400 Ethics & Power Exam Notes PDF

400 Ethics & Power WEEK 1 What is an ethical issue or moral problem ​ Conflicting values, beliefs, goals, or responsibilities ​ Concerned that a person's rights are not respected ​ Concerned about fairness and justice ​ Unsure what we should do or why we should do it morally speaking...

400 Ethics & Power WEEK 1 What is an ethical issue or moral problem ​ Conflicting values, beliefs, goals, or responsibilities ​ Concerned that a person's rights are not respected ​ Concerned about fairness and justice ​ Unsure what we should do or why we should do it morally speaking So, ethics is a philosophical discipline about managing moral problems, and as such deals with the art of living Ethics is the formal study of: ​ (1) What is right and wrong ​ (2) The bases or principles for deciding right and wrong ​ (3) The analysis of the process(es) by which we decide what is right and wrong Ethics is not: ​ Merely obeying norms/laws ​ Blind compliance Although in many instances laws are statements of considered ethical positions and most of the time obeying the law is an element of ethical behavior Traditional divisions of the broad field of ethics ​ Meta-ethics: nature or right or good, nature and justification of ethical issues ​ Normative ethics: standards/principles ​ Applied ethics: actual application of ethical principles to specific situations. Consists of medical ethics and bioethics Medical ethics ​ A field of applied ethics. It is the study of moral values and judgments as they apply to medicine and medical research. As a scholarly discipline, medical ethics encompasses its practical application in clinical settings as well as work on its history, philosophy, theology, sociology, and anthropology. ​ Kinesiology is part of a bio-medical field in the study of medical ethics for this course ​ Long cross cultural history of medical ethics Why study medical ethics? These are some perspectives of other people: ​ “As long as the physician is a knowledgeable clinician, ethics doesn't matter” ​ “Learned in the family not in medical school” ​ “Learned by observing how senior physicians act not from books or lectures on ethics” ​ “Important but our curriculum is too crowded” Modern medical ethics statements ​ Nuremberg code 1947 medical research ​ Declaration of geneva 1948, 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005, 2006 ​ World medical association international code of medical ethics ​ AMA revision 1957 ​ Declaration of Helsinki, application to medical research 1964, rev. 1975,.... 1996, 2000 ​ Belmont Report 1979 ​ AMA revision 2001 Historical events leading to medical ethics  ​ Medicine under Nazis ​ Eugenics movement ​ National socialism as applied to biology (racial hygiene and theory of nordic superior race) ​ Euthanasia program of Nazis ​ Compulsory sterilization laws ​ Debated biomedical research on human subjects Eugenics as a medical movement ​ Mostly positive propaganda for achieving healthy nation ​ Pedigree construction ​ Negative eugenics: compulsory sterilization laws (Buck vs Bell case with a famous statement from Judge Holmes “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”) ​ The buck vs Bell case gave a green light to compulsory sterilization (medical procedures to permanently prevent individuals from having children) in more than 30 states ​ About 60,000 sterilized Eugenics supporting the political program of immigration restriction ​ 1924 immigration restriction act was based on ideology of eugenics ​ Reduced number of immigrants by 80% Nuremberg medical trial and nuremberg code ​ 1947 birth of the first international code concerning the ethical requirements of human experiments ​ Stressing the importance of informed consent and autonomy of research participants Nuremberg Code ​ 1) Voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. Person has a legal capacity to give consent; can exercise free power of choice without the interventions of any element of force fraud or deceit or any other form of constraint/coercion. This person should get sufficient knowledge of the subject matter involved as to enable them to make an understanding decision ​ 2) Experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable from other methods, and not random or unnecessary ​ 3) Experiment should be designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of natural history of the disease/problem under study ​ 4) Experiment should be conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering/injury ​ 5) No experiment should be conducted where there is any prior reason to believe that death or disability will occur ​ 6) the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment ​ 7) Proper precautions should be made ​ 8) PROF DIDNT WRITE THIS ONE ​ 9) Human subject can bring the experiment to en end if they have reached physical or mental state ​ 10) scientist must be prepared to terminate experiment at any stage if there's reason to believe it might result in injury, disability, or death for the subject Tuskegee Syphilis study and genetic engineering ​ Henry Beecher's classic paper in the new england journal of medicine ​ Failure to treat a group of african american males in macon county, alabama who had syphilis begun in 1932 and ended, by unfavorable publicity in 1972 ​ At the end of the 1960s new techniques for the direct manipulation of genes: GENETIC ENGINEERING Consequences ​ Importance of individual autonomy (instead of collectivism) → importance of human rights growing → social need for transparency of scientific activities → insufficiency of the Hippocratic Oath → need for new medical norms and regulations Why study medical ethics? ​ Ethics is always and has been an essential component of medical practice ​ Some ethical principles are basic to the physician-patient relationship but application in specific situations is often problematic due to disagreement about what is the right way to act ​ Study of ethics prepares medical students to recognize difficult situations and to deal with them in a rational and principles manner Bioethics ​ Medical ethics closely related to bioethics (biomedical ethics), but not identical ​ - medical ethics focuses primarily on issues arising out of the practice of medicine ​ - bioethics: very broad subject, concerned with the moral issues raised by developments in the biological