Philosophy Practice Quiz - Ethics Questions PDF

MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. According to Hedonism, what is considered the only thing of intrinsic value? ○ A. Knowledge ○ B. Pleasure ○ C. Friendship ○ D. Virtue 2. What distinguishes Egoistic Hedonism from Social Hedonism? ○ A. Its focus on rationality over emotion ○ B. Its concern with maximizing one's own pleasure ○ C. Its rejection of pleasure as an ethical standard ○ D. Its emphasis on religious principles 3. Epicurus' form of hedonism is best characterized as: ○ A. Social Hedonism ○ B. Altruistic Hedonism ○ C. Egoistic Hedonism ○ D. Rational Emotivism 4. According to Aristotle, a "good" human is one who: ○ A. Maximizes utility ○ B. Avoids suffering ○ C. Reasons well and acts rationally ○ D. Submits to divine command 5. What is the Greek term Aristotle uses for moral excellence? ○ A. Telos ○ B. Eros ○ C. Arete ○ D. Logos 6. Which of the following is NOT one of Aristotle’s Four Causes? ○ A. Efficient Cause ○ B. Emotional Cause ○ C. Final Cause ○ D. Formal Cause 7. The human telos, according to Aristotle, is: ○ A. To seek pleasure ○ B. To serve the state ○ C. To reason well ○ D. To avoid pain 8. According to Kant, the only thing good without qualification is: ○ A. Happiness ○ B. Rationality ○ C. The Good Will ○ D. Consequences 9. The First Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative emphasizes: ○ A. Obedience to God ○ B. Universalizability ○ C. Maximizing happiness ○ D. Avoiding punishment 10.Kant believed we must treat humanity: ○ A. As a means to societal progress ○ B. As an object of moral pity ○ C. Always as an end, never merely as a means ○ D. As a functional part of the moral system 11.Hume believed moral judgments are primarily rooted in: ○ A. Reason ○ B. Divine law ○ C. Sentiment ○ D. Duty 12.Which theory did Hume's ethics most directly oppose? ○ A. Utilitarianism ○ B. Psychological egoism ○ C. Emotivism ○ D. Deontological ethics 13.According to Hume, what makes an action "good"? ○ A. Its universal applicability ○ B. Its alignment with divine will ○ C. The approval of ideal observers ○ D. Its rational necessity 14.What does the Principle of Utility state? ○ A. An action is right if it produces pleasure for the individual ○ B. An action is wrong if it offends moral tradition ○ C. An action is right if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number ○ D. An action is right if it aligns with natural law 15.Rule Utilitarianism, according to Mill, differs from Act Utilitarianism by: ○ A. Prioritizing divine command ○ B. Emphasizing rules that generally maximize pleasure ○ C. Avoiding cost-benefit analysis ○ D. Eliminating moral obligations 16.Logical Positivists believe meaningful ethical statements must be: ○ A. Derived from intuition ○ B. Emotionally resonant ○ C. Empirically verifiable ○ D. Rooted in virtue ethics 17.Emotivism holds that ethical statements: ○ A. Are factually true or false ○ B. Are meaningless ○ C. Express emotional attitudes ○ D. Are statements of divine will 18.What test did Logical Positivists use to determine if a statement is meaningful? ○ A. Theological Consistency Test ○ B. Criterion of Verification ○ C. Hedonic Calculator ○ D. The Rational Choice Test 19.Which philosopher is most closely associated with the development of the Categorical Imperative? ○ A. David Hume ○ B. Jeremy Bentham ○ C. John Stuart Mill ○ D. Immanuel Kant 20.Aristotle’s ethical theory is categorized as: ○ A. Deontological Ethics ○ B. Virtue Ethics ○ C. Consequentialism ○ D. Emotivism TRUE/FALSE 21.Kant believed that consequences are morally irrelevant. 22.According to Hedonism, money is considered intrinsically valuable. 23.Bentham’s Seven Aspects of Pleasure include intensity, duration, and fecundity. 24.Epicurus advocated for an immoderate, indulgent lifestyle. 25.Hume claimed that reason alone can motivate moral action. 26.Utilitarianism sometimes requires sacrificing one’s own interests for the greater good. 27.According to Aristotle, humans share the telos of rationality with animals. 28.Mill’s qualitative hedonism values intellectual pleasures more than physical ones. 29.Logical Positivists considered all ethical statements to be empirically provable. 30.Emotivism equates moral language with the expression of emotions, like “Boo!” or “Yay!” 31.The Categorical Imperative demands that one act only on maxims that can be universalized. 32.According to Kant, morality presumes the existence of free will. 33.Hume’s theory allows for someone to recognize moral goodness but still not desire it. 34.Epicurus believed long-term pleasure is more important than short-term indulgence. 35.Aristotle defined moral virtue as habits formed through repeated rational practice. 36.Rule Utilitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual acts. 37.Bentham believed the number of people affected (scope) matters when evaluating pleasure. 38.Emotivism is a form of subjectivism according to its critics. 39.According to Hume, moral approval is a natural emotional response. 40.Kant argued that we have duties not only to ourselves but also to others as moral agents. 41.Utilitarianism denies the intrinsic worth of any individual. 42.Aristotle’s concept of “arete” can be translated as “purpose.” 43.Kant’s moral law is rooted in empirical observation. 44.Logical Positivism dismissed religious language as meaningless. 45.Bentham’s “purity” refers to pleasures unaccompanied by pain. 46.Hume accepted that morality could be subject to scientific investigation. 47.Kant believed that moral worth depends on acting from duty. 48.Emotivism denies the possibility of moral disagreement. 49.Epicurus emphasized moderation as key to lasting pleasure. 50.The Ideal Observer Theory relies on responses from informed, unbiased individuals. Multiple Choice 1. B. Pleasure 2. B. Its concern with maximizing one's own pleasure 3. C. Egoistic Hedonism 4. C. Reasons well and acts rationally 5. C. Arete 6. B. Emotional Cause 7. C. To reason well 8. C. The Good Will 9. B. Universalizability 10.C. Always as an end, never merely as a means 11.C. Sentiment 12.D. Deontological ethics 13.C. The approval of ideal observers 14.C. An action is right if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number 15.B. Emphasizing rules that generally maximize pleasure 16.C. Empirically verifiable 17.C. Express emotional attitudes 18.B. Criterion of Verification 19.D. Immanuel Kant 20.B. Virtue Ethics True/False 21.True 22.False 23.True 24.False 25.False 26.True 27.False 28.True 29.False 30.True 31.True 32.True 33.True 34.True 35.True 36.False 37.True 38.True 39.True 40.True 41.False 42.False 43.False 44.True 45.True 46.True 47.True 48.False 49.True 50.True Hedonism Let’s get clear about some definitions first: Naturalist: One who tries to understand "Good" in "NATURAL" terms. One who reduces "Good" to something that can be investigated by science (empirically). Aristotle is a naturalist because he argues that "good" is what is efficient in achieving it's ends (a quasi-empirical concept). Hedonism: an ethical theory which states that pleasure and pleasure alone of intrinsic value. Intrinsic Value: Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable