Ethics Notes - EXAM Prep PDF

Explanations of concepts , connections between concepts , arguments for and against examples , Don't study...

Explanations of concepts , connections between concepts , arguments for and against examples , Don't study dates and unimportant names TYPES OF Qs ① For / against argument → 4.2 pts explain theory give argument for / against explain why this argument ② Link between concepts. → 1. 2 pts explain both concepts the link explain ③ Case study → 1.2 pts discussed from two out of three ethical theories ( duty ethics , consequentialism , virtue ethics ) ④ Multiple choice → 8 A. pts circle the correct one correction guess → write in full sentences.  Module 1 What M. Roky che philosophy ? - is Looking for essence a property that applies to all philosophers - to them and only. Essence = universal property property - that applies to all the members of the set + that unique property property applies only to the members of the set - I Is there an essence of the overall philosophy ? No ! Three to answer : ways ① Attitude A) What could be the essence : mechanic Etymologically philosophy means love of wisdom. Wisdoms things that are one believes are important for everyone to live a good life leg family. is important ). → Not the essence because : Many people proclaim wisdoms without being philosophers 2) What could the essence be : critical thinking → Not the essence because : need to think too Other professions critically. No good scientific al or empirical reason to believe that  it's a property only belonging to philosophers. Revie Descartes { thinker example of critical → a " " I think , therefore I am. oduncie criticising all sensations " " "" "" "" " "" " " " "" "" "" nraieuie sensation he had every might have been just an impression and weren't real pneumonia criticising convictions of all humanity everything tmehy the way it is → is by criticising everything he was certain that he was criticising ( at least this thing ) one therefore he must exist because it would be impossible to criticise without existing ② Method 3) What could be the essence : Thought experiments - imagining a situation , that results in discovering new info eg. the runaway train (1) using technology to mere 5 and kill → one or not doing willing 5) and consequentialism anything 14 Mshihtf a person instead of ethics → duty using technology ) when it comes to making ethical decisions , we do that based on different principles in different cases.  → Not the essence because : and used Not used by all philosophers not only ( ) by philosophers eg. in mathematics too. ③ Questions 4) What could be the essence : Asking difficult questions abstract / seemingly unanswerable difficult → Not the essence Other professions also do that and not all questions philosophers ask are difficult - 11 Is there of of ? YES, in an essence sntdo mains philosophy some ① Metaphysics / ontology = asks about existence things of , the questions can't be verified empirically ( eg. Does free will exist ? ) DOESN'T have essence because : questions about y, God Other disciplines ask these questions too (eg. theology ). ② Logic finding principles necessary to correctly = reason and make when detecting mistakes people reasoning let's not ③ slippery slope → do eg one thing because. it will react in the other as a consequence We don't want to eg. give rights to stones , so let's not them to give women. mistake : no clear link between women and µ, www..ua , a. ,,µ , µ, man and be to both women so could applied HAS the essence : to establish only they All and strive logicians rules of argumentative reasoning. ① Epistemology / theory of knowledge = looking for origin of knowledge Two traditions Rationalists brain is the origin of knowledge : our Decartes eg. Non rationalists : our empirical sensations are the origin - of knowledge eg. Jung  and looking for nature of knowledge ? knowing what does mean Traditional t N answer 0 T ① Conviction / belief C OR ② The belief is justified E ③ The belief is true £ Necessary and sufficient to call sth knowledge. ↳ ! why at 10:00 and 12 hours Falling asleep waking up later at 10:00 but watch is not your working don't know that it's 10:00 (pure you really - coincidence). → all 3 conditions are viable 3 conditions are but not sufficient necessary , we need a 4th one : HAS the essence all and Asking these questions typifies only epidemiologists.  ⑥ Social and political philosophy = reflection on society ( eg. Should elections be mandatory ? 1 DOESN'T HAVE the essence : Asking this kind of questions isn't the privilege only of and political Other social philosophers. people them too like policymakers ask. ⑤ Moral philosophy / ethics thinking about morality good and right life = a - Divided into three parts : Meta - ethics Descriptive ethics Normative ethics DOESN'T HAVE the essence : do that too Other people. b Meta ethics - moral values reflecting nature of and = on norms ( eg. What is sustainability , well - being ,... ?) HAS the essence : All and only moral philosophers ask these questions. ?⃝  5① Descriptive ethics describing moral beliefs and = , values norms of populations at specific time and place in history describe don't make moral evaluations , they just → ( eg. What do Belgians think about abortion ?) HAS the essence : All and duly descriptive ethicists ask these questions. b Normative ethics asking what should do in order to behave = we morally correct male uwwy → Has a prescriptive , not descriptive , character. Distinction between what is and morally right what is morally wrong should be based upon good grounds / reasons / justification. reasons =/ causes \ convincing \ explain why why dowhat something you is happened right causes don't always justify behaviour driving too fast because - of being drunk. ?