Ethical Theory Final PDF

Ethical Theory Final 09/27/24 1. In class we listed many reasons why one should, or should not, hook up with a stranger when one's significant other is away. These reasons fell into three groups (the columns). First, identify the three groups and, for eac...

Ethical Theory Final 09/27/24 1. In class we listed many reasons why one should, or should not, hook up with a stranger when one's significant other is away. These reasons fell into three groups (the columns). First, identify the three groups and, for each one, identify one of the reasons in that group. Finally, name the type of ethical theory which corresponds to each group. Consequences: your partner leaving you, consequentialist ethical theories Character: right sort of character, wouldn't cheat/ be dishonest —> virtue ethical theories Inherent properties of the act: the purpose/intent behind the action, deontological ethical theories 3. In class we saw that Cephalus, Socrates, and Polemarchus hold what we called conventional assumptions about justice (Plato, 5-14 passim; Phil 230, 2024-08-23). What are these assumptions? Conventional assumptions about justice: -​ There is such a thing as justice (hard to define) but it is real -​ Human created laws and rules try to capture or articulate justness -​ important, they want to keep trying to identify justness, benefits you to be just, and rest easy as you approach death 4. Explain what Thrasymachus means when he says that “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, 15). Thrasymachus- The weak obey the rules made by the strong to benefit the strong and exploit the weak 5. Thrasymachus defends his moral skepticism by arguing that being just does not benefit you--rather, it is bad for you--and that "justice" is really a sort of scam used to exploit the weak. What evidence does Thrasymachus give for this (Plato, 15-22, especially 21-22)? -​ Laws support the existing hierarchy -​ Injustice is more advantageous than justness, ex. Taxpayer, contractor, etc. -​ Challenges the assumptions about justice -​ Laws are to take advantage of you, bc they create unjustness 6. How does Thrasymachus's view of justice challenge each of the conventional assumptions about justice (Phil 230, 2024-08-23)? Thrasymachus- The weak obey the rules made by the strong to benefit the strong and exploit the weak -​ Yes it is important to know what justice is, so you know you should evade it -​ Being just hurts you and it is better to be unjust 7. Define these terms as they are used in this course: “moral skepticism,” “moral subjectivism,” “cultural relativism,” and “ethical objectivism” (Phil 230, 2024-08-26). Q: What basis, if any, do moral rules have? 1.​ Moral Skepticism- none or nothing we can know about 2.​ Moral Subjectivism- there is a basis and it is each person's opinion/ judgment, x is right only if and because someone thinks so 3.​ Cultural Relativism- there is a basis and it is cultural or deemed by society, x is right only if and because one culture says so 4.​ Ethical Objectivism- at least some moral rules have a basis independently of opinion or culture such that they apply to everyone 8. Benedict describes two main kinds of cultural differences. The first kind is where people we have labeled "abnormal" and unfit have a respected, though not necessarily central, place in other societies (Benedict, 1-2). Explain one of Benedict's examples of that kind of difference. Benedicts Argument: Different cultures have differing moral rules -What is abnormal and dysfunctional to us is okay or even praised in another culture -Something we think is incompatible with society, is the core of another culture EX→ 9. Benedict says, "The most spectacular illustrations of the extent to which normality may be culturally defined are those cultures where an abnormality of our culture is the cornerstone of their social structure" (3). First, explain what this sentence means. Then, pick one of the cultures she uses to illustrate this point (3-4), and explain how that culture's practices are supposed to support Benedict's claim. -What is abnormal and dysfunctional to us is okay or even praised in another culture, Something we think is incompatible with society, is the core of another culture. -Whats moral changes from culture, These differences show that culture profoundly influences our behavior, feelings, and judgment and We cannot be objective about morality The only basis for morality that we can see is culture. EX→ 12. Rachels says, “There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist” (7). Explain the examples he uses to support this claim. Some rules societies have in common that are essential to existence: -​ Care for their young -​ Without it, society will die out -​ Truth-telling -​ Without it, there is no communication, and society can't run -​ Prohibition on murder -​ Society depends on us feeling safe, otherwise people won't interact 14. King says (15) that we should obey just laws but disobey unjust laws. How does King believe we can objectively distinguish just laws from unjust laws (King, 16)? (Discussing King's examples from paragraphs 17-19 may be helpful, but it is most important to explain what he says in paragraph 16.) -​ Just Laws vs.: must be consistent with moral law or the law of God, rooted in eternal and natural law. Uplifts human personality. Treat people as human beings and as equal. Democratically enacted. Obeyed by all/ evenly applied -​ Unjust Laws: out of harmony with the moral law or the law of God, not rooted in eternal and natural law. Degrades ‘destroys the soul and damages’ human personality. Treats (some) people as objects. Not democratically enacted. Imposed on some people. Unevenly applied. 15. In class we raised several worries about Rachels (specifically, his claim that some rules are justified because society cannot exist without them, 7; Phil 230, 2024-08-28) and about King's claims re how we can objectively distinguish just laws from unjust laws (King, 16; Phil 230, 2024-08-30). Explain one of our worries about Rachels, and one of our worries about King. King’s Worries: -How much of this might be MLK’s culture talking -Some disagreements even between clergy -Based on God? Rachel’s Worries: for something to be an objective moral truth, is it enough, that society needs it? Seems like society can exist without prohibition on murder Being needed for society to persist, shouldn't be the only objective basis for moral rules 17. What does it mean to say that the precepts of natural law are vague, and that they are authoritative? What are the implications of them being vague, and of them being authoritative? Give an example to illustrate how the precepts might be used to criticize a society's law. (Class notes and the Aquinas explainer video and chart will be helpful here.) Precept of natural laws features A.