sciences. -bioethics does not require the acceptance of certain traditional values that are fundamental to medical ethics ​ Branch of applied ethics that studies philosophical social and legal issues arising in medicine ​ Concerned with human life and well-being, although it sometimes concerns nonhuman biological environment as well As practical ethics, medical ethics focuses on: Process of deciding what is the most appropriate course of action in a particular situation: ​ Given the facts ​ Given the skills and abilities ​ Operating with finite knowledge ​ In real time ​ And then affecting that course of action Process of making ethical decisions: photo Duties to whom or what? ​ Individuals: patients, patients families, colleagues, co-workers, self ​ Groups: profession, society, the weak ​ Ideas/Principles: the law, the truth, justice, individual value Duties: ​ Legal obligations: health insurance, emergency treatment, reporting duties ​ Institutional obligations: practices of hospital and care facilities ​ Professional norms and obligations: inherent with being a medical professional (doctor, clinician, kinesiologist) READING WEEK 1 ​ Conventional and Critical Morality: Conventional morality refers to the widely accepted rules and principles that govern behavior in a specific society or culture. These standards are shaped by human decisions and are subject to social agreements, biases, or superstitions. Examples include cultural norms about tipping in the U.S. or gender roles in Saudi Arabia. Conventional morality can vary between cultures, and its popularity doesn’t guarantee its truth. In contrast, **critical morality** is independent of social conventions and is used to evaluate whether conventional morality is right or wrong. Critical morality is assumed to be free from misunderstandings, irrationality, and prejudice, aiming to serve as a true standard of moral judgment. ​ Branches of Moral Philosophy: Moral philosophy is divided into three main branches: 1. Value Theory: what constitutes a good life and explores concepts like happiness, well-being, and what is worth pursuing for its own sake. 2. Normative Ethics: It examines our fundamental moral duties, questions about what makes actions right or wrong, and what virtues or vices people should cultivate. 3. Metaethics: This area addresses the status of moral claims, exploring whether moral principles can be true and how we might gain moral wisdom. ​ Moral Starting Points: Several assumptions can guide us in moral reasoning: - The law and tradition are not immune to moral criticism. - Everyone is morally fallible. - Friendship is valuable, and we are not morally required to do the impossible. - Justice is crucial, and children bear less moral responsibility than adults. - Deliberately harming others requires justification. - Equals should be treated equally, and self-interest is not the only ethical consideration. - Agony is bad, and power doesn't justify immoral actions. - Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. These starting points are plausible but open to scrutiny, helping to frame moral thinking. ​ Morality vs. Other Normative Systems Morality differs from other normative systems like law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition. Laws don’t always align with morality—some legal acts may be immoral, and vice versa. Similarly, etiquette dictates proper behavior but doesn’t always match moral standards. Acting in one’s self-interest may sometimes conflict with moral duties. Tradition, too, can uphold practices that morality might reject, as seen in movements that opposed slavery or fought for women’s rights. Morality operates independently of these systems and can require us to challenge them when they conflict with ethical principles. ​ Morality and Religion Many believe that morality depends on God, thinking that if God doesn’t exist, morality has no foundation. This view is called **Divine Command Theory**, which claims that acts are morally required because God commands them, and wrong because God forbids them. However, this theory faces two key problems: 1. God might not exist, which would undermine morality. 2. If God commands actions arbitrarily, such as forbidding theft, those actions are not inherently wrong but only wrong because God forbids them. This implies that God’s decisions might be baseless, making morality arbitrary, which contradicts the idea of a morally perfect God. Alternatively, God might issue commands based on good reasons, implying that the reasons, not the commands, make actions moral. Thus, God could be seen as a **moral guide**—not the author of morality, but a reporter of moral truths. Argument from Religious Authority: that if a sacred text (e.g., the Bible) prohibits an action, such as abortion, then that action is immoral. However, this argument faces multiple challenges: 1. Which religious text? Different religions have varying sacred texts, and they sometimes contradict one another. A person must justify choosing the correct one. 2. Divine authorship: Believers must prove that God exists, has communicated with humans, and that their chosen sacred text is genuinely divinely inspired. 3. Interpretation challenges: Even if divine authorship is accepted, interpreting sacred texts is difficult. For instance, abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and certain passages endorse morally questionable practices like slavery. To rely on religious authority, theists must: 1. Prove God's existence. 2. Justify their preferred scripture. 3. Defend specific interpretations of moral teachings within the text. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS TO KNOW: Key Definitions ​ Atheism: The belief that God does not exist. ​ Conventional morality: The moral views and practices accepted by a particular society. ​ Critical morality: Moral standards that are free from errors and not merely accepted by society but are well-reasoned. Divine Command Theory: The belief that actions are morally right or wrong because God commands or forbids them. Metaethics: The study of the nature and meaning of moral beliefs and ethical terms. ​ Normative ethics: The branch of ethics concerned with determining what people ought to do morally. ​ Normative system: A set of rules or norms that guide behavior, like law or religion. ​ Norm: A standard or rule that guides behavior. ​ Omniscient: The quality of being all-knowing, often attributed to God. ​ Theist: Someone who believes in the existence of God or gods. ​ Value theory: The study of what is valuable or important in life, including ethics and aesthetics. Believers must meet high standards in these areas to successfully base morality on religious authority. WEEK 2: THE ROLE OF A KINESIOLOGIST What is Kinesiology? Definition (traditional): The study of human movement via the physical sciences. Physics: Biomechanics Anatomy: Musculoskeletal anatomy, Structure Physiology: Neuromuscular physiology, Function Psychology: Cognitive mechanisms, Mental Regulation Kinesiology at uoft ​ Bio-physical: how PA affects overall health. This area includes exercise physiology, biomechanics, nutrition, sport medicine, motor control ​ Behavioural: behavioral scientists examine psychosocial. Includes sport psychology, exercise psychology, and health psychology ​ Physical Cultural studies: Social construction, institutional structuring, mass mediation of sport, leisure, health, PA, and exercise worlds. They propose more equitable ethical PA environments for all Notes i took: -Doping: most athletes in the sport are already doping so you don’t want to affect the integrity of the sport, but everyone’s doing it so is it really affecting the integrity of it? Like of course you don’t want to ruin your body or health but you also don’t want to choose to come last. -The press obviously don’t want the media or the population to see high athletes on doping athletes as it is not a good look and not promoting a healthy lifestyle. -Viewership goes up when athletes beat new records, therefore they’ll give tools to improve performance -Fighting is still allowed in hockey because of viewership From last class ​ If for example, you are a practicing physician treating luke shaw, you are going to be pressured to get him back as soon as possible to the game.Sometimes this pressure can conflict with your competing duties and their associated ethical principles: ​ -To the team: health recovery vs performance ​ -To your profession: standard of care vs norms of sport ​ -To luke shaw: anonymity vs full disclosure ​ -To yourself: style of caregiving vs culture of caregiving Moral Reasoning (Shafeer-Landau) ​ In ethically complex situations, the basis for making a decision is moral reasoning ​ Your argument is based on a series of moral premises ​ The decisions must be logical and interconnected -I ought to not harm anyone -i must respect my superiors -communities involved chare goals that define them -a person should be allowed to maintain their dignity -i must do what i am ultimately comfortable with myself doing  ​ So if i think about the desired outcome and the most moral reasoned manner to get there: a healthy high performing Shaw whose body is respected while the team's investment is protected, and which principles above would get me there the most ethically? Wait, should ethics matter? ​ Ethical skepticism (shafer-landau chapter 3) ​ 3 main criticisms of ethics confront us: 1) Egoism: driven by self-interest, no morality 2) Relativism: its the majority who should decide whats right or wrong, no ultimate moral code and therefore a universal code. 3) Error theory: there is nothing inherently right or wrong, no moral “facts”, you don't even know what other people 100% find right or wrong so there is no morality Ontario College of Kinesiology ​ “The ethical values for members should be applied in all aspects of professional practice, particularly in the patient/client relationship and when facing an ethical problem or dilemma. Making ethical decisions is not always easy and can be accompanied by significant discomfort. While the Code of Ethics cannot alleviate this discomfort, adopting the values and a standard process to analyze a situation will allow members to feel more secure in their ability to make the best decision possible that is in the best interest of patients. ​ There are a variety of ethical decision-making models available and although one version is presented here, members should choose a model that is most comfortable to them and meets their professional needs. Members should also understand that while a consistent process can be followed each time an ethical decision is required, the decision or outcome can vary because the context in which the decision is being made varies. There can be differences of opinion and it is not expected that there will always be complete agreement. The proposed actions to an ethical dilemma can include both those who are in favor and those who are opposed to the decision. Although there may not be complete agreement on one unique line of action, some actions will be more defensible and others will be less defensible. Following a consistent and reasoned process to ethical decision-making will, however, increase the likelihood that even those opposed to the decision will respect it. Steps to Ethical Decision-Making ​ 1. Recognize that there is an ethical issue- I.e. something is making you uncomfortable.  ​ 2. Identify the problem and who is involved- What is making you uncomfortable? Who else is involved? ​ 3. Consider the relevant facts, laws, principles and values- What laws or standards might apply? What ethical value or ethical principle is involved? ​ 4. Establish and analyze potential options- Weigh possibilities and outcomes. Use your moral imagination. ​ 5. After undertaking Steps 1 through 4, choose a course of action and implement it- Are there any barriers to action? What information should be recorded? ​ 6. Evaluate the outcome and determine if further action is needed- What did you learn? What can you do to prevent future occurrence? The Canadian Kin Alliance (CKA) Duties and Responsibilities towards the Client and the Public ​ Hold paramount the health and safety of the client and/or the public at all times ​ Not take physical, psychological, sexual, or financial advantage of a client ​ Offer and/or advise on kinesiology services in areas of their specific competence ​ Practise in a careful and diligent manner, and encourage a client to seek other professional assistance when such action is in the best interest of the client ​ Apply only accepted scientific principles and professional practices when providing kinesiology services ​ Continue their professional development to maintain a high level