for itself and not merely for some other reason. Instrumental Value: Something has instrumental value if it is valuable to means of some other end (e.g. money). But it cannot be that everything is valued (or have value) for some other reason for that would lead to an infinite regress. Thus, if we value anything at all there must be something we value intrinsically. And this thing (or things) of intrinsic value is what motivates all our actions. The Hedonist is claiming that one does not value pleasure for some other reason, but rather values it simply because it is what it is and has the qualities it has (intrinsically). Some point out that there is distinction between valued and valuable. The first is straight forward empirical claim, especially if “valued” means value-behavior. The meaning of the second is less clear. It implies that what is valuable is the object of rational desire. Something might be valuable to John, whether John values it or not. Going to the dentist is valuable even if I don’t in fact value it. But whether something is valuable or not may differ from person to person given different objectives. Note: Some maintain that nothing can be valuable intrinsically if valuable is defined instrumentally. These claim that it would be better to say that something has intrinsic value if it is valued in and of itself and something has instrumental value if it is valuable as a means to some other end. Now. while many people would agree that pleasure has intrinsic value, what distinguishes the Hedonist is the claim that pleasure is the only thing of intrinsic value. [P]leasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and... all desirable things... are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. If this is true, it would simplify Ethics greatly. The ONLY thing that can make an action right is that it leads to pleasure (or diminishes pain). The ONLY thing that can make an action wrong is the is increases pain (or diminishes pleasure). There is only one “coin of the realm” so to speak. All actions can be compared and evaluated according to one and one variable: pleasure. The ethic (practical consequence) implied by this statement of value is that the right thing to do in a given situation is to maximize pleasure (the thing of value) or minimize pain. Hedonistic Ethical Directive: An action is right if and only if it results in the greatest pleasure (or least pain)... But the question immediately arises: Whose pleasure and pain? Two variants: Egoistic Hedonism and Social Hedonism 1. Egoistic Hedonism Egoism: An action is right if and only if it results in the greatest good for the agent (himself or herself) Some philosophers would be Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Ayn Rand (1905–1982) and Epicurus (341-270 B.C.). While all would agree that your moral responsibility is to look out for yourself (Egoism), they would disagree as to what "good" means or implies. By itself, Hedonism is an incomplete moral theory. since it leaves unspecified whose pleasure is to be pursued. And Egoism is also an incomplete moral theory since it leaves unspecified what “good” the individual is to maximize. But put the two together and you get… Egoistic Hedonist (Epicurus): an action is right if and only if it results in the greatest pleasure for the agent (himself or herself). Epicurus was the most celebrated hedonist of classical times. Now, it should be mentioned that contemporarily, “Hedonism” carries with it a negative connotation. If someone describes you as an Hedonist, he or she is likely insulting you, charging you with excessive indulgences, decadence and perhaps licentiousness. But while Epicurus was an Egoist Hedonist, he did NOT recommend a lascivious, decadent life-style. This is because many things we find pleasurable can come back to haunt or damage us, especially if we overindulge immodestly. Years ago, there was an item on Dairy Queen’s menu called an Epicurean Delight. This was an over-the-top banana split sundae that had different kinds of ice cream, whipped cream, nuts, sprinkles, cherries and sauces and fudge and brownies and, well, basically everything. It was named this as an homage to the classic hedonist of antiquity Epicurus. (We were at the time a somewhat more literate society I believe.) However, the irony is that Epicurus the philosopher would probably not have recommended you eat an Epicurean Delight. Or at least not very often, and even the you should probably split it with someone. Why is that? Why would an egoistic hedonist who tells you that you ought to go out and secure as much pleasure for yourself as possible and you needn't worry about anyone else. recommend that you NOT eat this decadent desert? Well because he said “Go out and live as pleasant a life as possible.” He did not say. “Go out and be an idiot.” ex. Dairy Queen’s Epicurean Delight ‑ Don't eat (often) because it's not healthy. Similarly with Beer Too‑ don't drink too much. Ultimately, Epicurus recommends a modest, moral life. (Don't lie, cheat, steel, because it will take pleasure away from you eventually.) You must consider the consequences of immoral antisocial conduct: (Consequences- prison, social isolation, worries). On balance, I live lives in accord with traditional moral values will be the most pleasurable life, according to Epicurus. The “Good Life” = Moral, moderate life because this is the most pleasant. If true, then morality is simply a subset of prudential rationality. (I.e. what is moral is ALWAYS what best for YOU.) Three key presumptions which result in this: 1. Long term consequences (pleasures/pains) are as important, if not more important, than short-term consequences (pleasures/pains). 2. "Pleasure" is not merely instant gratification or positive sensation, but is the absence of annoying things. Pleasure or the "Good Life" defines not as instant gratification, but as tranquillity. Distinguishes Between: a. kinetic pleasures (such as eating) which coincide with activity and endure only so long as the activity continues, and b. catastemic pleasures (not being hungry) which coincide with a stable state and as such are capable of indefinite prolongation. There is nothing wrong with chara, the delights experienced in kinetic pleasures, but they are by their nature ephemeral. One ought rather to seek ataraxia. Ataraxia: A term used by Epicurus which means serenity or blessed-ness. To be free of pain and aggravation. 