out that even if evolution is progress, it cannot be concluded that the more ‘advanced’ organisms are…
GE Moore does not agree (he thinks evolution could care about ethics). He pointed out that even if evolution is progress, it cannot be concluded that the more ‘advanced’ organisms are more advanced in every respect.
Michael Shermer
The Science of Good and Evil (2004)
Throughout history, we have been tribal creatures
We evolved for 200,000 years in small, co-dependant groups.
Evolution of Ethics
Ethical systems evolved as a method to allow the fewest problems within a tribal environment.
Life was difficult, and problems within a tribe could have had serious results.
A conflict, or even a lack of unity, could result in death.
Harmony in the tribe resulted in increased chances of survival for the individual and the group as a whole.
“Good behaviour” is evolutionarily beneficial.
Religion and Morals
in Evolutionary Ethics
These moral systems already existed before formal religions.
Religions of the world, simply took these pre-existing morals and codified them.
Due to their common source (group survival), religious ethics are all remarkably similar.
Our Tribes
Those people that we can identify as members of our respective ‘tribes’ get treated very well.
Outsiders are either ignored or mistreated.
In this argument - the religious imperative to “Love Thy Neighbour” was meant to be literal.
Those that are not your neighbours can be treated much differently.
Human Population Growth
in Evolutionary Ethics
As our settlements grew, it became harder to see all people as members of our ‘tribe’.
We developed legal systems and police to force people to follow the rules.
TODAY - Evolutionary Ethics
Cities are too large, and members of other tribes are largely ignored.
Many of our social problems can be traced back to the massive growth in the human population over the past few centuries.