of competence ​ Conduct themselves with fairess, respect, and good faith towards their clients, colleagues, and the profession ​ Declare to a client any conflict of interest that may adversely affect their professional relationship with a client and/or employers ​ Render services to those who seek it without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnic origin, language, political affiliation, and societal or health status ​ Respect the client's or surrogate's right to be informed about the effects of the services provided, and give opportunity to consent to or decline a service ​ Protect the confidentiality of all professionally acquired information, and disclose such information only when properly authorized or when legally obligated to do so ​ If you're not a nutritionist, you shouldn't be telling people what Duties and Responsibilities towards the Profession ​ Give credit where it is due, and accept, as well as give, objective and fair professional criticism ​ Act in a way that is beyond reproach, and report to the appropriate authorities any affiliate of the CKA who appears to be incompetent or whose conduct appears to be unethical, illegal, or, in general, unbecoming to the profession ​ Strive to promote the advancement of the science and profession of kinesiology ​ Commit to encouraging equity, diversity, and inclusion in the practice of kinesiology and in the administration of programs and activities; that is, to hold the duty, the right, and the legal and moral responsibility to ensure that all  participants/clients/patients are treated fairly, equitably, and respectfully, and to provide a learning, treatment, working, and living environment that is free from discrimination on the basis of characteristics of identity, including but not limited to age, sex, gender expression, gender, race, sexuality, disability, religion, ethnicity, and creed. READINGS CHAPTER 2 AND 3 Russ-shafer landau CHAPTER 2 Moral reasoning involves constructing arguments with premises that support a conclusion. Arguments are logical structures, not mere disagreements. Goals of Moral Reasoning: Effective moral reasoning aims to achieve truth and sound logic. Arguments can be valid or flawed regardless of whether their premises are true. To assess an argument, ensure it: Avoids false beliefs. Maintains rigorous logic. Validity vs. Soundness ​ Validity: Premises support the conclusion; if premises are true, the conclusion must be true. ​ Soundness: Requires valid reasoning and true premises. Conditions in Logic: Understanding necessary and sufficient conditions is crucial: ​ Sufficient Condition: Guarantees a result (e.g., a 95% average guarantees an A). ​ Necessary Condition: Required for a result to occur (e.g., having money is necessary to be a millionaire). Importance of Moral Reasoning: The goal is to define what is morally right or wrong. A biconditional statement provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for moral judgments. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions: Identifying conditions for moral rightness is essential. For example, causing pain might be necessary for wrongdoing, but not sufficient alone. Challenges of Conditions: A sufficient condition may be limited; broader tests incorporating both necessary and sufficient conditions are needed for effective reasoning. Logical Argument Forms: Valid argument forms include: ​ Modus Ponens: If P, then Q; P is true, therefore Q is true.  ​ Modus Tollens: If P, then Q; Q is false, therefore P is false. Structure of Modus Tollens: Similar to modus ponens, but emphasizes that the consequent is a necessary condition for the antecedent. Testing Conditionals: To test a conditional, find a case where the antecedent is true but the consequent is false. If such a case exists, the conditional is false. Hypothetical Syllogism: Structured as: ​ If P, then Q. ​ If Q, then R. ​ Therefore, if P, then R. Fallacies: A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, categorized into: ​ Formal Fallacies: Logically invalid arguments. ​ Informal Fallacies: Mistaken reasoning patterns. Examples of Fallacies ​ Denying the Antecedent: Invalid reasoning based on false premises. ​ Affirming the Consequent: Invalid reasoning where the truth of Q does not confirm P. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Attacking the character of the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. Appeals to Irrelevant Emotions: Manipulating emotions to persuade rather than using factual evidence. Emotional Manipulation: Emotions can alert us to moral facts but may also distract from truth. Appeal to Authority: Using authority figures to support claims outside their expertise is fallacious. Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false is flawed reasoning. Conclusion Moral reasoning involves constructing and evaluating arguments to support moral claims, which are made up of premises leading to a conclusion. The truth of the premises is separate from their logical support for the conclusion; arguments can be flawed even with true premises if they do not logically support the conclusion. Conversely, arguments can be valid—logically sound—despite having false premises, providing no basis for belief in their conclusions. The ideal form of moral reasoning is a sound argument, which is valid and has all true premises. Specific argument forms, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, and hypothetical syllogism, are always valid regardless of the truth of their premises. Understanding necessary (requirements) and sufficient (guarantees) conditions is essential for grasping the validity of these arguments. Biconditionals express conditions that are both necessary and sufficient. Engaging deeply with these concepts can enhance your understanding of moral reasoning while helping to avoid common fallacies. Ad Hominem Fallacy: A fallacy that occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or circumstances of the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself. Antecedent: The "if" part of a conditional statement, which precedes the consequent. Appeal to Authority: A fallacy that relies on the opinion of an authority figure who is outside their area of expertise to support a claim. Appeal to Ignorance: A fallacy that asserts a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false. Appeal to Irrelevant Emotions: A fallacy that uses emotional manipulation to persuade rather than presenting relevant evidence or facts. Argument: A structured set of premises aimed at supporting a conclusion. Biconditional: A statement that expresses conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for a proposition, typically phrased as "if and only if." Conditional: A statement that expresses a relationship between two propositions, generally in the form "if P, then Q." Consequent: The "then" part of a conditional statement, which follows the antecedent. Fallacious: Describes reasoning or arguments that contain fallacies and are therefore invalid. Fallacy: A mistake in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument. Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent: A fallacy that occurs when one concludes that the antecedent is true because the consequent is true in a conditional statement. Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: A fallacy that occurs when one concludes that the consequent is false because the antecedent is false in a conditional statement. Hasty Generalization: A fallacy that involves making a broad conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. Hypothetical Syllogism: A valid argument form that involves a chain of conditionals, structured as "If P, then Q; If Q, then R; Therefore, If P, then R." Logical Validity: The property of an argument whereby, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Modus Ponens: A valid argument form structured as "If P, then Q; P is true; Therefore, Q is true." Modus Tollens: A valid argument form structured as "If P, then Q; Q is false; Therefore, P is false." Necessary Condition: A condition that must be met for a proposition to be true; if the necessary condition is not met, the proposition cannot be true. Premise: A statement that provides support or evidence in an argument. Soundness: A property of an argument that is both valid and has all true premises. Straw Man Fallacy: A fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, rather than engaging with the actual argument. Sufficient Condition: A condition that, if met, guarantees the truth of a proposition; if the sufficient condition is true, the proposition must also be true. CHAPTER 3 Ethical Egoism: Ethical egoism posits that individuals have no obligations to others beyond serving their own self-interest, challenging conventional views of morality that emphasize generosity and compassion. A notable argument for ethical egoism is the Self-Reliance Argument, which claims that focusing solely on one’s own needs maximizes overall well-being. However, this argument is criticized for its false premises and the oversimplification of moral obligations, as neglecting those in need can lead to worse outcomes for society. Relativism: denies the objectivity of moral rules Error theory: argues that moral claims are fundamentally untrue. These perspectives further complicate the landscape of moral reasoning and understanding. Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism Self-Reliance Argument​ Ethical egoists prioritize personal benefit over the well-being of others. They reject any moral obligation to help others unless it serves their self-interest. Libertarian Argument​ This argument claims that moral duties to help others arise only from consent or reparation for wrongs. Ethical egoists deny these sources and assert that self-interest is the sole basis for moral obligations. Psychological Egoism​ This theory posits that all human motivation is driven by self-interest, denying the existence of true altruism. It suggests that if altruism were a duty, it would contradict human nature. Critique of Psychological Egoism​ Critics argue that many people act selflessly, which challenges the idea that all actions are motivated by self-interest. Supporters of psychological egoism present: ​ Argument from Our Strongest Desires: Claims that actions stem from our strongest desires, which are self-interested. ​ Argument from Expected Benefit: Suggests that actions are taken with the expectation of personal benefit.​ Both arguments face criticism for circular reasoning and for ignoring counterexamples, such as individuals acting against injustice. Evidence for Altruism​ Genuine concern for others is indicated by feelings of guilt over wrongdoing. For example, a mother sacrificing her last food for her child is often viewed as altruistic. An egoist might argue that this action is motivated by self-interest to avoid the pain of loss; however, this contradicts the idea of self-interest, as a parent's well-being is closely tied to their child's. Relativism Overview ​ Relativism questions the existence of objective moral standards that apply universally, regardless of individual beliefs or desires. ​ It asserts that moral claims are true only relative to the standards of each society, meaning moral correctness varies by culture. Key Points 1.​ Objective Standards: Ethical relativism denies the existence of objective moral standards. Instead, standards are deemed correct only if they align with societal beliefs. 2.​ Moral Construct: Morality is viewed as a human construct, similar to laws or standards of taste, with no universal principles guiding it. 3.​ Moral Acceptance: An act is morally acceptable if allowed by societal ideals and immoral if forbidden. Attractions of Relativism ​ Human-Centric Morality: Morality is created for humans; it didn’t exist before humans and will not exist after. ​ Scientific Respectability: Relativism offers a straightforward explanation of morality as a reflection of cultural preferences. ​ Moral Knowledge: Knowledge of morality comes from understanding societal norms. ​ Egalitarian Aspect: Relativism promotes the idea that no culture's moral code is superior to another, fostering a sense of equality in moral judgment. Support for Relativism ​ Many embrace relativism for its support of tolerance, suggesting that no culture's moral code is superior and that we should accept cross-cultural differences. Critique of Relativism 1.​ Tolerance vs. Intolerance: Relativism allows cultures that value intolerance to justify silencing dissenting views, undermining the moral value of tolerance itself. 2.​ Infallibility of Moral Codes: Relativism implies that a culture’s moral principles are infallible, meaning prejudiced or harmful beliefs (e.g., slavery or bigotry) could be accepted as correct without question. 