​ Vague - not specific, humans must make more specific rules to regulate our societies. Societies need not have identical rules, B.​ Authoritative - human laws are only okay or just if consistent with precepts. Precepts enable us to evaluate society’s norms/laws etc. EX→ 19. Glaucon and Socrates agree there are three ways things can be good (Plato, 36). Explain what each is, and give two examples of each. Which kind of good is justice, according to Socrates? Glaucon’s Challenge Three ways that things can be good 1.​ Good for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else. (e.g. enjoyment and harmless pleasures) → ends  2.​ Good for its own sake, and also for the sake of its consequences aka something(s). (e.g. knowing, seeing, health, tasty food, physical training) → mixed ends and means 3.​ Good only for the sake of some other thing(s) and not for itself (e.g. a job you hate, taking medicine, chemotherapy) → means Socrates: → mixed ends and means Glaucon: → means 20. Glaucon describes "what justice is like and what its origins are" (Plato, 37-8). What four claims about human nature does he make there (or, rather, what four claims does he think most people believe)? 1.​ Self-interest 2.​ Being unjust benefits you 3.​ Social contract/ agreement 4.​ Compromise justice: 21. Suppose Glaucon's four claims about human nature are true. What, then, does Glaucon think we should do (Plato, 37)? What, then, is Glaucon implying about us & society? -​ He implies that since people are fundamentally driven by self-interest and view justice as a necessary compromise, they may naturally prioritize personal gain over moral considerations. 22. In class we discussed what people would do if they had a ring that would enable them to do as they please. What were the results -- would people generally behave justly or not? How does that relate to Glaucon's claims about human nature? -​ People would act selfishly and immorally when they have the ring, because they could never be caught or have to pay consequences, this aligns with glaucons idea that people are inherently immoral when laws and morality is not being judged -​ 23. What four things must all consequentialist ethical theories do? Why, then, can there be many different consequentialist theories? In your answer, be sure to identify the different possible kinds of accounts of the good, and at least three possible scopes. Any consequentialist theory says: 1.​ Bring about and promote good results 2.​ Tell you what counts as ‘good’ -​ Accounts of the good may be: positive: something to bring about negative: something to avoid monistic: just one thing to promote or avoid pluralistic: more than one thing to p or a^ 3.​ Tell you whether to maximize the good or not (ex. not satisficing) 4.​ Tell you for who or what to bring about the good for (scope of concern) -​ Just you: egoism -​ You and a few that you care about: favoritism -​ Citizens: nationalism  -​ Race: racism -​ All humans, sentient beings, living beings, and all beings: Why can there be so many: because there are so many different accounts of the good, positive, negative, pluralistic, monistic, 24. How does classical utilitarianism (CU) do the four things consequentialist theories do? Why does Bentham think CU's account of the good is correct (Bentham, 1)? Why is it correct: pleasure and pain are linked to every action and decision we make- they are the only thing we care about and are the only ends, so everything else we care about we only care if they bring us pleasure or pain 25. State the Principle of Utility, either from class or from Bentham's or Mill’s text (Bentham, 1; Mill calls it the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” 1). What steps should you take to apply the PU properly? (Bentham's description in section V on pp. 3-4 may be helpful here.) Good = promoting pleasure and avoiding pain -​ Has 1 principle: the principle of utility (PU) -​ Act so as to bring about the most pleasure and least pain. You can for all sentient beings affected by your action How to apply: a.​ identify your options b.​ Identify sentient beings that may be affected by each option c.​ Estimate the impact on their pleasures and pain d.​ Choose the best option → demanding -​ Following physical activity well requires a lot of information that may be hard or impossible to get 26. Explain why classical utilitarianism has the "accounting problem" we discussed in class. How does Bentham respond to the problem (Bentham, 4, section VI)? Accounting problem: applying the principle of utility properly, requires lots of information that may be hard to get -​ Apt to make bad decisions -​ Makes following the principle of utility unpleasant Whose decisions have wider impact? -​ Presidents, senators, legislators -​ Business leaders -​ Military leaders -​ Treasures (cabinet-level officials/ advisors) -​ Influencers and celebrities → people with platforms Spiderman phrase: With great power comes great responsibility 28. What is the "swine problem"? In other words, why has utilitarianism been accused of being "a doctrine worthy only of swine" (Mill, 1)? [Questions will be added as we go.] Swine Problem: if quantity is all that matters, the things that seem less moral (rolling stones) may turn out to be more moral (than Mother Teresa) Mill’s Response to the Swine Problem: rank by quality - higher pleasures are qualitatively better than lower pleasures -​ We’d prefer a little higher pleasure to a lot of lower pleasures Higher Pleasure ​ Lower Pleasures -pleasures of intellect​ -mere sensation (sex, drugs) -feelings and imagination ​ - -moral sentiments ​ ​- Pig Satisfied​ Human Being Dissatisfied -no higher pleasers at all​ -small amount of higher pleasures -have all lower pleasures you can handle ​ -otherwise discontented 30. Explain Mill's response to utilitarianism's "accounting problem." What does he say most of us may do, most of the time? How does Mill argue that some people have more responsibility than others (Mill, 5)? (In class this was compared to the Spider-Man Rule.) Finally, what concerns were raised in class about Mill's solution? Mills solution: people in power have more responsibility to think more broadly, not small individuals with not much influence. In fact, people in power often think in very self-serving ways and fail to think as broadly as the principle of utility requires 31. Nozick gives three reasons why, he says, we would not plug in to the Experience Machine (Nozick, 43-4). What are they? If Nozick is right that we would not plug in to the Experience Machine and he is right about why we would not, how would that suggest a serious problem with classical utilitarianism? (The argument from the explainer video or the one given in class 2024-09-18 will be useful here.) How is the experience machine a problem for utilitarianism? 