General Study Notes

Injustice arises from the violation of the social contract.

In the state of nature, individuals are motivated by self-interest, leading to chaos, insecurity, and distrust.

The social contract creates agreements that ensure mutual trust, which when violated, leads to feelings of injustice.

<p>The feeling of injustice reflects the recognition that self-interest and social cooperation have been undermined.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>For Kant, injustice is a violation of moral duty rather than just a breach of social or personal agreements.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant's categorical imperative dictates that individuals should act according to principles that can be universally applied.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Violating a promise disrupts social cooperation and creates insecurity among individuals.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Breaches of the social contract create instability in social order, which threatens individual security and well-being.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant's moral framework is based on logical consistency and respect for humanity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's perfect duties are tied to justice and societal well-being, while Kant's arise from logical necessity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Imperfect duties are flexible obligations that promote moral ends and stem from respect for humanity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Perfect duties are enforceable, while imperfect duties are voluntary and tied to beneficence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Both theories recognize two types of duties: perfect duties and imperfect duties.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's imperfect duties are tied to the goal of maximizing collective happiness and social stability.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Logical necessity underlies Kant's perfect duties, making actions like lying always deemed wrong.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant's approach is deontological, focusing on moral law, while Mill's is consequentialist, emphasizing outcomes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The rule-utilitarian would argue against killing the healthy person because it undermines trust in the medical system and would lead to negative long-term consequences.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Act-utilitarianism focuses on the immediate consequences of a single action, while rule-utilitarianism considers the long-term effects of following a general rule.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>One potential negative consequence is the erosion of trust, leading patients to fear seeking medical help due to the possibility of being harmed.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The 'slippery slope' refers to the concern that allowing one rule, such as killing for organs, could lead to justifications for harmful acts in other contexts, creating broader ethical dilemmas.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Rule-utilitarianism emphasizes individual rights because protecting these rights is crucial for ensuring justice and promoting overall societal well-being.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Such a rule would produce societal harm by instilling fear and reducing the willingness of individuals to seek medical attention, ultimately harming public health.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Differentiating them is important because it influences how ethical dilemmas are resolved, focusing either on immediate outcomes or broader implications of rule adoption.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Long-term impact is crucial in rule-utilitarianism as it assesses the consequences of general rules rather than isolated acts, aiming for overall better outcomes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Hobbes views human nature as self-interested, competitive, and fearful.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle defines the source of morality as intrinsic virtues rooted in human nature.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Hobbes believes society is necessary for order and security.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's primary moral focus is on the cultivation of virtues and achieving eudaimonia.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Hobbes views rationality as instrumental for self-preservation.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's approach to duties involves intrinsic responsibilities that arise from human nature.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A strength of Hobbes' theory is its realistic account of self-interest and the need for societal structures.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Breaking a promise may be justifiable if it results in greater happiness for an individual and does not cause pain to others.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's view is considered more inspiring because it emphasizes human potential and long-term flourishing.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant's core principle is based on duty and adherence to a universal moral law.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle values promises as integral to integrity, whereas Mill considers them conditional on consequences.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's approach risks undermining trust and the moral weight of promises by prioritizing short-term gains.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's primary focus is on long-term flourishing and the development of virtuous character.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill emphasizes the maximization of happiness and overall utility as the basis for evaluating actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's strong emphasis on integrity may be seen as rigid when harm from breaking a promise is negligible.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle’s approach is robust for fostering long-term trustworthiness through character values.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant holds that promises should be respected unconditionally, while Mill believes that breaking promises may be permissible if it minimizes harm.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The risk is that it may erode trust in promises, as it allows for their breach in situations where harm is minimal.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill defines happiness as the presence of pleasure and absence of pain, with a strength being its recognition of diverse ways to achieve happiness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Higher pleasures are intellectual and moral, while lower pleasures are bodily or sensory experiences.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's view encompasses deeper dimensions of purpose and meaning, while Mill's focuses primarily on pleasure and pain.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A key weakness is that it oversimplifies human fulfillment by reducing it to merely pleasure and pain.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Balancing these views integrates trust and virtue with practical outcomes, allowing for a more nuanced ethical approach.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill’s collective focus emphasizes that moral actions should aim to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant views happiness as morally secondary, stating that the moral worth of actions is determined by duty, not by inclination or consequence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Eudaimonia, often translated as happiness or flourishing, is the highest good for Aristotle, achievable through living virtuously and exercising reason.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant separates morality from happiness, emphasizing duty over outcomes, while Mill directly links ethics to achieving pleasure and happiness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In Aristotle's virtue ethics, happiness is seen as the end goal of ethical activity, while in Kant's deontological ethics, happiness is considered irrelevant to moral actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant believes that ethical behavior is grounded in rationality and adherence to the moral law, making happiness an incidental benefit rather than a motivator.