3.​ Moral Progress: Relativism struggles to explain moral progress, as changes in societal beliefs would not signify improvement if those beliefs are deemed true by definition. 4.​ Moral Disagreement: If moral judgments reflect societal beliefs, then conflicting views (e.g., on women's rights) cannot all be true, leading to contradictions. 5.​ Sociological Reports: If moral claims are merely reports of cultural norms, genuine moral debates about issues like slavery become impossible, reducing them to sociological observations. Dilemma for Relativism ​ Relativists face a choice: if moral claims are literally true, contradictions arise; if they are merely cultural reports, meaningful disagreement disappears. This creates challenges for individuals belonging to subcultures with conflicting moral codes, as relativism offers no basis for prioritizing one over the other. Overview of Error Theory​ Error Theory posits that morality is fundamentally flawed, based on three essential claims: ​ No Moral Features: There are no moral qualities in the world. An inventory of the world's contents reveals only scientific characteristics, with no moral attributes. ​ False Moral Judgments: Since there are no moral facts, all moral judgments are false as they cannot accurately describe anything real. ​ Inevitably Mistaken Judgments: Our sincere moral judgments attempt to describe non-existent moral features, leading to consistent errors in moral reasoning. Implications of Error Theory ​ No Moral Knowledge: Knowledge requires truth; if there are no moral truths, moral knowledge cannot exist. ​ Error theorists argue that all moral views are equally flawed, revealing a deep mistake at the core of morality. Key Assumptions of Morality​ Error theorists assert that the foundational assumption of morality is the belief in objective moral standards that provide categorical reasons for action, which apply universally. Arguments Against Moral Objectivity 1.​ Argument from Disagreement: Persistent disagreement among well-informed, rational people suggests that no moral claim is objectively true. While this premise is debated, it indicates that ethical disagreements might stem from personal biases rather than objective truths.  2.​ Argument from Atheism: Suggests that if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot exist either, as moral laws require an author. However, this overlooks the possibility that objective laws may not need a creator. 3.​ Argument from Science: Claims that if science cannot verify the existence of objective moral standards, then those standards likely do not exist. While this premise is plausible, it assumes that science is the only path to understanding reality, which many dispute. Principle (B) ​ Definition: You are justified in believing a claim only if science can confirm it.​ This principle is problematic because it cannot itself be confirmed by science, leading to questions about the validity of science as the sole source of truth. This suggests that some non-scientific claims, including moral claims, may still hold truth. Arguments Against Objective Morality ​ Error theorists propose that moral duties carry a special power, providing reasons to obey them regardless of personal desires. This leads to the Argument from Categorical Reasons: 3.​ If there are objective moral duties, then there are categorical reasons to obey them. 4.​ There are no categorical reasons. 5.​ Therefore, there are no objective moral duties. Responses to the Argument from Categorical Reasons 1.​ Challenge Premise 1: Some argue that objective moral duties do not have to provide reasons for action, allowing for the possibility that moral standards exist without universally compelling reasons. 2.​ Reject Premise 2: Others maintain that objective moral duties do exist and provide categorical reasons, exemplified by situations where moral actions are justified irrespective of personal gain (e.g., saving a stranger's life). Conclusion ​ The discussion highlights various concerns about the validity of morality, with skepticism not being the default position. While ethical egoism, relativism, and error theory raise significant doubts, the arguments against objective morality are not conclusively persuasive. Skepticism must be substantiated with compelling arguments. Key Terms and Concepts ​ Altruism: The selfless concern for the well-being of others. ​ Atheists: Individuals who do not believe in the existence of God. ​ Begging the Question: A logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. ​ Categorical Reason: A reason that is binding regardless of personal desires or interests. ​ Error Theory: The belief that moral claims are false because there are no moral facts. ​ Ethical Egoism: The ethical theory that individuals should act in their own self-interest. ​ Ethical Relativism: The view that moral truths are relative to cultural or individual perspectives.  ​ Iconoclast: A person who attacks or criticizes cherished beliefs or institutions. ​ Infallible: Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. ​ Objective Moral Standards: Moral principles that are universally valid and independent of individual beliefs. ​ Psychological Egoism: The theory that all human actions are motivated by self-interest. ​ Relativism: The idea that points of view have no absolute truth or validity but are relative to the perspectives of individuals or cultures. WEEK 3 NORMATIVE ETHICS Normative Ethics ​ Branch of ethics that investigates the questions on how one ought to ac in a moral sense ​ The root is norm or the standards or rules which people acting morally engage e.g. you should take care of yourself physically; this norm is meant to guide our actions and if we do not comply we may be judged and morally blamed NOTES: You “ought” to do this means under most situations you SHOULD do what it says It’s calibrated with a reason meaning that the principles of decision-making lead us to a moral place. If you make decisions based on an ethical system and you don’t follow it, there’s normally some social punishment. You need rules in life. We need to maintain the rules. Rules that aren’t enforced with consequences are meaningless. The focus of normative ethics ​ The right; which action to perform and which actions not to perform ​ The morally good; what it means to be a morally good person, what character or qualities someone displaces that make them moral (bravery, honesty, kindness, etc) ​ Right action; what it is that someone ought to do, what is the socially right thing to do and why? ​ Character; what sort of person should I be to myself and to others? Some people say ethics can entirely be framed around this NOTES: Let’s say a coach yells unethically at an athlete but it does improve their performance, just because there was a positive outcome doesn’t mean it’s morally right, but it does excuse a lot of behaviors like those since the outcome overshadows the unethical actions. 