1.​ The experience machine would give you more pleasure and less pain than real-life 2.​ So, if pleasure and pain were all you cared about, then you would plug in 3.​ But, Nozick says, you would NOT plugin 4.​ So, because of 1,2 and 3… you don't only care about pleasure and pain\ 3- Why (per Nozick) would you not plug in? 1.​ We want to actually do things, not just experience them 2.​ We want to be a certain kind of person, and according to Nozick if you stay in the machine, you won't be 3.​ The machine would limit you to man-made reality, which is not good enough/deep enough for us 32. Explain why utilitarianism would say that, in Le Guin’s imaginary city of Omelas, it is morally right for the citizens to persecute the child. Why does this make utilitarianism objectionable? Le Guin- OMelas  -​ Far more pleasure than any real city -​ All the pleasure/ joy depends on the deliberately inflicted suffering of an innocent child -​ One kind word to the child: good/joy/pleasure of the entire city would be destroyed Utilitarianism says: principle of utility demands that the child's suffering continues as it is beneficial to the greater good (bring more pleasure than pain) 33. What is the "moral conservative" objection to consequentialism (Nielsen, 219)? What is Nielsen's strategy for countering this objection (Phil 230, 2024-09-20)? Moral Conservative -​ Objective to consequentialism: There are some acts that are absolutely right or wrong regardless of the consequences → example: deliberately harming the innocent -Neilsen’s strategy for defending consequentialism: in magistrate-type cases, consequentialism doesn't require harming the innocent -Fatman case: In fatman-type cases, consequentialism does require harming the innocent, but you should agree that that is the correct thing to do. Or you are even less morally correct than consequentialists 35. Nielsen says consequentialism may clearly require harming the innocent sometimes -- for example, in the case of the fat man stuck in the cave mouth (Nielsen, 222). How does he argue that this is the right thing to do here (228-30)? (Your answer will be better if you discuss how Nielsen responds to concerns about callousness, using the fat man as a means, and/or inhumanity, 228-30.) How satisfactory is his argument regarding this case? Give the strongest reasons you can to agree with you. -Neilsen’s strategy for defending consequentialism: in magistrate-type cases, consequentialism doesn't require harming the innocent -Fatman case: In fatman-type cases, consequentialism does require harming the innocent, but you should agree that that is the correct thing to do. Or you are even less morally correct than consequentialists -Magistrate Case: -frame and hang the innocent man ​ -dont hang the innocent man +​ Get rid of useless man ​ -the mob runs wild ​ +​ No riots ​ -property damage -​ Innocent man is killed ​ -people killed and injured -​ Mistrust courts, they may also create mob action -​ Precedent Nielsen’s point: people will discover that the innocent man was framed Consequentialism may seem to require harming the innocent, but really, it does not  -Fatman Case: - blow him up with dynamite ​ - Dont blow him up - kill 1 innocent (fat) man ​ + 1 innocent (fat) man lives +​ save 5 other innocent people ​ - 5 innocents drown ​ Moral conservatism says you must not blow him up ​ Consequentialism says to blow up the fat man CONSEQUNTIALISM → Classical utilitarianism 36. Define the following terms as they are used in this course: “act utilitarianism,” “rule utilitarianism” (Hospers, 4, 10; class notes). Act utilitarianism: Ask, what does the principle of utility tell me to do now? → whatever the answer is, you do it Rule utilitarianism: Ask, what rule would maximize utility if everyone followed it? →follow that rule What does a good rule look like? -​ Simple, (don't kill) bad, because there may be exceptions that increase utility -​ Qualifier: don't kill unless killings maximises happiness: 38. According to Hospers, what is wrong with having simple rules such as “do not lie” or “do not kill” (Hospers, 8-9, 10)? Why does he think it would also be bad to have rules like this: “do not ____, except where it will do the most good” (11-2)? What sort of rules does Hospers think we should have (9)? What does a good rule look like? -​ Simple, (don't kill) bad, because there may be exceptions that increase utility -​ Qualifier: don't kill unless killing maximizes happiness: ​ Hospers believes we should have flexible rules based on ethical principles. These rules should allow for consideration of the specific circumstances, enabling people to make better moral decisions. This way, individuals can think through the consequences of their actions rather than just following strict rules. 39. What is "negative responsibility" (Williams, 2)? (He calls it "negative responsibility" or the "strong doctrine of negative responsibility.") Suppose Jim decides not to shoot one Indian when Pedro invites him to (cf. Williams, 3-4). According to consequentialism, how responsible is Jim when Pedro orders twenty Indians shot? -​ negative responsibility: you are just as responsible for what you allow to happen as for what you do (because results are what matter) -​ Therefore, Pedro is just as responsible for killing 20 people as he would've been for killing 1 40. According to Williams, what does utilitarianism say George should do about that job offer from the weapons lab (Williams, 3-4)? Why does Williams believe utilitarianism is wrong about that (2-3, 4-9)? (Yes this is challenging. Your answer should include the things Williams thinks are important in this case: negative responsibility (2-3), the impact of other people’s decisions on our projects and happiness (4-7), and the impact on our integrity (7-9).) -​ Utilitarianism: George should take the job as it would produce the greatest good as he could provide for his family and slow down the production of weapons -​ Why utilitarianism is wrong: 41. How do we normally think about giving money to help needy people? Why does Singer say