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill views happiness as the primary moral goal, Kant sees it as secondary to duty, and Aristotle defines it as flourishing achieved through virtue.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's framework judges morality based on outcomes, focusing on maximizing happiness for the greatest number.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant emphasizes that moral worth lies in acting from duty, regardless of personal or collective happiness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle's concept of happiness is centered on flourishing through virtue, while Mill equates happiness with maximizing pleasure.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's approach is pragmatic because it considers the outcomes of actions, while Kant's is more rigid, focusing on adherence to duty.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill sees pleasure as integral to happiness, Kant disregards it in favor of duty, and Aristotle emphasizes rational fulfillment over mere pleasure.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Virtue is essential in Aristotle's definition of the ultimate good, as happiness is achieved through living virtuously.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill would prioritize maximizing overall happiness, possibly justifying not paying back, while Kant would insist on fulfilling the promise as a duty.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle believes that natural inclinations can motivate moral actions, but they must be guided by reason and virtue to be morally valuable.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Hobbes argues that human beings are primarily motivated by self-interest, particularly through the desire for self-preservation.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Natural desires should be cultivated through rationality and aligned with virtuous principles to be considered morally praiseworthy.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In Hobbes' view, natural inclinations indirectly motivate moral actions by leading individuals to recognize that following social rules benefits their self-interest.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A virtuous person aligns their natural inclinations with rational principles, resulting in actions that are both morally worthy and satisfying.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>For Kant, true happiness is living in accordance with moral duty rather than pursuing personal pleasure.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Social constraints, as outlined in Hobbes's social contract theory, guide individuals to act in their self-interest while adhering to societal rules.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle criticizes Mill for neglecting the human function of reason and the importance of cultivating virtue.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Moral worth, for Kant, is exemplified by a person who helps others out of a sense of duty, even if it brings them personal pain.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle considers natural inclinations insufficient on their own for moral actions because they need to be informed and cultivated by rational thought.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle sees pleasure as a natural byproduct of fulfilling one's function through virtuous activity, not as the essence of happiness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle sees natural inclinations as needing rational cultivation, while Hobbes views them as driven by self-interest that aligns with social contracts.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant argues that morality should be grounded in rational universalizability, not in subjective feelings of pleasure or pain.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle defines the highest good as a life of virtuous activity, contrasting with Mill's view that focuses primarily on pleasure.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant emphasizes moral actions based on duty and reason, while Mill focuses on the outcomes and the maximization of pleasure.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant prioritizes human dignity and autonomy as more important than the pursuit of pleasurable experiences.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill distinguishes higher pleasures as intellectual and moral, while lower pleasures are physical and sensual. This distinction is significant as it prioritizes fulfillment derived from intellectual pursuits over mere sensory enjoyment.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The central argument of utilitarianism is that actions are morally right if they maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. This approach ties moral action directly to its outcomes on societal welfare.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill's view resonates with basic human motivations by linking happiness to pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Additionally, it promotes social utility by connecting individual happiness with the overall welfare of society.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The limitations include reductionism, as it risks oversimplifying human experience by ignoring factors like virtue, meaning, and autonomy. Such an approach may not capture the richness of the good life.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant might criticize Mill's account for being overly focused on subjective pleasure, potentially neglecting the importance of duty, moral law, and rationality in ethical decision-making. He emphasizes that actions should be guided by universal principles, not just outcomes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Aristotle views happiness as a fulfillment of one's potential through virtuous living, emphasizing a holistic approach to the good life beyond mere pleasure. In contrast, Mill equates happiness primarily with the presence of pleasure and absence of pain.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Combining Kant's focus on strict moral rules with Mill's emphasis on flexible beneficence could yield a more comprehensive ethical framework that promotes justice while considering the outcomes of actions. This blend encourages both adherence to principles and responsiveness to real-world consequences.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Societal impact is central to Mill's ethical views, as he contends that the morality of actions should be evaluated based on their consequences for the greatest number. This underscores the relationship between individual actions and collective well-being.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Framing an innocent man could be justified as it may result in saving many lives and preventing a massacre, producing the greatest net benefit in that situation.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Rule utilitarianism argues that framing an innocent person is not justified, as establishing such a rule would erode trust in the justice system, leading to greater overall harm.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Framing an innocent person would undermine public trust in the justice system, causing societal fear and instability over time.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mill would contend that if framing innocents becomes acceptable, it leads to a decline in justice and fairness, which ultimately decreases overall happiness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>An act utilitarian might argue that the immediate benefit of saving lives outweighs the moral violation of framing an innocent man.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Rule utilitarianism defines the correct action as one that follows rules leading to the greatest overall happiness when generally adhered to.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Accepting the framing of innocent people could lead to a breakdown of trust in the legal system, increasing fear and resentment in society.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Act utilitarianism prioritizes immediate outcomes by evaluating specific actions based on their direct consequences for happiness, regardless of broader implications.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Judges actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the greatest number of people.

