Ethics Final Exam Study Guide PDF

PHIL1030 Ethics FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE Part 1. Mackie Reflections: What is “Logical positivism” or “logical empiricism”: an approach that argues that ethical statements only have meaning if they can be verified through empirical ev...

PHIL1030 Ethics FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE Part 1. Mackie Reflections: What is “Logical positivism” or “logical empiricism”: an approach that argues that ethical statements only have meaning if they can be verified through empirical evidence What are values that members of logical positivism or logical empiricism have: meaningfulness, emotivism, and expressivism Meaningfulness: the verifiability criteria: A sentence, proposition, or belief is meaningful if and only if it could (if true) be verified based on experience. Emotivism: Ethical sentences are merely expressions of emotion. Expressivism: Ethical sentences are expressions of an attitude, though a more complicated attitude than an emotion. Non-Cognitivism: Ethical expressions cannot be true or false, even if they appear to be declarative sentences. Mackie: we are called to by values…there’s no objective value (what this means is that while humans might feel compelled to act based on certain values, there is no inherent/ objective “right” or “wrong” in the universe) Ex: we think monogamy is right because our culture thinks its correct.. It’s not inherently right or wrong Thesis of “internalism” or “motivational internalism”: recognition of a potential action as right motivates the person to engage in that action. Mackies does not say this expliticty but suggests this idea Ethical Realism: the view that moral truths or norms are relative to cultures or individuals. Mackie acknowledges cultural and individual differences in moral codes but goes further. Moral Realism: that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs or practices Moral skepitimsm: there are no objective moral truths at all, not just that they are culturally contingent Mackie’s 3 core arguments against objective values: argument from relativity, epistemological argument from queerness, metaphysical argument from queerness 1. Argument from relativity: Mackie does not explicitly endorse ethical realism, however his position leans heavily towards it. “That way round”- means that the relationship between people's beliefs or practices and the moral values they ascribe to them. What is he endorsing- moral values are subjective and culturally constructed The alternative view - Moral realism The objection he considers in the next paragraph:- Universalism; just bc there is a diversity of moral beliefs doesn’t mean that there are NO moral truths. 2. The EPISTEMOLOGICAL argument from queerness: How do we know truths abt morality? Do we have a moral sense? Moral truths are seen as normative; they describe what ought to be done instead rather than describing what is. Therefore, it is not observable or measurable. Economic/biological facts are empirical because we have evidence, can be observed, measured Moral facts are often considered to be non-empircal, involving reaasining that goes beyond the observable world. If moral truths are subjective, then we would need an ability to detect non-empircal truths. Alternative views- Anti-realism; we don’t need a moral sense because moral truths DO NOT exist independently. Morality is a human construct and we “know” truths by understanding cultural norms/tendancies. 3. The METAPHYSICAL argument from queerness: Moral facts are strange- because if moral facts existed, they would be very different from other kinds of facts we are familiar with, specifically scientific facts. moral facts are "strange" because they- ARE SUPPOSED TO CALL TO US, INDEPENDENT OF DESIRES Are inherently normative (something is is naturally/fundamentay based on established standards/rules. Seem to motivate action intrinsically. Exist outside the natural world and cannot be explained or reduced to scientific truths.  Part 2. Nozick – the Basics The Entitlement Theory (The Entitlement Theory of Justice in Holdings): The justice of a holding (property) is determined for Nozick by it’s history, not by its meeting a certain pattern or being part of a desired end-state. The core componsents of theory of justice include: A principle of justice in acquisition, A principle of justice in transfer, A princriple of justice in recitification 1. A principle of justice in acquisition: (acquisition from nature) A holding is just if it is acquired through legitimate means without violating anyone’s rights. MOST IMPORTANTLY- a new holding is just if one acquires it by mixing one’s labor with nature, if one leaves enough and as good in common. THIS IS KNOWN AS THE LOCKEAN PROVISO 2. A principle of justice in transfer: (transfer from one party to another) A holding is just if it’s voluntary/consesual, such as a gift, trade, inheritance 3. A principle of justice in rectification: (only when there have been inappropriate acquisitions or transfers in the past) If someone has acquired a holding through unjust means, then there is a obligation to recity the situation To mix one’s labor with nature: to apply one’s effort skill, work, to unowened rousrces to make them useful/valuable. ex: farming land, building a shelter, hunting and gathering The