3. A life devoted to the acquisition of pleasure (the positive kind) is NOT pleasant. In fact, it's aggravating. (i.e. There's always a nice newer BMW then yours.) Notice that if you set for yourself the goal of “just a little bit more” you will never achieve satisfaction. Such a goal in never realizable and in fact, exhausting. (I had a student one time who referred to this as being on the “hedonic treadmill.”) There is an affinity with Buddhism here, I think, ‑holds the idea that the world (or rather our attachment to things in the world) is the source of our pains and suffering. One must retreat from the world to attain tranquillity. Pleasure or the "Good Life" defined not as instant gratification, but as tranquillity. The traditional virtues (justice, temperance, courage, etc.) are among the means for living a pleasant life. They have no other value/ justification. Problems: 1. We just don’t believe him. That is we don’t believe that a life devoted to the acquisition of delights is itself an unsatisfying or frustrating life. Further, each of his three presumptions are up for debate. If I don’t think I HAVE a long term future, then postponing immediate gratification is just silly. (Thinks of the 60’s Cold War era where there was a great deal of emphasis on immediate delights –sex, drugs and rock&roll or inner-city gang populations where the future is considered very uncertain, or the death row inmate being told that “smoking is bad for your health.”) 2. More generally, Epicurus is trying to make morality is simply a sub-set of prudential rationality; that is, he’s trying to claim that doing the moral thing is always in your best interest and doing what is in your best interest is always what is moral. (All egoists make this claim.) However, this runs counter to a very strong moral intuition that we have which suggests that acting morally, at least occasionally, requires that we sacrifice our best interest for the interest of others. It seems patently false to claim that being moral is just a matter of doing what good for oneself. Logical Positivism, Emotivism and Alternatives Logical Positivism followed the linguistic turn in philosophy. Once it was realized that truth is a relation which holds between sentences and the world, many traditional questions of philosophy were recast into questions about the relations between our language and our experience of reality. Logical Positivism marks a development in this historical moment of Philosophy. See: (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm) Linguistic Tasks: There are many uses of language, that is, we achieve all sort of ends with language:. (e.g. Assertions, Commands, Questions, Interjections, Poetry Recitations, etc.) If we accept the "Traditional Account of Knowledge" which claims that “knowledge” equals “true, justified propositional belief,” the only sort of sentences that express knowledge claims must be assertions. Traditional Account of Knowledge: "knowledge” equals “true, justified propositional belief (Kn=TJB) Assertions: The sort of sentence that has a truth value. Only this sort of sentence is meaningful according to positivism because only this sort of sentence actually informs us (conveys information). These are to be distinguished from Pseudo-assertions. Pseudo-assertions: The sort of sentence that may appear meaningful at first but in fact is not. It does not have a truth value and does not provide us with information. Keep in mind that when we speak of a sentence having a “truth-value” we do not mean that the sentence IS true, but only that it is either true or false- has one of the two possible truth values. What the Logical Positivists point out is that, before wasting a lot of time arguing about whether a given sentence is true or false, we should first make sure that it is an assertions; that is, we should first make sure that it is even the kind of sentence than could be true or false. Assertions usually take the form of declarative sentences (i.e. sentences having a certain grammatical structure –subject- verb- predicate), but not all declarative sentences are assertions. Consider for example: “In the swirling vortex of love, a candle burns.” This IS a declarative sentence. ____Candle │burns ________ \ a \in Vortex_____ \the \of \swirling love This is NOT an assertion. (To check, ask yourself, “Is it true? Does there indeed burn a candle in the swirling vortex of love?- Or is it false? Has the candle in the swirling vortex of love gone out? Is there a light bulb there now? A neon sign instead perhaps? Perhaps a more environmentally friendly LED?) I doubt anyone would be willing to say that this sentence is true or false. Rather, they would say that it is neither true nor false. Thus it is NOT an assertion. It neither informs nor misinforms. It lacks either “true value,” instead having none. But note: the sentence “In the room next-door a candle burns.” This IS an assertion. ____Candle │burns ________ \ a \in room_____ \the \next-door What’s the difference? Not the grammar. The grammar is identical to the first sentence. Both are declarative sentences with a subject and predicate. Further, consider these: Kwai gives you all the goodness of garlic. This product was scientifically formulated to help you manage your hair-loss situation. History is the unfolding of consciousness to itself and for itself where the Absolute presents itself as an object and returns to itself as thought. We did a nationwide taste test and you know what? Papa John’s won big time! It is our destiny to rule the world. With our Lightspeed Reading Program, you will virtually read 2, 3, 4, even up to 10 times faster. With Elastizine you’ll see an average of 28% increase in younger looking skin. Coke is it! How many declarative sentences are contained in the following? How many assertions? Hey Ladies! How would you like to have drop-dead gorgeous skin without surgery? How would you like being stopped by customs agents because you look younger than you Passport date? Well, that’s what happens to users of Amino Genesis. While other manufactures recycle the same old stuff and call it new, Amino Genesis has cracked Nature’s code. Have trouble getting to sleep but can’t take a sleep aid? Millions do. That’s why the hottest new sleeping pill is not really a sleeping pill at all. Relicore PM. Take Relicore PM and get a restful sleep you need. Relicore PM, in the diet and sleep aid aisles. Have you tried everything to lose weight? Sweaty exercise is boring and takes too much time. Crazy diets don’t work and always leave you feeling hungry and deprived. Wish there were another way? Well now there’s Tone and Trim. Based on years of research, this revolutionary new break-through technology was scientifically formulated by a leading medical doctor to help you lose those unwanted inches without diet or exercise. Just take two small capsules a day, one before breakfast and one before bed, and voilá! You’re on your way to s slimmer sexier you! Tone and Trim is all natural; there’s no stimulants and no danger of harmful side effects. Tone and Trim works with you body’s own calorie burning mechanisms like a super turbo boost, leaving you leaner and more vitalized. Can’t believe any weight-loss program could be so simple and easy? Believe it! Don’t waist your time on crazy fad diets or strenuous exercise that doesn’t work! Lose that ugly fat and have the body you’ve always dreamed of with Tone and Trim. What are your waiting for? Pick up the phone and call today. Don’t let another day go by without your Tone and Trim body! Hey friends, as many of you know, I recently had heart surgery. And my cholesterol was way out of control. I knew it was time that I got serious about my health. That’s when I got Gar-leek. I didn’t say garlic, I said Gar-leek, the once a day dietary supplement that I use to battle high cholesterol. It’s been