Week 3 Flashcards
What distinguished good consequences from bad consequences in utilitarianism?
good consequences are those that promote happiness, bad consequences are those that produce the reverse of happiness.
What is the “right” act according to utilitarianism
that which, on balance, will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people
Strong nonconsequentialism
What is it?
Who/what theory is consistent with this?
the view that consequences are completely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of actions.
KANT’s deontology
What defines good in deontology?
Deontology holds that it is not happiness but RATIONALIST that defines the good.
What is rationality according to Kant?
roughly, it is acting deliberately and on the basis of reasons.
WHY is rationality good according to Kant?
Rationality isn’t good because it makes us happy, or makes us have lots of money, or makes us popular, or whatever.
It’s not good as a means, it’s good in and of itself.
What is the Categorical Imperative?
“I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”
Define:
Categorical
Imperative
C = absolute or not contingent
I = issues a command it is necessary to follow
What is a maxim?
a technical term for a moral rule
What defines an immoral act in Kant’s deontology?
Immoral acts are acts that would be impossible or unreasonable if everyone were to act similarly.
What is the second formulation of the CI?
To act in such a way as to never treat a person as a means only
- To see their worth as inherently equal to your own
(based in their existence as a rational human and thus deserving of respect)
How is moral law “laid down” according to Kant? Who decides what is right?
It is discovered, not laid down by someone else
“To yield to the categorical imperative is not to yield to the will of another, but to yield to the law of universal human reason”
How is deontology seen in ordinary discourse?
‘But what if everyone acted that way?’ is expressing the basic logic of the categorical imperative
universalizability is a familiar idea in ordinary discourse
According to deontology, does moral duty have exceptions?
No, is exceptionless
- if it’s right to do something, it’s right always and everywhere
- Rightness and wrongness are absolute, not contingent
How does deontology view someone’s reasoning for completing an action? Is it enough to just do the right thing?
we must do the right thing because it’s the right thing, and avoid doing the wrong thing because it’s the wrong thing.
- Have to act FROM duty, not just ACCORDING to duty.
(do the right thing for the right reason)