A way of evaluating actions and choices based on their consequences and overall utility.

Focuses on developing virtuous character traits to guide moral decisions.

Judges actions based on moral duties and rules, regardless of consequences.

A universal moral obligation or principle that should guide and direct an action.

The core principle of utilitarianism; strive to achieve the highest level of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Moral theories that judge the morality of an action based on the consequences of that action.

The quality or state of being trustworthy and reliable; displaying dependability and consistency.

Happiness is the presence of pleasure and absence of pain, emphasizing quality of pleasure (higher vs. lower).

Utilitarianism: moral actions maximize overall happiness for the most people.

Principled moral duties that respect promises unconditionally, without considerations on the impact or consequences.

Pragmatic, inclusive, considers individual and societal well-being.

Oversimplifies human fulfillment by reducing happiness to pleasure and pain.

Can be overly rigid and impractical, neglecting specific situations.

Integrating long-term integrity, principled duties, and practical outcomes.

Implied (not explicitly defined), but likely encompasses a more holistic, virtuous approach to a fulfilling life, integrating purpose and meaning.

Humans are inherently self-interested, competitive, and fearful of harm; morality is a construct for survival, not innate.

Humans are rational, social, and naturally virtuous; morality is intrinsic and ties to flourishing.

Society is necessary for order and security; it arises from pragmatic agreements for mutual benefit.

Society enables the fulfillment of human potential and the cultivation of virtue.

Pragmatic agreements for mutual benefit to escape the state of nature.

Intrinsic virtues rooted in human nature.

Instrumental for self-preservation and security.

Central to living a virtuous life and achieving fulfilment (eudaimonia).

Moral duties are based on logical consistency and universal moral law, regardless of consequences.

Moral duties are based on consequences, focusing on maximizing happiness and minimizing harm for the greatest number of people.

A strict, unbreakable obligation that prohibits certain actions, like lying or breaking promises, because they violate universal moral law.

A strict obligation necessary to uphold justice and societal well-being, like obeying laws or contracts.

A flexible obligation derived from respect for humanity and the pursuit of moral ends, like helping others or developing your talents.

A flexible obligation based on maximizing happiness for the greatest number, like volunteering or donating to charity.

Moral duties are enforced internally through reason and conscience, not external laws.

Perfect duties are enforced by external laws, while imperfect duties remain voluntary.

Injustice arises from breaking the social contract, which is the agreement people make to live in a society. This contract helps maintain order and lets everyone pursue their own interests safely.

The idea that people agree to give up some freedom in exchange for living in a society with laws and rules. This helps maintain order and protects everyone's interests.

The belief that people are inherently motivated by self-interest. This drives Hobbes's view of the social contract.

Injustice is a violation of moral duty, not just a broken promise. It goes against universal moral principles.

A universal moral rule that says you should act only according to principles you could want to become universal laws. It helps us determine what is right and wrong.

Actions that go against universal moral principles, even if they don't break a specific law.

Injustice occurs when someone makes choices that harm the well-being of others. The focus is on consequences and maximizing happiness for the greatest number.

A moral framework that judges actions based on their outcomes. The best actions produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

A moral philosophy that judges actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize overall happiness for the greatest number of people, considering each individual act in isolation.

A moral philosophy that judges actions based on the consequences of adopting general rules of behavior that, when followed broadly, produce the greatest overall happiness.

A rule-utilitarian would likely oppose the action, as it undermines trust in the medical system, creates a slippery slope for future justifications of similar actions, and erodes the importance of individual rights.

A potential consequence of adopting a rule that permits killing healthy individuals for organs; it would erode public trust in the medical system, leading to fear and a reluctance to seek medical care.

The potential for a rule that initially seems justifiable to lead to a series of increasingly problematic consequences and actions.