we are mistaken (235)? -​ Our usual attitude is that aiding the needy is ‘charity’ → good to do but not wrong not to do ​ Singer’s Argument: assumption → suffering and death from lack of food, clothing, and medical care are bad -​ Strong principle: If we can prevent something bad without doing anything comparably bad, we should. -​ -​ 42. What is Singer's "moderate" principle (Singer, 231)? How does Singer use the example of the child drowning in the pond to illustrate this principle? -​ Moderate principle: if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything morally significant, we should (non-maximizing) -​ He asks us to imagine that we are walking by a pond and see a child drowning. According to the moderate principle, we would have a moral obligation to save the child, even if it requires us to ruin our clothes or be late for an appointment because the cost of doing so (ruining our clothes or losing time) is minimal compared to the importance of saving the child’s life 43. Singer says that following even his "moderate" principle could affect "consumer society" (241-2). What impact does he say it might have? Why does he think that could be a good thing (in addition to helping the needy)? -​ Singer argues that following his moderate principle could significantly impact "consumer society" by encouraging people to spend less on non-essential luxuries and redirect more of their resources to help those in need. This would mean individuals would prioritize helping others over accumulating material goods. He believes this could be a good thing not only because it helps the needy but also because it would reduce excessive consumerism, leading to a simpler, more ethical way of life, with less focus on consumption and more on compassion and social responsibility. -​ Better Off -​ l -​ l -​ l​ →​ Should be willing to sacrifice if need be ​ -​ l -​ l  -​ l -​ Dire need -​ Moderate principle: if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything morally significant, we should (non-maximizing) -​ -​ Better Off -​ l​ whatevers not morally significant (should we be willing to sacrifice if needed) -​ l -​ l ​ → -​ l -​ l​ whatever is morally significant -​ Dire need 44. Among Harwood’s eleven objections to utilitarianism are that it fails to take promises seriously enough (#4; Harwood, 6-7); it overstates our duties to animals (#8; Harwood, 11); and that it panders to bigots and sadists (#9; Harwood, 11-2). Pick one of these objections and explain it. That is, put the objection in your own words and make clear how it is supposed to give us a reason to reject utilitarianism. -​ One of Harwood's objections to utilitarianism is that it fails to take promises seriously enough (#4). This objection argues that utilitarianism, in its focus on maximizing overall happiness or well-being, overlooks the moral importance of keeping promises. In many situations, we make commitments to others, and those promises create moral obligations that should be honored, even if breaking them would lead to better overall outcomes. -​ Harwood’s point is that utilitarianism can justify breaking promises if doing so would produce a greater overall good. For example, if breaking a promise would lead to a large benefit (like saving many lives), utilitarianism might say that it is morally permissible or even required to break that promise. However, this undermines the trust and reliability that promises are supposed to foster in relationships. Harwood argues that this is a serious flaw because it conflicts with our common-sense moral intuition that keeping promises is inherently valuable and should be respected, regardless of the consequences. 45. When we discussed Harwood's objections to utilitarianism, we noted some moral intuitions that many of us share (Phil 230, 2024-10-04). What were they? How might they conflict with each other? -​ Moral Intuitions: -​ justice requires punishing the murderer → deontological -​ Cure for cancer would save many lives → Consequentialist → neither is entirely satisfying → what to do when intuitions conflict 46. Harrison and Harwood (in Harwood, 9-10) object to rule utilitarianism (RU) on several grounds. In class, they were presented as a dilemma: either (a) RU always says to do the same thing as act utilitarianism, or (b) at least sometimes RU says to do something different from AU; but RU is objectionable either way. Explain this dilemma, being sure to make clear why both (a) and (b) are said to imply problems for RU. Dilemma for Rule Utilitarianism: -​ R.U. tells you to, in every situation, do just what A.U. would say to do Either: -​ At least sometimes, R.U. tells you to do something different than A.U. 1.​ R.U. would make all the same mistakes as A.U., in other words, there'd be no improvement over A.U. → but we were told that R.U. would be better. (R.U. has less of an accounting problem) 2.​ But A.U. says to maximize utility, so whenever R.U. doesn't equal or match A.U., R.U. fails to maximize utility. → R.U. is incoherent or rule worship. (But at least there are cases where R.U. does better) 47. Lecture discussed three types of deontological ethical theories, which were distinguished by how we are supposed to know what is right and wrong (Phil 230, 2024-10-07). Identify and define these three types. Of these three, which type is Kant's theory? -​ Deontological: How do we know right from wrong? 1.​ Divine command: some divine being or beings inform us directly or indirectly 2.​ Intuition: you just know (gut feelings) 3.​ Reason: if you think carefully and correctly you can figure it out (Kants) Character→ Virtue ethical theories Action→ Deontological ethical theories -​ Rules -​ Duties -​ Rights Results→ consequentialist ethical theories 48. Kant says this about the nature of moral laws and the proper sort of justification for them: That there must be [a “pure” moral] philosophy is evident from the common idea of duty and of moral laws. Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid, i.e., is to be valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. He must admit that the command, “Thou shalt not lie,” does not hold only for men, as if other rational beings had no need to abide by it, and so with all the other moral laws properly so-called. And he must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the world in which man is placed, but must be sought...solely in the concepts of pure reason.... (Kant, 1). Without using Kant's words, explain how Kant argues here that the justification of moral laws must come from pure reason. We have a ‘common idea’ of what it is to be a moral law -​ If X is a moral law, then X carries absolute necessity -​ i.e., if X is a moral law, then X applies to all rational beings -​ I.e. if X is a moral law, then every rational being should follow X, and they should follow it because they're rationale 49. What does Kant mean by "rational being"? Why are rational beings not necessarily human? Why are some human beings not rational beings? Rational beings: can reason, capable of higher thoughts, are capable of being held responsible → are able to know right from wrong, and ability to conform to the moral law But then, the justification for X, must come from pure reason, NOT from human nature or circumstances -​ Moral laws apply to us because we are rational, not because we are human 50. Given Kant's commitment to justifying moral laws by pure reason, explain why Kant would reject some other views we have looked at in the course. Pick two of the following: (a) cultural relativism; (b) Aquinas' natural law theory, (c) Glaucon's social contract; or (d) Bentham & Mill's classical utilitarianism. Identify specific things about each one you choose that would lead Kant to reject it. -​ Cultural realitivisim: -​ Kant believes that moral laws must be universal. This means that the same moral rules should apply to all rational beings, no matter where they live or what culture they belong to. -​ Cultural relativism contradicts this because it says that different cultures can have different moral standards, so what’s "right" in one culture could be "wrong" in another. For Kant, this isn't possible because moral laws must be the same for everyone. 51. Lecture discussed why our motives are important in ethics (Phil 230, 2024-10-09). Give an example of some action, and explain how having different motives could make that act morally right or morally wrong. (You could use an example from class such as your boss giving you a gift, or make up another example.) -​ Importance of motive: Firefighter rescues the child from the burning house: -​ Nonmoral motives: paycheck, recognition, hot mom, he started the fire, kink?, Boss gives you a gift: -​ Moral motives: job performance reward, celebration, to be nice -​ Nonmoral motives: soften the blow of layoffs, hitting on you, money laundering, boss wants leverage 52. According to Kant, what are "inclinations" (Phil 230, 2024-10-09)? Why does Kant say that there may never have been a truly moral action (7)? To answer this, it will help to explain how inclinations are (a) unreliable guides (Kant, 1) and (b) sneaky (that is, unseen by us; 7). Finally, what does Kant think a truly moral action would be? -​ Inclinations: -What they are to Kant → human nature is limited, vulnerable, and needy. SO we have ‘inclinations’ or all of our desires, fears, and instincts regarding our safety and happiness -they are unreliable guides for doing the right thing -inclinations are sneaky, you may/ do act on them without being aware of it Truly Moral Action: -​ Kant distinguishes between acting ‘in accordance with’ duty -​ Conforming to the law, but motivated at least partly by inclinations -​ Acting ‘from duty’ conforming to the moral law only because its the right thing to do -​ Example: with inclinations, all go one way and duty goes the other way and you do your duty/ follow the moral law 53. Explain how Kant's categorical imperative (specifically the formula of universal law) logically follows from the idea of a moral law (Phil 230, 2024-10-21). Then, using either Kant's wording or our rewording of it, state Kant's formula of universal law. -​ Kant: act only according to a max, M when you can, at the same time, will that it be a universal law -​ Categorical Imperative: a command with no exceptions, and applies all the time to every rational being (formula of universal law) - if X is a moral law, then X applies to all rational beings → So it is OK to follow X, it is OK for every rational being to follow X → so it's only OK for you to follow a maxim if it is also OK for all rational beings to do it 54. What is a maxim? (Feldman discusses maxims on pp. 2-4, but the discussion in class 2024-10-21 may be more accessible, and class notes include a definition.) Give 2 examples of maxims. A maxim = a description of a rational being's action that includes: -​ The act they are considering doing -​ The goal or motive they want to achieve by doing so -​ The circumstances 4 stage tests were applying to the categorical imperative 1.​ State the maxim that you are thinking of acting on. “I shall…” (act, goal, circumstances) 2.​ Restate maxim as a universal law, instead of shalling her mother back. Instead say everyone or all rational beings shall…. EX 1: robbing a bank, for money, when you want money: the banks would not be open because all rational beings would know, meaning the goal of obtaining money isn't attainable, so this is not possible, you may not act on that maxim EX 2: Lie, promise to pay money back to someone, deceive someone into giving you money, need money but know I can't repay: No one would lend money to anybody because they know they would not get it back, as all rational beings would know. Therefore the goal is unattainable and you may not act on that maxim. 55. In class we discussed the maxim, "When I need money I shall rob a bank to get it." Why does this maxim fail? (In other words, explain why it fails the 4-stage test given in class 2024-10-23.) -​ EX 1: robbing a bank, for money, when you want money: the banks would not be open because all rational beings would know, meaning the goal of obtaining money isn't attainable, so this is not possible, you may not act on that maxim 56. Kant gives an example of someone making a false promise (Kant, 11, #2, from "Another man in need..."). Using the 4-stage test given in class (2024-10-23), explain how to test it. According to Kant, why does this maxim fail? -​ Lie, promise to pay money back to someone, deceive someone into giving you money, need money but know I can't repay: No one would lend money to anybody because they know they would not get it back, as all rational beings would know. Therefore the goal is unattainable and you may not act on that maxim. 