scientifically proven that garlic can help lower cholesterol levels. Hey, I like Italian food, but even I found it hard to eat enough garlic every day. Well now there’s an easy way to get your garlic. Gar-leek! I take a Gar-leek tablet every day and feel great! My cholesterol is way down and my doctors couldn’t be happier! If you need to fight cholesterol then use my weapon of choice, Gar-leek, cholesterol’s natural enemy. For years we’ve known the benefits of HGH, Human Growth Hormone. Dozens of studies have shown that it can reduce and may even reverse the signs of aging. But the cost made it something only the rich could afford. Well now there’s Ultimate HGH. Ultimate HGH helps your body release its own store of natural human growth hormone. With Ultimate HGH you can literally rewind your biological clock. Look and feel ten years younger, reverse the effects of aging, and regain the stamina and vitality of your youth with Ultimate HGH. Men, tired of having a dull sex life or lackluster sexual performance? Want to have better sex more often? Try Z-male. It's been proven tops in male potency. And it supports you body's natural sexual rhythms. There are no harsh drugs and no danger of harmful side effects. Just that extra kick where you need it! And it's guaranteed. If it does not perform the way we claim it will, we will refund you 150% of the purchase price. You’ve got nothing to lose! What are you waiting for? Call today! This message is very simple. Better Sex, more often! That’s right! I said better sex more often! Introducing V-Factor. Now you can have better sex more often! Based on a concept that won the Nobel Prize in medicine, V-factor capsules are for men who want to perform better, last longer and heighten their sensitivity. And now here’s more good news. V-Factor is specially formulated to promote prostate health. V– Factor is safe, all natural, and now available through this special radio offer without a prescription. If you want to inject passion, stamina, and virility into you sex life, try V-Factor. Guaranteed to re-ignite the spark or your money back. Try V-Factor risk free for thirty days and ask how you can get a complimentary bottle with your order absolutely free. Your call is confidential and V-Factor is delivered in plain packaging to respect your privacy. Call Now Skin Zinc has changed my life completely. As soon as I sprayed Skin Zinc on my skin, right away I felt a tingly feeling. I felt it working. On the third day I saw that my psoriasis was starting to disappear. I couldn’t believe it. I was like, “It’s working!” And it’s just a spray, no ointment, no grease involved and it doesn’t ruin anything that you wear. As we speak I am wearing a short sleeve shirt and could just cry. I can’t even believe it. It’s a miracle. Listen to me; it works. I know a lot of people have told me about different medications and nothing works. Try Skin Zinc. Believe me it works! You don’t have to suffer from chronic skin disorders. Call today. What are we who labor over these issues? Thought thinking. For only thought can bridge the chasm between now and yesterday. We wish we were so and thus. For in the absurd we find the true logic of our being. Be. And as you be, be what you are even while you pine for what is lost forever. Let's face it; there are a lot of germs out there. And the wrong germs can put you out of commission or worse. Do you want to boost your immune system? Then you should do what I do. I take Defend-ite. Defend-ite is an all natural dietary supplement that's been popular in Europe for decades. It is now available in the US without a prescription. Defend-ite is loaded with powerful ingredients not found in other immune boosters. It's no wonder that Defend-ite is the number one immune booster sold in Belgium. Do you want to be sick all flu season long? Of course not. No one wants to feel less that their best. Well with Defend-ite, you'll attract health and vitality like a magnet. Feel better and look your best with Defend-ite. How do you feel? Listless, run down, like you’re in a haze all the time? Maybe the reason you feel tired all the time is because you have tired blood. Tired blood is real; science has proven it. Well fortunately there's an easy answer. Zensus. Zensus has been scientifically formulated to renew and refresh tired worn out blood. Zensus is based on ancient Chinese herbal medicine and blends Eastern Mysticism and Western Science in a single powerful liquid elixir. You can drink it on its own, or you can mix Zensus with your favorite juice, tea or even yogurt. (Avoid taking Zensus with alcohol.) Zensus is low calorie, making it the perfect alternative to sugary soft drinks. Get the answer to tired blood. Get Zensus today. Zensus is available at better pharmacies and health food stores everywhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtabpNuwyLA If you're over 50, imagine you could turn back the clock on your stiff joints 10, even 20 years. Imagine you could do this without products that just temporarily hide the symptoms and may have side effects! Imagine no more! Introducing InstaFlex Advanced. Get a complimentary sample just by texting LIFT to 369369. InstaFlex Advanced is different because it targets the root cause of joint soreness and stiffness. It doesn't just cover up symptoms. Instead, it baths your joints in its unique combination of five key all natural ingredients found in no other product, key ingredients backed by 5 clinical studies. InstaFlex Advanced is so powerful you could have better knees in just one week. Maybe that's why it's the number one selling joint brand at GNC. But you can only get your complimentary sample by texting LIFT to 369369. Plus, text now and we will include a tube of InstaFlex Pain Cream with its exclusive oxygenated oil for fast acting relief from the pain of arthritis, back aches, and sore muscles absolutely free. Text LIFT to 369369. How do you tell a genuine assertion when you see one? It’s not the grammar. So what is it then? Positivist had their own answer to this question. The criterion, used by Logical Positivists to determine if a sentence is a meaningful assertion is called the "Criterion of Verification." Criterion of Verification: "If a sentence is unverifiable, even in principle, then it is meaningless; it is not an assertion; it is neither true or false." Oxford philosopher A.J. Ayer (1910-1989), is the person probably most responsible for helping to make this movement so widely know. In Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic he claims that a genuine assertion can be true or false in only one of two ways. Statements or propositions (assertions) may be true or false by definition (analytic or what 18th Century philosopher David Hume would have called “relations of ideas,”) or they may be true or false as a statement of observable fact (empirical or what Hume would have called “matters of fact and existence”). Note: This division is sometimes called Hume’s Fork, though Hume used it with regard to justification, not meaning. Hume’s Fork states that there are two and only two ways to justify a belief (i.e. as a relation of ideas or as a matter of fact). Hume