Ethics Exam 2 Study Guide PDF

ask ab & only SG on...

ask ab & only SG on things 2 Ethics Exam 2 Study Guide Social Contract Theory Morality is agreed to and determined by a hypothetical social contract made between all people as free equals. The actual rules of society are often the result of historical and structural oppression. The rules we actually live by do not necessarily reflect the rules of the hypothetical social contract. We can ask whether our actual rules live up to the hypothetical social contract. Social Contract Theory: Hobbes Human beings are roughly equal in their physical and intellectual capacities. There are no demi-gods among humanity, so people can simply band together to defeat a foe stronger than themselves or use superior tactics. We learn equally well from experience how to respond to situations to achieve our goals and are otherwise rationally equal. People also have roughly the same interests in attaining various goods necessary for survival and flourishing. The equality of ability gives rise to equality of hope in achieving our interests. Our equality of ability and equality of hope in achieving our interests gives rise to different types of conflict. There are three causes of conflict listed: 1) Competition: there are scarce resources, so we compete for them. We may band together in gangs to overcome stronger foes. 2) Defense: the fear of being attacked by others leads to pre-emptive violence. 3) Glory: some people take pride in their power by conquering others. This can also take the form of being a version of 2, by seeking reputation as a means of self-defense. The state of nature for Hobbes is a state of war of all against all. Nature = War (Hobbes) mult worFear War here is meant not only in the sense of actual conflict, but the state of being fearful of, andNO constant actually vulnerable to attack. - Without a sovereign government to issue laws and keep people in line by force, life would be a constant struggle between individuals and gangs, rife with violence, fear, and a lack of stability to promote various productive industries. The famous line is that life would be, “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (84, Oxford World’s Classics edition) Armed Why believe Hobbes? 1) When people go on journeys (or place themselves in various dangerous situations) they arm Wenude themselves with weapons. Loop 2) Moreover, people lock their doors, lock their valuables up in safes, etc. We impugn the character of humans by doing these things.  ↑ Ter 3) This is done even within societies that are governed by laws, and where there is the threat of punishment towards those who would violate these laws. How much more would we feel the threat of danger without laws that are backed up by the threat US of force! One objection the Hobbes’s account of the state of nature which he considers is that it is a mere thought-experiment rather than a real situation (120). ↓ Hobbesles contract Hobbes replies that we can observe the state of nature in international relations. Hobbes Quite dif ten Mr Social Contract Theory: Rawls Rawls says that his social contract theory is not concerned with an agreement to form or enter a What principles particular kind of society, but with establishing the principles of justice for the basic structure of of justice society (127). are right Rawls distinguishes the identity of interests and conflicts of interests within society (126). Justice, according to Rawls, is the first, or most important, virtue of social institutions. Without justice, no matter how efficient or otherwise well-constructed a society may be, it must be reformed. This is because Rawls thinks that “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” (126) Moral persons for Rawls have two moral powers: 1) A sense of justice, and 2) An ability to have and follow a conception of the good life. To settle conflicts of interest in society in a way that respects the equality of individuals, we need to formulate principles of justice. How are we to do this? Rawls constructs his version of the initial situation. Hobbes’s initial situation is the state of nature, Rawls’s is the original position. The original position is a hypothetical scenario in which rational parties who seek to secure their interests are situated in an initial situation of equality. From this position, they decide upon Takeoas principles of justice for the basic structure of society. The veil of ignorance is a key part of the original position meant to secure fairness. Morally arbitrary considerations are taken out of the content of the knowledge of the parties. These considerations include economic class, race, gender, ethnicity, conception of the good life, helpat etaged religious views, philosophical views, specific occupation, desires, psychological tendencies. The veil of ignorance abstracts away from contingent facts we face in the real world. “This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances.” (127) For Rawls, minimizing the effects of the contingencies of historical and natural circumstances on people’s lives is the appropriate way to respect free and equal persons. The just way to treat people, and thus to choose principles that govern their society, is to treat them fairly. Thus, Rawls’s unique theory of justice is called justice as fairness. : Paris's Theory zekments Utilitarianism Consequentialism: Only consequences matter morally. Theory of the Good: Pleasure is valuable, pain has disvalue. justiceases Principle of Utility: Maximize pleasure  Utilitarianism: Bentham Equality of consideration: "Everyone is to count as one, no-one for more than one." The pleasures of sentient creatures are the only ultimate goods. Ultimate good = a good that is not derived or reducible to another good. Morality has to be based on firm principles. Morality is not mere opinion. Bentham presents an argument by elimination: meal theories a form of argument that defends a theory by showing that all competing theories are other badsomusthe unsatisfactory sm Bentham compares the PU to the following moral principles: L The principle of ascetism We ought to maximize pain and minimize pleasure. L The principle of sympathy and antipathy Actions are evaluated on the basis of a person's attitudes. insanely Bentham identified seven properties of pleasure and pain to use in order to measure pleasure and pain. Furry RED 1. Intensity—how strong will the expected pleasure be? 2. Duration—how long will the expected pleasure last? posa y 3. Certainty—how certain are we that the expected pleasure will happen? 