57. Lecture included Kant's example of refusing to give to the needy (Kant, 11-12, #4, from "A fourth man..."). What is the maxim in this case? According to Kant, why does it fail? How is the failure here different from the failure in the false promise case? -​ EX 3: refrain from giving to those in need, and refrain from stealing or envy, help create a world where everyone gets by on their own efforts or God's grace, when there are people in need and you could give: Yes this is a possibility, but it cannot pass because all human beings are in need. Willing that nobody will help anybody does not work. 58. Using the four-stage test for applying Kant’s formula of universal law, determine whether George may take the job. To do this well you will have to explain each stage carefully, especially stage 3 and, if you get to it, 4. -​ 59. According to lecture, what would we like to get from any good ethical theory? -​ 60. Feldman criticizes Kant’s formula of universal law for permitting some actions which really are wrong (Feldman, 14-5). Give an example of this--one of Feldman’s, or one from class, or your own--and explain how it demonstrates this problem. Importance of motive: Firefighter rescues the child from the burning house: -​ Nonmoral motives: paycheck, recognition, hot mom, he started the fire, kink?, Boss gives you a gift: -​ Moral motives: job performance reward, celebration, to be nice -​ Nonmoral motives: soften the blow of layoffs, hitting on you, money laundering, boss wants leverage 61. Feldman argues that Kant’s formula of universal law is faulty because it forbids some actions which really should be allowed (Feldman, 15). Give an example of this, and explain how it demonstrates this problem. (The example may be one of Feldman’s, or one from class, or your own.) -​ One example is lying to save a life. According to Kant, you can't lie because you can't make a rule where everyone lies all the time (since lying would break trust). So, if a murderer asks where a person is hiding, Kant’s rule says you shouldn’t lie to protect that person, because it wouldn't work if everyone lied. Feldman points out that this is a flaw in Kant’s thinking because in this situation, lying to save a life seems morally okay or even the right thing to do. 62. State Kant's categorical imperative, in the formula of humanity (FH) (Kant, 14; O'Neill, 259). Second, explain what Kant means by "humanity" here. Finally, identify the two distinct duties the FH implies we have (cf. O'Neill, 260). -​ Categorical Imperative: a command with no exceptions, and applies all the time to every rational being (formula of universal law) Kant: 1 moral law → the categorical imperative -​ 2 formulations -​ universal law → 4-stage test -​ humanity -​ “Humanity” → refers to the rational nature of human beings, particularly their capacity for autonomy, rational decision-making, and moral agency. Kant views humans as ends in themselves because they have intrinsic worth due to their ability to reason and make moral choices. When Kant says to treat humanity as an end 63. According to Kant, what is the difference between treating someone as a means and treating them merely (or "simply") as means (O'Neill, §20, pp. 260-2)? What makes it OK to treat others as means, but not OK to treat them merely as means? (It may be helpful to consider some of O'Neill's examples regarding needy people.) -​ Respect vs. no respect (deciding for themselves) -​ it is OK to treat someone as a means if you respect their autonomy and treat them as an end in themselves, meaning you consider their goals and consent. -​ It is not OK to treat someone merely as a means because that disrespects their autonomy and dignity, reducing them to a tool for your purposes. This violates Kant's idea that every person should be treated as an end in themselves, not just as a means to someone else’s goal. 64. According to Kant, what does it mean to treat humanity in ourselves and others as an end (O'Neill, §21, p. 262)? What sorts of things might this require us to do, or not do? Treat (humanity) rational beings in yourself or others always as an end and never as a mere means ENDS AND MEANS  1.​ Good for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else. (e.g. enjoyment and harmless pleasures) → ends 2.​ Good for its own sake, and also for the sake of its consequences aka something(s). (e.g. knowing, seeing, health, tasty food, physical training) → mixed ends and means 3.​ Good only for the sake of some other thing(s) and not for itself (e.g. a job you hate, taking medicine, chemotherapy) → means Treating people as means: using them to achieve your goals → morally bad: using someone in a way they can't consent to (violence, coercion, deception) Treating people as ends: treat others as having intrinsic value 65. Suppose you are wondering whether you may rob a bank. Would Kant's Formula of Humanity say that you may? Explain how come. Then, suppose you are wondering whether you may withdraw all your money from the bank when the stock market reaches 40,000. Again, would Kant's formula of Humanity permit this? Explain how come. -​ Robbing a bank is not allowed because it treats people as mere means. -​ Withdrawing money is okay because it may treat people as a means, but not merely a means, which is OK. 66. Using the example of choosing whether to keep a lunch date or give aid to an accident victim (Ross, 2), explain what Ross thinks is wrong with Kantianism. To Decide: “Study the situation as carefully as I can” and “form an opinion” → identify the relationships and what duties are relevant in those relationships, then consider which duty(ies) are overriding -​ Example: a lunch date/ accident → relationships: friend = promise keeping accident victim = beneficence ✩✩✩ -​ 67. Using the example of choosing whether to keep a lunch date or aid an accident victim (Ross, 2), explain what Ross thinks is wrong with utilitarianism. Be sure to explain how Ross thinks that utilitarianism oversimplifies our relationships with others, and how Ross's view is different (2-3). -​ Utilitarianism treats all duties the same and only focuses on outcomes. It doesn't care about things like keeping promises or being loyal to people close to you. -​ For Ross, relationships matter. You might have a duty to help the accident victim, but you also have a duty to keep your promise to your friend. Some duties (like promises to loved ones) are more important than just maximizing happiness. -​ Ross believes that moral duties are more complicated and that we need to balance them depending on the situation, giving more weight to things like promises and relationships. 