predates Logical Positivism, but they borrowed his Fork. J For example, the claim “All bachelors are unmarried.” is true by definition. And the claim “Some bachelors are married.” is false by definition. This is because the predicate “unmarried” only restates part of what is meant by the subject term. Since “bachelor means “unmarried male,” to say that a bachelor is married would be logically inconsistent and therefore false. Notice the truth or falsity of such claims can be known a priori (independent of experience). A priori: Known or justified independent of experience. If you came to my office and told me that your friend is in the hallway and that he was a married bachelor, I would not even have to get up from my desk to KNOW that there was no married bachelor friend of yours in the hall. I can know this independent of any particular experience. Now suppose you claimed that “All bachelors are unmarried.” and I expressed a doubt about this. I tell you I want you to prove it to me. I suppose you could go door to door and do a survey “Knock, Knock, Knock. Excuse me sir are you a bachelor? You are? I see, but let me ask you now then, are you also an unmarried male?” But this would be a colossal waste of your time. For claims like “All bachelors are unmarried.” we need take no poll to verify nor do any sort of experiments, etc.. We need only to know the meaning of the terms involved in order to know whether they state a truth or a falsity. This is why they can be known a priori. This is why Hume called them "Relations of Ideas." Relation of Ideas: Definitional-a priori, Analytic, A=A, trivial (usually), non-augmentative (usually). Ex: “All vixen are foxes.” But (perhaps) also math and geometry. Now if you came to my office and told me you brought your pet unicorn to campus and asked me to come out into the hallway to see you pet unicorn, I would be VERY skeptical and maybe think you’re a little crazy. However, I could not know a priori that there was no unicorn in the hallway. That’s because there is nothing about a unicorn that is a logical contradiction. The reason I think that there are no unicorns is based on experiences (We’ve look and never found one.) so it is always possible that some future experience would undermine this belief. If I really wanted to make sure there was no unicorn out in the hallway is would have to get up from my desk and poke my heard out into the hall. I don’t expect to see anything, but there is the possibility that when I did I’d say “Damn, would you look at that.” The claim “All bachelors are unhappy.” on the other hand is not true “by definition.” “Bachelor” does not contain the concept of “Unhappy.” If this sentence is true at all it is true as a matter of fact about the world (and if it is false, it is false as a matter of fact about the world). To discover the actual truth-value (T or F) of the claim we would have to conduct an empirical study. Since the claim “All bachelors are unhappy” and the claim “It is not the case that all bachelors are unhappy.” are both logically consistent, we cannot know which of them is true (accurately states a fact about the world) a priori. Since the predicate is NOT merely a restatement of the subject concept, but rather a different concept entirely, the sentence is said to be “synthetic.” It weds two distinct ideas. Take for example “All Swans are white.” Swan does not MEAN white bird. We easily imagine a swan with of a different color. So the only way to see whether this synthesis in fact holds is to go and to look. Incidentally, it was widely believed that all swans were white. Then it was discovered empirically that there was a species of black swans. Notice that experience of the world is what grounded the synthetic claim in the first place and it was experience of the world which overturned and disconfirmed that same claim. Matters of Fact: Empirical, Synthetic, A=B, interesting (usually), augmentative (usually). Ex: “All Swans are white.” Loosely speaking these are scientific claims. If however, the truth of a sentence can be determined neither from the meaning of the words (a priori) nor by employing the scientific method (empirically) then the sentence fails the criterion. The sentence is devoid of cognitive content and is literally nonsense according to the Positivists. This would be true for such pseudo-assertions as “Kwai gives you all the goodness of garlic.” but also of such claims as “An immaterial soul exists.” or ethical sentences containing such terms as “ought,” “should,” “good,” or “bad.” They are non-sensical and therefore not sentences which impart knowledge. Consequences for Philosophy (et al.): Many (all?) the traditional philosophical answers to traditional philosophical questions seem to fail the criterion. For example: Natural Theology e.g. “There is a God.”- Not a relation of ideas nor a matter of fact Turns out to be meaningless on these grounds. Note: “There is no God.” is equally meaningless on Positivist grounds. Metaphysics e.g. “Immaterial Objects exist. Aesthetics e.g. The Miami City Ballet is a better ballet company than the San Francisco Ballet. Ethics e.g. Abortions is wrong. (Or Abortion is not wrong.) Specifically, Metaphysical Theories, Theological Theories, Epistemological Theories, Ethical Theories, Aesthetic Theories, seem to consist of sentences that are neither relations of ideas nor matters of fact. Consequently, according to the criterion of verification they are neither true nor false. They are meaningless. They convey no knowledge, but rather at best are a kind of poetic use of language. Emotivism (New/ Second Theory) Emotivism: A theory which states that ethical utterances are expressions of emotional content and subjective attitude. But if moral concepts and “judgements” are not real concepts and judgements then what are they? If they do not tell us things about the world then why do we keep uttering them? Emotivism is a theory which proposes answers to these questions. Ayer explains Emotivism as follows: The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus, if I were to say to someone ‘You acted wrongly in stealing that money.’ I am not stating anything more then if I had simply said ‘You stole that money’. In adding that this action was ‘wrong’ I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said ‘You stole that money.’ in a particular tone of horror or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. The tone, or the exclamation marks, add nothing to the literal meaning of the sentence. It merely serves to show that the expression of it is attended by certain feelings of the speaker. Think of the two sentences: “You stole that car.” And “You stole that car!” Neither asserts anything different than the other; the latter only indicates a certain emotional state of mind of the speaker. Well according to Ayer and Emotivism, were I to say, “Your stealing that car was wrong.” it would be the same as saying “You stole that car.” with a new punctuation mark. We could call it the “Wrongness Mark.” And it only serves to indicate the state of mind of the speaker. “You stole that car !