right to one’s body as fundamental: principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals have absolute ownership over their bodies and the labor they produce. Ex: taxation is a violation of self-ownership All that matters is history. The rejection of end-state patterns: emphasizes the importance of historical processes over any predetermined, final state or ultimate goal The Wilt Chamberlain example: Basketball player makes more money than everyone his salary was given to him voluntarily by fans, therefore it does not violate justice since the transactions were voluntary The distribution of grades example: distribution of grades is just as long as the grades are earned by student’s merrit and effort. This again ties back to the fact that since in the beginning of the course there is a fair grading scale, grades are earned fairly. Problems for Nozick: Unjust history of almost everything. Native American holdings; Paul Tulane and slavery. Conquests throughout history. Problems with the Lockean Proviso: Vagueness of "Enough and as Good", it is unclear what’s “enough” Liberty is an important value but not the only value. Compare what conservatives may say in response to Rawls: Justice is an important value but not the only value. Part 3. Core metaethics for final Subjectivity: depends on our attitudes. Subjectivity is dependent on minds and unverifiable. Objectivity: does not depend on our attitudes. Objectivity is NOT universal, unchanging, and necessary. Something is objective if it is not subjective. What objectivity is NOT: Objective does not mean universal. Objective does not mean necessary. Objective does not mean that there can’t be a disagreement about it Not everything is subjective. Non-cognitivism: moral statements can’t be true or false. Nihilism: all ordinary moral statements are false. This means literally every moral statement is false. “Lying is wrong” false. “People should be nice” false. Subjectivism: moral truths are subjective, that is, the truth of moral statements depend on the attitudes. Moral realism: Moral truths exist and they are objective. Meaning they do not depend attitudes. Part 4. Ethics of Abortion Both Thomson and Shouten, in their core arguments, assume for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life. Thomson's initial violinist example: one morning you wake up to find a famous violoinst has been connected to you and needs use of your kidneys for 9 months in order to live. How Thomson’s violinist example is analogous to rape: similar to the violinist, the woman did not consent to the sistuation; therefore, she has no obligation to continue the pregancy to preserve the fetus’s life Thomson’s extension of case a serious attempt at birth control: the fact that the woman did not actively choose to become pregnangt then she is not morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term Overall, Thomson aruges in favor of bodily autonomy, and while it may be nice for the women to carry the preganancy to full term, or keep the violinist connected to her for 9 months, she is not morally obligated to premise the use of her body if she chooses not to. Thomson argues that how much of a right to life you have shouldn’t depend on how you came into existence Critics might argue that how much of a right to life you have may not depend on how you came into existence, but special circumstances can change when a right can be overridden. The example of the innocent child strapped to the front of a tank: a child is strapped to the front of a military tank, if the tank is not stopped, the child will be killed; the child is completly innocent and has a right to life. Moral implication of the child-tank scenario: are you morally obligated to stop the tank since the child has a right to life although by stopping the tank you might cause harm to others? This argument suggests that the right to life is not an absolute right, and that special circumstances — such as being used as a shield or being forced into a pregnancy — can influence whether or not that right should be respected or overridden. Issues about whether the violinist case is similar to pregnant woman after rape: long-term implications of the pregancy (having to raise the child) versus sparing use of body for 9 months, trauma of the violence of rape is not equivalent to that of having someone attached to you for 9 months. The people-seed example: people seeds fall from the sky and can land in your house and grow, to prevent this, you put sheilds over the windows; however, one manages to get inside and grows in your house This is analogous to an unwanted pregnancy; where even if a woman where to take steps to prevent the pregnancy, if she becomes pregnant she should be able to end it (abortion) Shouten's initial orphan case involving a farmer finding an orphan after a war or other tragedy: a farmer finds a orphaned child after a disaster (think like war) and the child is complety helpless and has no one to take care of him, since the child has a right to life, does the farmer have a moral responbility to take care of him since no one else can? Shouten’s orphan case vs abortion: this case shows questions the moral obligations for a person to take care of another person when their existence is not the result of an intentional act (such as the pregancny resulting from rape or