68. Given the problems he identifies with Kantianism and utilitarianism, what features does Ross think a proper ethical theory should have (Phil 230, 2024-11-01)? -​ Proper ethical theory per Ross: -​ Give right answer -​ Have multiple duties -​ Recognize multiple relationships -​ No absolute duties -​ Kantianism: gave wrong answer -​ Util: Fails to match how we think -​ Because oversimplifies 69. According to Ross, what does it mean to say our duties are "prima facie"(Ross, 3, 5; Phil 230, 2024-11-01)? Identify six of our prima facie duties, according to Ross (3-4). -​ So, prima facie duties are conditional and not final. You must decide which duty to follow based on the circumstances, and some duties may be more important than others depending on the situation. LIST -​ Fidelity -​ Promise keeping -​ Truth-telling -​ Reparation (making amends) -​ Justice -​ Gratitude -​ Beneficence (moral obligation to do good to others) -​ Dont harm others 70. How does Ross think we should decide what to do (3; notes from 2024-11-04 will be helpful)? -​ To Decide: “Study the situation as carefully as I can” and “form an opinion” → identify the relationships and what duties are relevant in those relationships, then consider which duty(ies) are overriding -​ Example: a lunch date/ accident → relationships: friend = promise-keeping accident victim = beneficence ✩✩✩ 71. Suppose you are George. Adopt Ross’s ethical theory. Explain whether you would take the job or not, and how you would arrive at that decision. To do so, first identify at least three relationships that are salient in this situation, and at least three prima facie duties arising from those relationships which apply in this situation. (By "at least three" I mean that is the minimum for a passable answer.) Given those duties to those people, and considering the situation, which duty (or duties) is overriding in this case? Why?  -​ Relationship with family: Promise Keeping -​ Relationship with the friend who got you the job: Gratitude -​ Relationship with himself: Beneficence -​ His Promise Keeping or Beneficence would take priority over Gratitude in this case because If the promise is crucial, he should prioritize Promise Keeping and might turn down the job since breaking the promise would violate his moral duty to his family, which outweighs other considerations in this case. 72. In class we discussed reasons why we do bad things (see 2024-11-13 class notes). Identify three of them. Explain why they are failures of character rather than failures of our ethical theories. How does this suggest that virtue theory has some value? -​ Personal Gain -​ Lack of Self Control -​ Ignorance -​ Failures of character and not ethical theory as ethical theories may help you decide whats is right and wrong, but they cannot force you to act that way, it is a personal decision. -​ Suggests that virtue theory is important as it focuses on becoming a better person—someone who naturally makes good decisions. 73. Describe the "parts" Plato thinks the soul has (Plato, 129-31). According to Plato, what is the proper division of labor among the soul's parts (131)--in other words, what 'job' should each part do? -​ Reason (the rational part): This part seeks truth and wisdom. It is responsible for thinking, making decisions, and guiding the soul with logic and understanding. -​ Spirit (the spirited part): This part is related to emotions like anger, ambition, and courage. It helps us pursue goals and defend ourselves, and it can motivate action. -​ Appetite (the appetitive part): This part deals with desires, like hunger, thirst, and other physical pleasures. It is responsible for our basic needs and wants. 74. Describe Plato's ideal soul. What are the virtues it would have, and which part(s) have them? Just Soul -​ Intellect: -​ Will only do well if it has some wisdom -​ Spitied part: -​ (conscious) -​ Appetite: courage. -​ Intellect 75. According to Aristotle, why is happiness super important in ethics (Aristotle 1-2)? In your explanation, include why Aristotle thinks happiness is "complete," "self-sufficient," and the "most choiceworthy" good. Why, then, is it important to know what happiness is (Aristotle, 1)? Why happiness is super important in ethics: -​ Everyone wants it -​ It is “complete” -​ It is an “end” → pursued for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else -​ Self-sufficient: all by itself it makes life choice worthy -​ Whatever else you want, you want happiness -​ Dont need anything other than happiness, most valuable 76. According to Aristotle, what is human happiness (3)? How does Aristotle figure that out? (I.e., explain the function argument, pp. 2-3.) -​ Aristotle’s function argument: -​ Our parts have functions so, so do we -​ So what is the function of a human being? -​ Living → no -​ Nutrition and growth → no -​ Sense perception → no -​ Reason → yes -​ Being a happy human crucially involves reasoning well over one's lifetime -​ Happiness over a lifetime → an activity -​ Happiness is acting well (in accordance with reason) over a lifetime 77. Aristotle explains why "what is true of crafts is not true of virtue" (4). How do they differ? What three criteria does Aristotle say must be met for you to be "in the right state" (4)? Crafts: aim at producing an external result Virtue: decisions consisting in a means aim at developing good character -​ Defined by reason -​ Between extremes of excess and deficiency Requires: -​ Knowing you are doing it -​ Choosing the right action for its own sake -​ needs to be a firm habit 78. Aristotle defines virtue as a state where (a) you decide and your decision (b) consists of a mean; and this mean (c) is relative to you, (d) is defined by reason, and (e) is a mean between two vices -- one of excess and one of deficiency (Aristotle, 6). Pick one of the virtues Aristotle discusses on pp. 7-8. For each point (a) through (e), explain how that virtue would exemplify that point. (You might think of it this way: explain how each of those points is manifested in a person who possesses that virtue.) Finally, explain why someone is likely to be better off behaving along the mean than not. -​ Courage  -​ a) Deciding: decides to face fear or danger such as standing up for what is right, even when it’s risky. Their decision is based on rational judgment, not on impulsive reactions or blind fear. -​ (b) Consisting of a mean: finding the mean between two extremes—recklessness (excessive fearlessness) and cowardice (excessive fear). -​ (c) Relative to you: The mean of courage is relative to the individual—what is courageous for one person might not be the same for another, depending on their abilities, fears, and context. For example, what is courageous for a soldier might differ from what is courageous for a teacher, based on their roles and responsibilities. -​ (d) Defined by reason: Courage is determined by reason, as the person must rationally assess the situation and decide what the right level of risk is, considering the moral importance of their action. -​ (e) Mean between two vices: Courage is the mean between recklessness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). -​ Why Someone is Better Off Behaving Along the Mean: -​ Someone who behaves with courage is likely to be better off because they can confront challenges without being paralyzed by fear (cowardice) or engaging in dangerous, unnecessary risks (recklessness). They are able to make decisions that align with moral values and practical reasons. 