ш¡” Because such sentences are not descriptive, but emotive they are unverifiable and factually empty. “The are unverifiable,” says Ayer “for the same reason that a cry of pain or a word command is unverifiable - because they do not express genuine propositions.” Such sentences (though grammatically different) are the speech act equivalents of such interjections as “hurrah!” or “boo!” According to Ayer, a simple moral pronouncement sentence such as “Stealing is wrong.” has no factual content whatsoever and expresses nothing which is either true or false. It expresses only the person’s moral sentiments. “Stealing is wrong.” = “Stealing !ш¡” (e.g "Boo Stealing!" "Down with Stealing!") The word “wrong” has only an emotive use. It allows us to express feelings about certain behaviors or events, but not to assert any facts about them. Thus the Emotivist can account for the seeming irresolvable “disagreements” on ethical matters. According to the Emotivist, the reason it has been impossible to find universal agreement upon the principles for determining the validity of ethical judgements (some saying that it is pleasure, others that it is duty) is simply that ethical judgements have no objective validity. Ironically, the Emotivist accounts for these ‘disagreements” by, in an importance sense, denying that there really every has been any. Note that a curious consequence of this view is that there are no, nor have there ever been nor can there ever be any real ethical disputes. The Anti-abortion activist who says, “Abortion is wrong!” and the Pro-choice activist who says, “Abortion is NOT wrong!” don’t really disagree about anything (any fact). It is impossible to argue about purely ethical matters since there are no ethical “facts” about which to disagree; according to the Emotivist in such cases there is only conflicting reactions to facts. It's like were rooting for different teams and your team scores a point. I say, "Boo!" You say, "Hurrah!" But we don't disagree about the facts – your team scored a point- only our emotional reactions to the (same) facts are different. Although in such confrontations there may be a clash of subjective attitudes, there can be no actual (factual) dispute. Problems With Emotivism: Nevertheless it seems to be otherwise. First, the Emotivist must deal with all the problems of Relativism and then some...(See other notes for problems with Relativism.) Second, ethics is much more serious then matters of mere “taste,” but Emotivism cannot account for this difference. Consider the sentence: "Peaches are delicious." We readily accept that this sentence is the linguistic equivalent to "Yum, peaches!" and no one would try to argue that peaches are delicious. One readily recognizes that this is a matter of pure taste and that argument is irrelevant. (Gustibus De gustibus non disputandum est.) Further, no one ever changed his or her mind about matters of taste because of an argument. Learning more facts (about peaches or whatever) would not really change the way one tastes them, or, at least, not in any reliable way. But... (Some Disanalogies with Taste) 1. We do offer reasons in support of ethical judgements and expect them to be effective in forming the ethical judgements of others. Emotivism would suggest that this a mistake, always was and always will be. If so, then Emotivists should also explain why we are (and seemingly always have been) so inclined to make this mistake. 2. Further, the above mentioned reasons do, in fact, affect the moral judgements of others. I quite possible could change you mind on a purely moral matter, simply by offering, what I take to be, reasons. Notice, this never happens with truly non-rational maters of pure taste. 3. We expect of ourselves and of one another logical consistency in our moral judgements (like cases be decided alike). But this is not the case with real matters of taste. But logical consistency cannot be had among emotive utterances. They cannot not conflict, neither can they cohere since they have no truth value. 4. Just as in law where we demand a logically consistency, that like cases be decided alike and that where they are decided differently one must articulate what the relevant legal difference is, so too in morality we demand that like cases be decided alike and that where two cases are decided differently one must articulate the relevant moral difference. But all this is evidence that moral judgements are rational matters subject to argument and rational revision and NOT merely matters of emotive expression. I use to like Miatas. I don't now. Why? I don't know; I just don’t. But if I told you that I used to think that abortion was wrong, but now I don't and you asked me "Why?" you would demand a better response then "I don't know, I just don’t?" Also. One might plausibly say, peaches are pretty must the same as nectarines, and I like nectarines, but I don't like peaches. You might find this surprising but not logically inconsistent, because we know taste is a fickle thing. There is not logical contradiction. But consider one who makes the claim, "Abortion is pretty much the same as murder and murder is wrong, but abortion is not wrong."? We would demand of such a person to know "What's the relevant moral difference?" 5. Finally we often say things like, I know that this is wrong, but it’s what I want to do. On Emotivist grounds what could this possibly mean? “Yuck this.” and “Yea this.”? But that seems implausible. It would seem that the person uttering such a remark does NOT mean by “This is wrong.” the linguistic equivalent to “Yuck this.” Indeed, such (common) occurrences seem to demonstrate precisely that “This is wrong.” is NOT the linguistic equivalent of “Yuck this.” and that Emotivism is incorrect as an account of ethical discourse. Alternatives to Positivism It should be noted that the criterion of verification is self-referentially incoherent. That is, the criterion fails itself. Take the sentence: “If a sentence is unverifiable, even in principle, then it is meaningless.” This sentence above is neither a relation of ideas (that is, a true-by-definition-tautology) nor is it a matter of fact (that is, something that can be proven by employing the scientific method). Thus either the criterion is meaningless or false. There is no way that it could be true. Some positivists suggested that it be read as a recommendation (a mild imperative). “Regard as meaningless any sentence which is unverifiable.” But if it is only recommendation, we are free to either accept it of reject it. Given the excessively confining and impractical restrictions the criterion imposes on “meaningful discourse” and inquiry, many (me) have chosen to reject it. But I must add that I think a little Positivism is a good thing. I think it a VERY good idea of a critical thinker to ask herself if the sentences being offered to persuade or convince in an argument are genuine assertions and if so, what, if anything, could prove them true or false, reasonable or unreasonable. 