3 types of normative ethics: ​ 1. Consequentialist theories: concerned mostly with the ethical consequences of actions ​ 2. Non-consequentialist actions: broadly concerned with the intentions of the person making the decision about the action ​ 3. Agent-centered theories: more concerned with overall ethical status of individuals Consequentialist theories ​ A. Utilitarian approach ​ B. Egoistic approach ​ C. Common good approach A.​ Utilitarianism approach: ​ Epicurus 341-270 BCE - the best life produces the least pain ​ Bentham (1748-1832) - actions can be described as good or bad depending on the amount of pleasure or pain they would cause  ​ John Stuart Mill - modified this system/subjective concept of “happiness” opposed to the more materialist idea of pleasure Bentham’s Utilitarianism: ​ The greatest good for the greatest number of people ​ NOTES: if there were graded assessments and everyone got an 80, that would make everyone happy, but is that the best thing? Will that lead to chaos? Does everyone deserve that A? Is it ethical? John stuart Mill ​ English philosopher, political theorist, economist, civil servant and member of parliament ​ “Greatest happiness principle” ​ One must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people Utilitarianism ​ Human life governed by pain and pleasure ​ “Moral science” of measuring pain and pleasure ​ The interest of the community is the sum of the interests of the individual members who compose it ​ Pleasures and pains are equal (bentham) or unequal (Mill) ​ NOTES: Categorize kinesiology as ethical principles, how is kinesiology and the way you research, based on theory of consequences: We are heavily interested in outcomes and the process to which we get an outcome. Developing sport tech, more sport tech to get faster and stronger and more competitive. Injuries have gone up in hockey as more protective gear gets introduced and people feel invincible and hit people harder at greater speeds, so does it produce the greater good, really? The views go up for the sport, but we rarely talk about that in classes unless they are ethical classes but shouldn’t we touch on this more? Is that producing more pleasure or more pain? ​ Happiness is the only thing with intrinsic value Rule Utilitarianism ​ One should follow these rules regardless of their specific outcome because they will produce happiness in the long run ​ Example: Speed limits on the highway prohibit you from accidents and pain, it may not make people happy because you wanna get somewhere super fast, but that rule is important to follow. Criticism of Utilitarianism ​ Calculations may be complicated ​ No room for character (the result not the actor) ​ No absolute rules of conduct ​ Why choose happiness over everything else ​ Can human life be recused to just pain and pleasure? ​ NOTES; kin is designed to facilitate the 3 things that make people happy: 1. Being involved in small meaningful groups 2. Movement and physical wellness 3. Family ​ NOTES EXAMPLE: With coaching, how do you know how to teach kids? You can ignore kids' behaviour if they’re lying or blaming things on others. But as a coach you can also make a decision to be an ethical leader for these kids and tell him off. You’re letting the  kid get away with anything and give the kid whatever he wants. So for the greater good, would you take him off the field/court and let other kids play the whole time and barely put him on if he’s gonna do that every time? It’s based on the greatest good and the greatest pleasure may be ro isolate the problem kid. But the calculation of what the best is can be difficult. B.​ Egoistic approach ​ A variation of the utilitarian approach, known as ethical egoism or ethics of self-interest.an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest good for THEMSELVES ​ Proponents: Thrasymacus, Hobbes, and Rand C.​ Common-good approach ​ Plato and Aristotle promoted the perspective that our actions should contribute to ethical communal life ​ Rousseau: the best society should be guided by the general will of the people which would then produce what is best for the people as a whole ​ NOTES: ​Kids prefer in coaching for the coach to make them accountable for their actions, which can involve yelling at them whether it’s constructive feedback or compliments on their gameplay, so that they can improve and stay level headed in the game. A study confirmed that 16 out of 18 kids chose this option rather than an overly nice coach who only compliments. Variations of the Common Goods Approach 1. Deontological/Duty-based approach ​ Doing what is right is not about the consequences of actions but about having the proper intention in performing the action. Kant’s formula for discovering our ethical duty is “categorical imperative”. The most basic form: Act only in a way that you would want everyone else to act, as if it were a universal rule. ​ Kant felt that the rules of morality should apply to everyone. By contrast, the rules of etiquette, fashion, aesthetic etc apply only to people trying to be polite, fashionable, artistic, etc ​ Imperatives are seen as “ought” statements. This means statements about what people ought to do (which increases humanity). ​ Categorical imperative is a statement about what ppl ought to do no matter what their goals are. Unlike rules that depend on individual preferences (like “If you want to be fit, you should exercise”), categorical imperatives apply universally—they are moral rules that hold true for everyone in all situations. However, situation-based exceptions can exist within categorical imperatives. For example, the rule “You ought not to threaten people with force” is a moral guideline that applies to everyone, but an exception is made in cases of self-defense, as the context changes the moral evaluation of the action. To determine whether an act is morally required (something you must do), morally prohibited (something you must not do), or morally optional (something you may choose to do), you assess whether the act (or its opposite) aligns with a categorical imperative. In essence, every moral rule is a categorical imperative, and vice versa, as both are rooted in universal applicability and reason. ​ Kant's idea is to turn ethical problems into logical problems. Acts that can't be performed by everyone is immoral, making an exception for oneself is evil. 2. The rights approach  ​ The best ethical action is one that respects and protects the rights of those affected by the action. Every human has the right to dignity, and many people now believe that animals and non-human entities, such as robots, should also have rights. 