The potential for a rule that permits killing healthy individuals for organs to undermine the fundamental right to life and bodily autonomy.

Rule-utilitarianism emphasizes individual rights because upholding these rights promotes overall societal well-being over the long term.

Act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of each individual action, while rule utilitarianism considers the consequences of adopting general rules that apply to everyone.

Kant sees happiness as desirable but morally secondary. Morality is about doing your duty, not about pursuing happiness or good outcomes.

Kant believes happiness is irrelevant to morality, while Mill believes maximizing happiness is the goal of ethics.

Eudaimonia, often translated as happiness or flourishing, is the ultimate purpose of life according to Aristotle.

Aristotle sees happiness as the natural outcome of virtuous living, integrated into morality, while Kant sees it as separate and secondary.

Aristotle's approach to ethics focuses on developing good character traits (virtues) to live a fulfilling life.

Judges actions based on moral duties and rules, regardless of consequences.

The primary goal in utilitarianism is to maximize overall happiness for the most people.

The core principle in deontology, where moral worth arises from acting out of duty regardless of consequences.

Happiness is achieved through living virtuously, cultivating good character traits.

A situation where you have to choose between fulfilling a promise or pursuing a personal opportunity, knowing that the other person may not even remember the promise.

The chosen path that balances integrity, principles, and practical outcomes.

Happiness consists of pleasurable experiences and the absence of pain, with higher pleasures (intellectual, moral) being more valuable than lower ones (physical, sensual).

Actions are morally right if they maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.

Reducing happiness to pleasure oversimplifies the richness of human life, neglecting aspects like virtue, meaning, and autonomy.

Kant likely rejects Mill's focus on pleasure, arguing that morality is based on reason and duty, not happiness or consequences.

Aristotle would likely agree that happiness is important, but he might argue that it's broader than just pleasure, including virtue and living a fulfilling life.

A comprehensive ethical framework could combine Kant's emphasis on universal rules for justice with Mill's focus on promoting happiness through flexible beneficence.

Different ethical frameworks like Kant's deontology, Mill's utilitarianism, and Aristotle's virtue ethics offer varying perspectives on what constitutes a good life and how to make moral choices.

Not all pleasures are morally good, and not all pains are morally bad. For example, the pain of hard work can lead to meaningful achievement.

People value happiness differently. Some prioritize virtue, knowledge, or relationships over pleasure.

Kant rejects Mill's view that morality is based on subjective feelings of pleasure and pain, considering them unreliable and irrelevant.

For Kant, true happiness comes from living in accordance with moral duty, even if it means sacrificing personal pleasure.

Aristotle argues that Mill's focus on pleasure is insufficient, as it neglects the importance of reason and virtue in a fulfilling life.

For Aristotle, the highest good is not pleasure but a life of virtuous activity, guided by reason and aimed at achieving one's potential.

Aristotle sees pleasure as a natural byproduct of virtuous activity, not the ultimate goal. True happiness comes from living a life of purpose.

For Kant, morality must be based on principles that can be universally applied, not on subjective preferences. This prevents bias and promotes fairness.

Aristotle believed that natural inclinations (like self-preservation or friendship) are important but not enough for moral actions. He emphasized the need for reason and virtue.

Hobbes argued that humans are primarily self-interested, motivated by self-preservation and avoiding pain. He believed societal rules are needed to guide these instincts.

Aristotle believed that natural inclinations can motivate moral actions if they are guided by reason and virtue. For example, generosity is praiseworthy when motivated by a desire to help others.

Hobbes believed that natural inclinations (self-preservation) can motivate moral actions indirectly. People follow rules because they understand it's in their best interest.

Virtue is essential for Aristotle. It's the cultivated balance between natural inclinations and reason, leading to morally praiseworthy actions and a fulfilling life.

Hobbes believed that a social contract (agreement to live by rules) motivates morality by ensuring everyone’s self-interest is protected, creating a stable society.

In this scenario, act utilitarianism might support framing the innocent man if it meant preventing a massacre, focusing on the immediate benefit of saving lives.

Rule utilitarianism would likely oppose framing an innocent man because it would undermine trust in the justice system, leading to greater harm in the long run.

This principle, central to utilitarianism, states that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

This is a core dilemma for utilitarianism. Sometimes actions that maximize utility (happiness) might violate principles of justice.

Rule utilitarianism emphasizes the long-term consequences of actions and rules, considering how they impact happiness and societal well-being over time.

Rule utilitarianism suggests that promoting social stability, trust, and justice is crucial for maximizing overall happiness in the long run.