1. Coherence Theory of Truth: (this is roughly Alan Goldman’s account of Ethical Knowledge- More later). A theory which claims that a sentence/judgement is meaningful (true or false/ reasonable or unreasonable) depending on whether or not it coheres within a larger body of established beliefs (other sentences). (Think Law) 2. Pragmatic Theory of Truth: (this is roughly John Dewey’s account of Ethics- More later) A theory which claims that a sentence/judgement is meaningful (true or false/ reasonable or unreasonable) depending on whether or not it is useful in solving relevant problems. (Think Psycho-analysis or Science) 3. Ideal Observer Theory: (this is roughly Hume’s account of Ethics and Aesthetics- More later) To say "X is wrong." is only to say that a normal, healthy, informed, sensi tive and impartial person would disapprove of X. · Note: This is almost a concession to Positivism’s criterion because it converts ethical judgements into quasi-verifiable claims. If this view is correct, then theoretically we could poll the responses of “Ideal Observers” to determine what is right or wrong. 4. Functional Account of Good Theory: (this is roughly Aristotle’s account of Ethics- More later) To say "X is good." is only to say that "X does what X's are supposed to do and does it well." A good shark, for example, is a shark that does all the shark things well, quite independently of whether I or anyone else "approve" of it or not. Note: This too is almost a concession to Positivism’s criterion because it converts ethical judgements into quasi-verifiable claims -e.g. Consumer Reports assessments of products.) Finally, one might attempt to meet the positivist’s challenge to ethics (or philosophy in general) by claiming that ethical judgements ARE verifiable by arguing that “good” (as well as right, wrong, excellent etc.) is reducible to natural, empirically inspectable qualities such as “pleasure producing.” (e.g The above views #3 and #4 as well as Hedonism and Utilitarianism). This move is known as Naturalism (in the case of Ethics, Ethical Naturalism) Naturalism: Any of host of movements within philosophy which maintains that the terms which inform traditional philosophical questions can be recast in, reduced to, or redefined in empirical terms such that the resolution to those questions can now be accomplished by the empirical sciences. Morality as Virtue: Aristotle Virtue Ethics is a category of ethical theories which she actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not they flow from or are conducive to the formation of a good character. Central questions to any virtue ethics theory would be: · What is the good person? · What is the ideal person? · How do I achieve the Ideal? · What is “the good life” for a human being? Summary of Aristotle’s Ethical Theory Aristotle's Ethics is a systematic naturalistically justified version of ancient Greek ethical thinking. Ancient Greek ethics stresses being virtuous- virtue ethics, as opposed to merely following moral rules (deontological ethics) or the consequences of actions (consequentialist ethics). Aristotle’s ethics is based on his definition of a “human ” as “The Rational Animal” and his teleological understanding of excellence (Functional Account of Good). Since the ability to reason (deliberate over courses of action and choose on the basis of those deliberations) is the one capacity or function which separates humans from other animals, being rational is our defining quality, our "final cause," our "telos." The excellent human is the one who in actuality does reason well and choose his or her actions on the basis of reason. (This is seen in my “Functional Account of Good” portion of these notes.) Further, as creatures of habit, it is prudent (rational) to develop those good habits (Virtues) that contribute to successful living (eudemonia) evidenced in the lives lived by successful, thriving fellow humans (Virtuous Humans) through rationally enlightened practice. (I cover this In my eudaimonia portion of these notes.) The Ancient Greek Notion of: αρετη Transliteration: arete or areté Definition: Virtue, excellence, moral excellence Pronunciation: ah-reh-'tay αρετη Explanation No English word or phrase captures the exact meaning of arete. The nearest equivalents are 'excellence' and 'virtue'. But there is something more to arete which cannot be expressed in words. There is something of the Divine in it. Perhaps the only true way to understand arete is to consider two or more examples of excellence and to contemplate what it is they share. What does it mean when we say of an action, an artistic work, or some flawless athletic maneuver, that it is excellent? To behold what is excellent, in whatever form, brings us the same joy. We perform an action with excellence and say, "perfect!". In the moment of excellence, something transcends the mundane and touches the Ideal. For Plato, arete is mainly associated with moral excellence. It is superordinate to specific moral virtues of Courage, Temperance, Justice, etc.; something they all share, a special, unnamed quality, their essence. It is clearly related to Goodness, but not the same thing. For Aristotle, something is excellent when it manifests its unique purpose or telos. The unique, defining quality of human beings, for Aristotle, what makes them distinct from other creatures, is the capacity for rational thought. Human excellence, then, involves the correct use of reason, principally in connection with moral choice. Two Approaches to Aristotle: Telos 1. The Functional Account of Good Aristotle tries to explain what “good” means in terms of function: Functional Account of "Good" An account of good which claims that to say a thing is good is simply to say that it does what it is supposed to do and does it well (efficiently). (Therefore a "good knife" is one which does what knives are supposed to do and does it well.) X is good = X does what X's are supposed to do and does it well. A thing is said to be good if it does what things of its kind are supposed to do. This refocuses question of evaluation on questions of “proper function.” Note: This is verifiable so long as one knows what X is supposed to do and this function can be specified and verified. (As opposed to the function of a “phlogiston detector” for instance.). Note: That means that if one does not know what something is supposed to do then one cannot evaluate it. Note: There are two curious, though perhaps reasonable, presumptions here. u That the world does, in part at least, break itself into “natural kinds” (contra Nominalism) u And that these natural kinds distinguish themselves one from another in terms of function. The Functional Account of Good works well and easily for human-created things because they are (most often) made for a specific purpose and we who made them (usually) know what that purpose is. Note: When it comes to the products of human creations, for the most part this account of good seems perfectly reasonable (e.g. Consumer Reports can tell about good and poor toaster ovens or blow-dryers.), but we run into trouble in the case of art. Aristotle would locate the source of our current difficulty in evaluating art NOT in the fact that we don’t know what “good” means, but rather in the fact that we do not have a clear universally agreed upon idea of what art is supposed to do. He would explain our difficulty by claiming not that we are confused about the word “good,” but rather because we are confused about the word “art.” We do not know the “final cause” or telos of art. Aristotle had a teleological worldview. This means that for Aristotle, to truly know what a thing is one must know is function or purpose. Telos: Greek word for “end” or “purpose”. Teleology: A system of ends and purposes./ The study of a system of ends or purposes. Doctrine of the Four Causes: Aristotelian Doctrine which holds that to truly know what a thing is, one must know four things about it. That is, to explain what a thing is, why it is and behaves as it does one must know four things about it: 1. Material Cause: (What's it made of?) 2. Efficient Cause: (Who or what brought generated it.) 3. Formal Cause: (To what species and genus does it belong?) 