3. The fairness or justice approach ​ All free men should be treated alike, just as slaves should be treated alike ​ Today, fair ethical principles are those that would be chosen by free/rational people 4. The divine command approach ​ Sees what is right as the same as what god commands; ethical standards are the creation of God’s will. Agent centered theories: ​ The Virtue Approach Argues that ethical actions should be consistent with human virtues. Aristotle: ethics should encompass the whole of a person's life. Aristotelian virtue ethics: humans have a feel for what's right or wrong. Adopting virtues would improve our lives and contribute to our well-being. NOTES: ​You can’t temporarily be generous or temporarily be ethical or temporarily be a good person. For example, can you be a great amazing soccer player if you’re only great one time but horrible the rest of the time? To be ethical is to practice something all the time, especially when no one is looking. It’s the whole of someone’s life, not just certain actions a person might perform a single time. Aristotelian virtues: Divided into 2 groups 1. Intellectual virtues (wisdom which divides into sophia theoretical and phronesis practical) 2. Moral virtues (Prudence, justice, fortitude, courage, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, temperance) Criticism of virtue ethics: culture dependent, gender biased (aristotle thought males were leaders), prioritizing virtues, etc, not always leading to a good life (which virtues are the most important, if someone has good virtues does the right thing but it costs them, they may rethink how being a good person can make them finish last e.g. not doping but come in last place in the sport for example). ​ The Feminist Approach Most important contributions of this approach: the principle of care as a legitimately primary ethical concern often in opposition to the impersonal approach. WEEK 4 CONSEQUENTIALISM Major Ideas of Consequentialism Key Concepts ​ Consequential Ethics: An action is morally right if it promotes the best consequences, primarily maximizing happiness. ​ Logic of Consequential Ethics: Actions should be chosen based on their ability to produce the best possible outcomes. Types of Consequentialism 1.​ Egoism: Focuses on maximizing individual interests. 2.​ Utilitarianism: Focuses on maximizing happiness for all affected by the action. Overview of Utilitarianism General Theory  ​ A branch of consequentialism that evaluates actions based on their utility, defined as their helpfulness or harm. Key Philosophers: ​ John S. Mill: Emphasized the distinction between higher (cultural, intellectual, spiritual) and lower (physical) pleasures. ​ J.J.C. Smart: Introduced Preference Utilitarianism, focusing on individual priorities. ​ Jeremy Bentham: Advocated for the principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” ​ K. Popper: Developed Negative Utilitarianism, emphasizing the reduction of harm. ​ G.E. Moore: Proposed Ideal Utilitarianism, which considers the actual consequences of actions. ​ Robert Adams: Advocated Motive Utilitarianism, focusing on useful motives. ​ R.M. Hare: Developed Two-level Utilitarianism, combining rule and act utilitarianism. Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism ​ Greatest Happiness Principle: Actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce pain. ​ Qualitative Distinction: Higher pleasures (intellectual, moral) are inherently superior to lower pleasures (physical, sensory). Rule Utilitarianism ​ Advocates following rules that historically result in the greatest happiness. ​ Provides predictability in moral choices, fostering security and trust. A Closer Look at Utilitarianism ​ Principle: An action’s moral value is determined by whether it results in more good than harm. ​ Situational Ethics: The morality of actions depends on their consequences, which are context-specific. Measuring Utility 1)​ Consequentialism: Morality is based entirely on outcomes. 2)​ Evaluative Consequentialism: Rightness depends on the value of the consequences. 3)​ Hedonism: Considers pleasure and pain as the primary measures of value. 4)​ Maximizing Consequentialism: Focuses on achieving the best possible consequences. Problems with Utilitarianism 1.​ Ends vs. Means: Good intentions cannot justify harmful means. 2.​ Intrinsic Value: Actions lack inherent value without producing good results. 3.​ Greater Good: Individuals may be sacrificed for the majority’s happiness. 4.​ Need for Absolute Standards: Evaluations require universal norms.  5.​ Ambiguity of “End”: Uncertainty about the timeframe for evaluating consequences. 6.​ Pleasure vs. Pain: Difficulties in measuring and comparing pleasure and pain. Conclusion ​ Core Belief: Consequences are the sole determinant of morality. ​ Challenges: Outcomes are unpredictable, and intentions may lead to unintended consequences. ​ Philosophical Critique: Dostoevsky’s challenge questions the morality of sacrificing one life for the happiness of many. Essential Terms ​ Higher Pleasures: Intellectually and morally enriching experiences. ​ Lower Pleasures: Physical and sensory pleasures. ​ Altruism: Prioritizing others’ interests over one’s own. ​ Incommensurable: Qualities that cannot be compared due to fundamental differences. These organized notes summarize the foundational principles, philosophical perspectives, and critical evaluations of consequentialism and utilitarianism.