⃝  Three possible justifications : ① ethics ( want) Duty ② Consequentialism ( Bentham) ③ Virtue ethics ( Aristotle → They just support the decision , aren't decisive ( can always be overruled by another argument). DOESN'T HAVE the essence : other professions also ask these questions engineers - , psychologists ,... ( eg. Should I take sustainability into account as an engineers ! ) summary essence - Overall phylosophy no essence - Metaphysics / ontology - no essence Logic has essence - Epistemology / theory of knowledge has essence - social and political philosophy essence - no Moral philosophy / ethics no essence - Meta - ethics - has essence  ethics has essence Descriptive - Normative ethics - no essence Module 2 - three theories B- Duty ethics ( 18th Immanuel Kant century ) wrote about normative ethics " " critic ique practical reason on human the word Talking about beings we often use individual ( meaning man that is not decided ). But to Freud / Kant is dividend according man. three Kant distinguishes layers : 1) the natural layer 2) the empirical layer 3) the reasonable → what layer ethics is about ① The natural layer As we are living beings , we have biological and physical needs.  universal I to all humans ) and They are apply impose themselves unwillingly. leg drinking sleeping ). , ② The empirical layer Is about desires that particular individuals have. unwillingly describing don't They come , as they are one's will. But also not can be private and come unwillingly → eg. wanting to lead a happy life. Teleological being humans are striving to achieve - lgr telos goal) certain goals -.. Natural and empirical layers are accompanied by conditional / hypothetical law : " Y ( condition ) If goal) then " ✗ ( ,. → Is a must - to achieve ✗ , one must do 4. ③ The reasonable layer Humans that are more than just biological entities have certain desires.  They can detach themselves from first two layers. → that's ethics. µ Means that ethics nothing conditional has to do with laws - there's no particular condition to full fill in to order achieve a goal. ethics Duty Kantian ethics is characterized by negative freedom. hindered internal / external obstacles → not being by eg pressure of. a group , requirements from parents internal , pressure " " free because I I am am not pressured by anything. ethics Duty Kantian ethics ontologyde = = - ✓ ] ↳ theory of being " " so : how things " not " , should be ← describing how reality is and not necessarily cure ! nature of organised things Has not descriptive character ! prescriptive , Kantian ethics characterized is by positive freedom too → presence of at least two possibilities one can choose from One has the to possibility choose using cognitive capacity. Kantian ethics is national ethics !  What kind of things can be developed by one 's cognitive capacities ? Duty ethics : is about moral laws. is about a law that needs to be followed. → obligatory if , not followed , one can be punished → Not things all that are moral are obligatory too. student that helping was sick surplus - a eg. a of moral behaviour than what is , doing more morally required Moral theory =/ legal theory what is moral or immoral doesn't often overlap with what is legal or illegal. eg cheating on a bf immoral but not illegal -. but not immoral not having an ID on oneself - illegal Kantian / moral law ① is unconditional / cathegorical must be followed regardless of the = consequences leg. you can't steal regardless of the positive consequences)  vs conditional / hypothetical ② is universal = applies to everyone us. particular Universal and unconditional laws don't overlap. All students must send email in order to pass the eg. an has to be exam universal but conditional ( something -. done in order to achieve a certain state of affairs ). I must help somebody once a day particular and -. unconditional ( follow one just has to the rule , regardless of what the outcome is). act in accordance to law Morality implies that people and that applies always , everywhere and to everyone. not Immorality means following the universal and unconditional law. The justification according to duty ethics If there is a possibility to follow an unconditional and universal law and wants to act morally one one , to that law can justify their decision to act according upon this possibility. Duty ethics is about one 's actions is not about one 's actions consequences of is Iot about one 's virtues expressed in the actions act morally to Acting according to the law in order right is necessary but insufficient. " / good " condition will Extra right intention : → One does something because they believe this should be done this way. Because act to the but one might according law not because of the positive consequences of this action. eg. Helping somebody just to be praised. According to Kant, acting certain way because one knows that will get praised for it , is morally problematic ↳ foreseen intended effect But if one knows that some praise will follow but that is not not why they are acting this way , is morally problematic. ↳ foreseen unintended effect ethics summary duty - & insufficient Rule compliant → necessary - Right intention → necessary & insufficient Rule - compliant & Right intention → sufficient Argument contra duty ethics → rule fetishism law Acting according to the moral can , in certain situations, lead to massive negative consequences. focusing too much law and not its following the → on consequences Not lying hiding to Nazi soldier about eg. a a jewish family.  