79. Given Aristotle's conception of virtue, explain why becoming a virtuous person is very challenging. In other words, why does Aristotle say "it is...hard work to be excellent" (9)? -​ According to Aristotle, virtue is about finding the mean between extremes, and doing this consistently in different situations takes a lot of effort. It’s not enough to simply know what’s right; you must also train yourself to make the right decisions, resist temptations, and act in harmony with reason. Since everyone has different strengths, weaknesses, and circumstances, achieving virtue involves personal growth and continuous effort over time, making it a difficult and lifelong process. P-01. From the Gene Modification presentation: What is the difference between somatic editing and germline editing? Which of the two is more ethically controversial, and why? -​ Germline editing: This involves editing the genes in germline cells (sperm or egg cells) or in the early stages of an embryo. Changes are passed to future generations -​ Somatic editing: This involves editing the genes in somatic (body) cells, which are any cells in the body except for sperm or egg cells. These changes affect only the individual who receives the treatment -​ Germline editing is much more ethically controversial than somatic editing because consent cant be given, and changes are permanent. -​ P-02. From the Gene Modification presentation: Give an example of how gene editing may be used for medical necessity, and an example of how it might be used for enhancement. Briefly explain two of the ways that gene editing may lead to inequality.  -​ Medical benefits: disease prevention, elimination of genetic disorders -​ Enhancements: going beyond medical needs, encreased muscle mass, physical traits, and mental traits -​ Inequality: accessible only to the wealthy and social intolerance of imperfection P-03. From the Child Labor presentation: From the presentation, identify the following: how many child laborers globally in 2017; how many exposed to hazardous conditions; what percentage of them are 5-11 years old; and two of the reasons given for why child labor persists. -​ Globally: 152 million -​ Exposed to hazardous conditions: 73 million -​ 5-11 years old: 48% -​ Why it persists: poverty, and lack of legal protection P-04. From the Child Labor presentation: Briefly explain one of the reasons given in the presentation in favor of continuing child labor, and one of the reasons for eliminating it. -​ In favor: children will find other nonethical ways of gaining money (prostitution) -​ Elimination: Increase employment opportunities for adults P-05. From the Drug Policy presentation: According to the presentation, what are three things that shape the legality and social perception of drugs? -​ Harmful health effects, addictiveness, social costs (poverty) -​ Negative stigma from interest groups and government bodies -​ Medical uses/benefits P-06. From the Drug Policy presentation: What is the Portuguese approach to drug policy? According to the presentation, what are the results? -​ Portugal decriminalized drug use: -​ Emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment -​ Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDT’s)5 -​ Fewer arrests, more referrals for drug treatment -​ Less strain on the criminal justice system P-07. From the Assisted Suicide presentation: What are the legal requirements for PAS? -​ Must be a legal adult with a terminal disease that cannot be cured -​ Prognosis of less than 6 months -​ Requires two separate requests to a physician a certain duration of time apart depending on the state -​ Requires a second opinion from another doctor13 -​ Have the mental capacity to rationally decide towards PAS and the physical capacity to carry out the action P-08. From the Assisted Suicide presentation: What is Commercial Assisted Suicide (CAS)? The presentation discussed drawbacks and benefits of CAS; briefly explain one of each.  -​ CAS: the practice of providing services of assisted suicide for financial profit. Assistance can include services like counseling and the process of dying. -​ Drawback: In the case of an error in the procedure who should be held accountable? -​ Benefit: Financial flexibility P-09. From the Last Man presentation: What is the principle of "basic human chauvinism" (Routley, 207) and why is it important in environmental ethics? -​ one should be able to do what he wishes, providing: -​ (1) that he does not harm others and -​ (2) that he is not likely to harm himself irreparably -​ It is important as it is challenged by environmental ethics. Nature has intrinsic value - value independent of human reliance- -​ P-10. From the Last Man presentation: On the spectrum of moral considerability, what is the anthropocentric view? What is the ecocentric view? -​ Anthropocentric: Only human life is morally considerable because x, y, z... -​ Ecocentric: All life and systems(species, ecosystems) are morally considerable because x, y, z.. P-11. From the Torture in War presentation: How is physical torture different from psychological torture? For each type, identify two of its techniques. -​ Physical: Infliction of severe pain through physical contact (blunt force trauma, beatings, penetration) -​ Psychological: mental pain and suffering (harmful heat conditions, sensory deprivation) P-12. From the Torture in War presentation: What was the "alternative idea for an ethical use of torture" in the presentation? Identify two of the objections raised against it. -​ Everyone starts with a right to be free from torture, but those who place others in danger forfeit that right -​ Terrorists have the choice to end the torture by giving up the information being sought after -​ Objections to this Method -​ The argument doesn't morally justify torture; it simply describes a situation when people might find it acceptable. -​ Using guilt to limit torture could sound acceptable, but it conflicts with the logic of consequentialism, which won't respect such limits.