contraceptives) What Shouten thinks the orphan case shows about Thomsons violoinsit case: Shouten argues that while the woman in the violinist case may not have consented to the pregnancy, there is still an obligation to care for the child once it is here, just as the farmer might be morally obligated to care for the orphan. Both the violinist case and the orphan case seem disanalogous to abortion because of the many factors involved in pregnancy, childbirth, effects on a woman’s career, burdens and benefits of having a child, etc. In the case of the violinist, the dependency will end completely after 9 months, and some people might find it a bit of fun to be attached to the violinist for a while. The violinist will not have any of the host's genes, will not be a child of the host, and will not be the result of a voluntary or involuntary sexual act. For Shouten, some of the same factors apply, and the orphan may end up being cared for by others. (If not, if it is really almost the end of human beings due to a nuclear war, then keeping the orphan alive may be crucial to future human life on earth.) Shouten on legality of abortion: Shouten argues that the abortion debate cannot be decided with legal action because each pregnancy involves unique, private circumstances (e.g., health, career, and family considerations). Warren’s five properties considered neccesary/suficent for having a right to life: Consciousness, Reasoning, Self-motivated activity, Ability to communicate, Self-Awarness WITHOUT THESE PROPERTIES, WARREN DOESNT BELIEVE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE Counterexamples for some of Warren’s properties: people with severe communication disorders may not be able to communicate, people who are sleeping or under anestia are unconscioiusness. Marquis: theory is centered on the right to life, but instead that the fetus has the optential to have a human future. What Marquis considered to be wrong to kill a fetus: it takes away their future Marquis believes the right to life is independent on what the person desires. This is known as the discontinuation account. Discontinuation account: grants person right to life regardless of their desires Desire-based account: a person’s right to life is based on weather the person has desires/preferences about their life Why Marquis has an issue with birth control: bc even if we can’t tell which of the sperm that are blocked would link to the egg to have a human future, we are still blocking a human future. Problem raised by Warren: the potential for the fetus to devolp and expriece thungs such as happiness, fullfullment should not override those of the mother as the mother currently has these experiences right now. Warren’s unclear discussion of infanticide: she aknowlesges that infants, while not being fully developed persons in the way adults are, are still granted a right to life How warren’s unclear discussion of infanticide creates problems: infants lack the characteristics that warren deems to be essential for the right to life, which could therefore make her argument inconsistent. How warren addresses the problems created by unclear disucsssion of infants: she aknowlesges the ambiguity around her stance, yet argue sthat infants have these characteristics can gradually emerge as the infant develops, and these charecterisitcs have the potential to develop over time. PART 5. EARLY RAWLS The original position: one is to imagine oneself in with the purpose of deciding on basic principles of justice; one is behind the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance: one does not know their own social/economic status, abilities, rational life plan, or theory of the good. For the most part, then, one does not know who one is, what one’s value sare, and where one stands in society. Rational life plan: your set of basic plans about what you want to do with your life, and what sorts of activities you prefer Theory of the good: your basic religious and ethical values, and deep core values that might be important to you, including those that might follow from your gender, ethnic, or racial identity. Primary goods: good eveyone values regardless of their conception of the good. This inludes principles such as income, wealth, liberty In the original postion, Rawls argues that we would choose the maximin decision theorotic strategy: which is that we should maximize the position we are in if you turn out to be in the worst situation possible Reasons of the maxim: 1. One has no idea of their particular social or economic situation 2. If one happens to be in the worst possible situation, this could be TERRIBLE The difference principle: this is that economic goods are distributed in ordered to help those who are least advantaged What are the basic theories of justice: 1. Each person should be given as much liberty as possible 2. Economic goods should be distributed so that they advantage those less advantage (the differnce principle) 3. positions/offices/levels of authority should be distributed equally to ensure fair opportunity Problems of the basic theories of justice: Is there really a such thing as “primary goods”? Should people really disregard their “theory of the good” - when deciding on principles that will guide society Is Rawls assuming that people are averse to work? Or is he unfairly favor those who are risk-adverse?