Consequentialism ↳ tries to solve the problem with ethics duty eg thought experiment with the train runaway. definition consequentialism is a way of thinking that states that the moral value of an action depends only on its moral So the action doesn't have consequences. moral it's importance , the consequences that do. is not lying problematic if its eg. positive consequences outweigh the negative ones too consequences can be objective / measurable. on the environment eg. types of moral : consequences ① Positive / negative / neutral 9 not applicable here eg sweating. is consequence of a running ② Intended / unintended 1 both applicable) & foreseen but not intended ① Foreseen / unforeseen  All intended effects are foreseen. But not all foreseen consequences are intended. ( eg. smoking causes cancer ) possibilities 1) Bad intention lead to unforeseen positive consequences can. eg. making a ship by a misshe can lead to enriching the biodiversity of the ocean. ↳ then to the according consequentialist point of view this could be not morally problematic 2) Good intention can lead to unforeseen negative consequences. stored eg making refrigerators so that food can be. , for longer involves material that , using a leads to to hole enlarging owne ↳ then to the according consequentialist point this of view could be morally problematic µ Action is morally right if negative consequences do not the Have to be moral outweigh positive ones. consequences. ↳ have to be relevant for the calculation  ① Good or bad intentions don't matter ! Even if the intentions were good but the negative consequences eg. considered be morally to outweigh the positive ones , the action is wrong. And the other around eg way despite the intentions being -. bad , if the positive consequences outweigh negative the ones , the action considered to be is war ally right. ② Whether the consequence is foreseen or unforeseen doesn't matter ! If there's negative consequences even if they were more eg. , unforeseen and the positive ones were foreseen the action , is morally wrong. there's eg If. more positive consequences , even if they were the unforeseen and the negative ones are foreseen , action is morally wrong. of action steps of moral evaluation an ① Find all possible moral consequences. M ② Estimate their / probability. A T ③ Assign a value to each consequence ( on a scale ). H ① Multiply the value and the probability. C A ⑤ calculate the balance / is it negative or positive). {  Utilitarianism Similar to consequentialism Founding fathers of utilitarianism 18th Jeremy Bentham ( century ) Stewart Mill 119th John century ) Differences between consequentialism and utilitarianism from a historical point of view : ① utilitarianism is an example of consequentialist way of thinking CONSEQUENTIAL UTILITARIANISM ,gg ② flat ) usefulness of something utilities. - Focuses only on the use full consequences for the happiness / humans well-being of greatest number of. Happiness being the balance between pleasure and pain ( both expressed in units 1. ↳ is about sensations ↳ is a hedonistic theory ! Problems with utilitarianism fairness / equality doesn't count directly here choose this one ¢ eg. 100 units of pleasure for rich is better that 99 units of pleasure for the poor according to the utilitarian. indirectly could be interested in fairness as knowing - big difference that there's a between the rich and the lead to poor can more unhappiness ↳ result of the fact that themselves people compare doesn't quality of the enjoyment count , just the quantity 5 units of enjoyment from the eating counts eg. chips same 5 units of as enjoyment from reading good literature. ↳ not in line with how it is in real life - the count for quality does people Arguments against hedonistic view of hedonism doesn't count ① Implies that content of enjoyment. Whereas in real life humans 1) make the distinction between and low and high sensations 1) know that sadistic enjoyment ( coming from inflicting pain on somebody ) is morally Mad.  ② Thought experiment by Novick we have that if you an experience machine enter it , you need to stay there for the rest of your life. But when do have sensation that all you you a , desires and true Would your strivings came. you enter or not ? it's not Many wouldn't because real. Experiencing not need to it's something enough , is we know real. I have the idea loves but that's not eg. she me enough , needs to she really love me. Happiness is not only about good feelings , it's also the sense of reality that counts. The justification according to consequentialism If the option A leads to better consequences then this option B and one wants to act morally right , can be a justification to choose option A. Engineering application " " Technology Assessment methods and techniques to predict - environmental social estimate technology that and and impacts can have eg. What could be the negative financial/ physical / emotional consequences on implementing electronic hearing aids for deaf children ? Arguments pro consequentialism ① In daily lives people take into account the consequences of their actions. → in line with real life ② People believe that following duties can be overruled the by consequences. There situations would be acceptable eg. are where lying it will result in better because doing consequences. Arguments