4. Remoteness—how far away in time is the expected pleasure? 5. Fecundity—how likely is the pleasure to be followed by more pleasure? Followed by pain 6. Purity—how likely is the pleasure not to be followed by pain? Porc pleasure Not = 7. Extent—how many sentient beings will be affected? Hard Drugs care import pleasure : most 8. pleasure affected for everyone Utilitarianism: Mill changed Mill is aware of the objection that making pleasure the focus of morality would seem to put rudimentary sensual pleasures, such as those that non-human animals are capable of They Dif erences experiencing, on equal footing with those of humans. · Other utilitarians have answered this question in different ways. ran o Mill thinks the objection is solved best by ranking pleasures. Some pleasures are of a higher kind, and thus more valuable, than bare sensory experience. Human beings have higher, more sophisticated capacities than non-human animals: intellectual, emotional, moral, and imaginative. These higher capacities produce higher pleasures. Higher pleasures Not in common walimals The distinction is not merely one of quantity but of quality of the experience. A proper hedonism is not, then, a doctrine worthy only of swine. Quality of pleasure is determined by a preference test. Competent judges: what all, almost all, or a majority decides is the higher pleasure. Furthermore, even the measurement of quantity is to be settled by such a test. out ? Moreover, Mill suggests that a higher pleasure will not be traded for any amount of the lower pleasure. Find A non-rational being may be content or satisfied with the lower grades of pleasure. Even if a Present rational human is less content or satisfied than the non-rational being, they can still be happier Higher-would not change For any amount of lower pleasure  uncontent Happiness Human Happier then pig even when , because the higher pleasures they experience are more valuable. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”3 Mill claims it is more difficult for a higher being to be content, and they are probably capable of D more intense suffering. usmet In his book The Subjection of Women, Mill provides a utilitarian defense of the emancipation of women. -being it It is bad for men to grow up falsely believing in their superiority over women. Expectation of service is likely to lead to misery over time. By excluding women from the important professions, society loses out on half the potential No talent pool. The economic dependence of wives on their husbands gives husbands a duty to adopt safe, Essay conventional lifestyles that are unfulfilling. -womanE)When women are emancipated, they will experience the personal enjoyment of living an autonomous life, of which they are now deprived. 25 Mill provides two main reasons for why we should accept capital punishment: Questions Choice People fear death more than they fear prison. - Greater Deterant Mult = Capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. ~ Death is less harmful to the murderer than life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is a miserable life. Fin plank The criminal who gets the death penalty does not have to experience this misery. Mill: the death penalty is the greater fear, but the lesser harm. Reconstruct Thus, keeping the death penalty has greater utility than abolishing it. of argement Worthy * Mill’s Proof of Principle of Utility: Step 1: Happiness Is Desirable Desirable = 5 point extra What did G.E. Moore say? Credit Step 2: General Happiness Is a Good to the Aggregate of All People Few What does this mean? Does it undermine individual happiness to promote aggregate happiness? senitures objectionsism t Objections to Utilitarianism & Responses Theory of the Good Hard questions 1. Narrowness objection:Too Narrow More life then happiness pleasure exWisdom Friendshir , to ,. 2. Agency objection: Robert Nosic if pleasure all thats valuable imagination Machine ? No - is Agency doing of 3. Evil pleasures objection: Murderer talles pleasure Killing/turtour in 4. Quality objection: Mill’s hedonism objectionable? Concensis pleasures ? on Consensus? Diversity of things vs. better things, hard to practice, circumstances that bias judgment --- 5. Irrelevance objection: Theory of the Right 1. Over-demandingness objection: 2. Supererogation objection: i Going above beyond call of duty  for Good did not do then 3. Negative responsibility: just asresponsible you what you did do. 4. Agent-centered responsibility: Duties relative to relationships sibling/parent ex help W HW 5. Counterintuitive implications: Ex Problem of injustice utilitarianism , might be telling us to do unjust. Attempts to Reply & Fix Util. Act utilitarianism vs. Rule utilitarianism: to rules in Stuff Strictly following the rules will maximize happiness. * : has exceptions Government house utilitarianism: Act Certain Scenarios Moral elite should use act utilitarianism. to Role : Principle utility of The rest should use rule utilitarianism. Hare’s Two-level utilitarianism: iv case Most of the time, use rule utilitarianism. In critical contexts, use act utilitarianism. Mill on Gender & Racial Equality Peter Singer’s Applied Utilitarianism Strong Argument: bad & comparable moral significance Moderate Argument: very bad & moral significance Drowning child example Proximity Irrelevant Number of people who can help irrelevant Duty vs. Charity Objection 1: Radical Moral Revision Objection 2: Too Demanding Marginal Utility: The Strong Principle The Bodily Harm Counterexample Objection 3: Government Responsibility Objection 4: Population Control