Ethical Considerations in Relationships

Thomson's Violinist

• Thought experiment presents a scenario where you are connected to a violinist whose life depends on your connection for nine months.
• Raises questions about whether being responsible for another's life automatically obligates you to sustain it.
• Challenges the idea that consent to sex implies consent to carry a fetus to term.
• Emphasizes the importance of bodily autonomy and the right to control your own body.
• Encourages consideration of the moral distinction between actively causing death and letting die.

Overextensive Sexual Promises

• Argument that some promises in sexual relationships may be excessive, unrealistic, or go beyond reasonable expectations.
• Examples include promises of never finding anyone else attractive, always being emotionally available, or never desiring anyone else.
• Such promises can create pressure, lead to disappointment, and potentially result in feelings of betrayal or inadequacy.

Contradiction in Conception vs. Contradiction in Willing

• Kant's categorical imperative tests maxims (principles guiding action) for universalizability.
• Contradiction in conception: The very idea of universalizing a maxim leads to a logical contradiction; the maxim would be impossible if applied universally.
• Example: Lying cannot be conceived as a universal law without contradiction.
• Contradiction in willing: Universalizing a maxim is logically conceivable but leads to a situation that no rational person would will.
• Example: Refusal to help others while simultaneously wanting help when needed results in a world where no one helps anyone.

Action That Does Not Universalize

• An action universalizes if its principle (the maxim) can be consistently applied to everyone without contradiction.
• Example: Lying to get out of trouble.
• This maxim cannot be universalized because if everyone lied, trust in communication would collapse, making lying ineffective.
• Kant's categorical imperative suggests lying is morally wrong as it leads to a contradiction when universalized.

Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics

• Utilitarianism judges actions based on their outcomes, maximizing overall happiness or utility.
• Kantian ethics evaluates actions based on adherence to moral duties or principles, regardless of the result.
• Example: Lying to protect a friend from harm.
• Utilitarian perspective: Lying is justified as it prevents harm, maximizing well-being.
• Kantian perspective: Lying is morally wrong as it cannot be universally willed without contradiction.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction

• States that the same thing cannot do or undergo opposite actions at the same time and in the same respect.
• Socrates uses this principle to distinguish parts of the soul, arguing that conflicting desires indicate different parts.
• Example: Desiring to drink while simultaneously resisting it suggests different parts of the soul: the appetitive (desire) and the rational (decision-making).

Three Kinds of Goods

• Glaucon distinguishes three kinds of goods in the Republic:
  • Valued for their own sake: Enjoyed solely for the pleasure they provide (e.g., savoring a delicious meal).
  • Valued for their consequences: Pursued for their beneficial outcomes, even if not inherently enjoyable (e.g., medical treatment).
  • Valued for both their own sake and consequences: Highest kind of goods, desirable in themselves and beneficial (e.g., knowledge or health).

Socrates' Decision in the Crito

• Socrates refuses to flee Athens despite Crito's plea.
• He believes escaping would violate his commitment to justice and obedience to Athenian laws.
• He views life as not merely about survival but about living a just and virtuous life.

Socrates' Punishment in the Apology

• Socrates provocatively asks for free meals for life at the Prytaneum after being found guilty.
• He justifies this by claiming he has benefited the city by encouraging virtue and critical thinking.
• He does not believe he has acted unjustly and feels entitled to a reward.