contra consequentialism ① Can lead too cruel situations. can be counterintuitive in this sense. to 5 rich eg Sacrificing. one human help ones. ② Can be too demanding. eg. Relaxing and doing nothing is not allowed as one can always do something morally better. And that's what one should do. Virtue ethics ↳ Can be seen as a correction of the both previous because it focuses the /ones the making ones on one decision ( on the contrary to focusing on following mule a the best aiming for consequences) or on. We daily make this type of moral evaluation. Developed by : ① Aristotle ( 4th BC ) century - For the first time developed a theory that focuses on virtues. - Important in moral history until the enlightenment. Then duty ethics and consequentialism became more prominent. ⑦ 120th ) Macintyre century Reintroduced the virtue ethics concept on -. liveth and 21st ① Van Tongeren century ) wrote dutch philosopher who important books about - virtue ethics  Virtue moral property = but not every property is a virtue. eg. trustworthy nun honesty , are virtues having blue eyes being , smart are properties but not virtues and not every good trait is morally good. eg. being tall is good in sports contests but morally it's neutral → this evaluation is dependent on the context. to kill being forced be would eg. somebody an undesirable expression of courage but is Examples of virtues with moral character Not Virtue Too much enough cowardice courage Overconfidence Greed Generosity Wastefulness False modesty sincerity Boasting virtue = deeply ingrained ↳ Moral becomes property a virtue when it is expressed autonomously and naturally regardless of the context.  One must which isn't acquire them simple and takes time. → We are not born with the values. we don't talk about virtue ethics when it comes really to children. → They always lie between two extremes. Agent can be individual or collective. Therefore there can be a clash between the two levels. " " eg. Do artifacts have politics ? Bridges were designed to that buses from NYC were unable to pass them to go to the beach , resulting in underprivileged Afro americans being unable to the living in city center come to the beach. This was an expression of him being racist. architects him → many working for left the company because the he acted not in line with way was their virtues. The justification according to virtue ethics situation virtue and If in a given one can express a act this one wants to morally right , then can be a justification for the decision made.  Arguments pro virtue ethics ① Is in line with our daily moral experience. account character traits we do take into when morally → evaluating people. ② Good answer for the modern , complex world even though it's old. Ensures structure behave people is bigger properly → a without needing to control them. Because if engraved in the people , it will be expressed naturally. contra virtue Arguments ethics ① In daily lives virtues are not of normative priority - are important but not crucial. It's crucial for the doctor to lives and not eg. save than more important being sympathetic , so the doctor shouldn't focus on being nice and neglect treating the patient. ② In some situations expressing virtues can lead to bad outcome. but isn't eg. Murder requires courage good.  links between the theories Summary - → duty ethics - good intentions are necessary don't matter consequences - unconditional character of laws - → consequentialism intentions don't matter , they are morally - neutral cricial consequences are - - conditional character of laws - one has to do because it leads to the best something outcome consequentialism vs virtue ethics consequences for because it has the Doing Ah good acting according to environment example is of : an consequentialism good consequences outweigh as the negative ones virtue ethics this action be as taking can an expression of a virtue one has ethics & Virtue ethics us duty consequentialism In first two theories properties of people become virtues needed if they are to perform a good action. order to eg Sacrificing other. a person in save five people will and telling them require courage.  Virtue needed when making the difficult decision. value of virtue is of secondary importance , it is not the primary cause of taking the decision In the last virtue is of ! theory primary importance Module 3 - Is enhancement a moral problem ? Leibnitz 117th ) century " live best all worlds " we in the possible of. → There is constant progress. Voltaire 118th century ) " " Candide - criticism of keihintie's optimism and belief in progress currently The situation is much better - political stability democracy , , abolition of slavery , less violence ,... A lot is progress is due to technology. medical technology eg.  Objectives of technology ① to cure to to eliminate the disease become healthy → = MRI scans eg. ② to prevent → to prevent a possible disease in the future vaccination ey. ③ to enhance Enhancement have for it you reasons doing p deliberative intervention to using technology = : as a 1) improve mental and physical possibilities ; introduce 2) currently non-existing properties. → non - technological is a kind of artificial improvement education training \ , , imitation S technological with time vs natural improvement improves - - That is not what enhancement is. eg. I get stronger as I grow. Many people argue against the use of technology for enhancement. The conservatives Habermas Sandel Fukuyama ↳ : , , However there philosophers the are no arguing for use of tec