4. Final Cause: (What is it supposed to do?) Imagine a thousand years from now someone is digging around in his backyard and comes across a curious object that he can see is very old, but he does not know what it is. And he wants to find out. So he takes it to his chemist friend. “What is this?” he asks. And his chemist friend replies, “Why I can tell you what it is: it is steel with some iron and chrome. There is also a bit of rubber here.” Despite the fact that what the chemist has said is true, our discoverer is not satisfied. “Yes, that’s fine, he says to himself, but what is it?” So he takes it so another friend of his, this time an Economic Historian. “What is it?” he asks. “Oh my, that’s an artifact, that is.” she says. “It was designed by Franz Wagner. It was produced in Underwood factories in New York sometime in the very early 1900s.” Ok, so now this guy knows how it came to be and who made it, but still, “What is it?” He sees a third friend, an archeologist this time. “Yes I’m certain I can help you. I know precisely what it is. It is an Underwood number 5. It is very similar to the Densmore, but differs from that kind in that it is a 4-bank frontstrike version. It differs from the Daugherty in that it was less likely to have its keys jam. Well now our discoverer understands the object’s type, that is, he can recognize another one of the same type when he sees it and he can distinguish it from things of a different type. He knows that class of things it belongs to in that he knows its form, but there is a sense in which he still does not know what the thing is. Finally he takes it to an expert on Religion and Culture from the early 20th Century. “I understand your difficulty,” she says. “You know what it is made of (Material Cause) and how it came to be (Efficient Cause) and the class of things it belongs to (Formal Cause), but what you what to know is ‘What is it supposed to do; what’s it for?’ (Final Cause). Well I can help you there. This was called a Typewriter. This was a machine by which people in the early 20th Century communicated with their gods. They would sit in front of it all day and use the keyboard to type messages of praise or petitions for help to the deities.“ Now another friend is walking by and overhears this and says, “What? Don’t be ridiculous! That was not the telos of this thing. The telos of this machine was to make music. It was a percussive instrument and people would use it to play all sorts of complicated rhythms throughout the day, Note the little bell on the side.” Figure 1 What is it? Well. if our discoverer believed either one of these stories he would be wrong, of course, and there is a sense in which he would still not know what this thing is. He would still not know what the telos of a typewriter was and thus his knowledge of the typewriter would consequently be incomplete, this despite the fact that he knew the material cause, the efficient cause, and the formal cause. He would still not know the final cause of the object. And of course, eh still could not tell a good one from a bad one. The Function of Natural Living Things: For The Functional Account of Good to be applied to natural objects (and ultimately to humans too), it will be necessary to know what the function of these objects are first. Now the question becomes “what are these Natural Objects ‘supposed to do’?’” What is the “Final Cause” of an apple tree, for example? Aristotle believed that natural objects do have purposes or functions and that these are discoverable to humans by observation. Two ways Aristotle could have responded, but did not: 1. To Serve Human Interests: Apple trees are here to serve humans and those that serve human interests well are good apple trees and those that do not serve human interests are bad apple trees. But Aristotle did not go this way because it is unjustifiably anthropocentric. He thought apple trees could be excellent completely apart from their relationship to humans. Further, this is not fine-grained enough to distinguish a good apple tree from, say, a good pear tree. Though distinct species, they would have the same function according to this view. 2. To Serve God: One might claim that God created apple trees and those that do what God created them to do are good and those that don't are bad, but he did not go this route because he did not believe in a creating God. (Aristotle thought that the Universe always existed in pretty much the same way as it does now.) The Function of Natural Living Things: Aristotle claims that the only things that apple trees are supposed to do is BE APPLE TREES. – Presumably be the BEST DARN APPLE TREES they can be. But that just means, do all and only the “apple tree things” (i.e. fulfill apple tree nature). Thus, for natural organisms, the nature of the organism’s species, that is, the thing’s formal cause, is also the goal of the thing, its final cause. In order to know what apple trees are supposed to do, (what the “apple tree things” are- apple tree nature- the apple tree telos) one must engage in an empirical study of the species and see what they do do. Through careful observation one will be able to distinguish the healthy, thriving apple tress from the sick, diseased, withering apple trees. Studying the characteristic behavior of the healthy ones will reveal the “nature” and thus the function of the species. (Thus the normative force is provided by health vs. disease: i.e. one ought to be healthy/ excellent, one ought not be sick/ pathetic.) Suppose you, a native Floridian, move up to my hometown in Pennsylvania and you buy a house, in part, because of the big apple tree in the front yard. However, in the middle of September, you notice that all the leaves are turning funny colors and start falling off. “Oh no!” you think, “There’s something terribly wrong with my apple tree.” You call me up in a panic and tell me what’s going on. “Calm yourself.” I would reassure you. That’s how apple trees are supposed to behave. It is natural for apple trees to lose their leaves in the autumn.” However, if all the leaves start turning funny colors and falling off your tree in the middle of May, when then, yah, you got a problem. Note: This makes Aristotle a Naturalist with regard to ethics- one who argues that normative claims can be reduced to empirically verifiable claims. Note :He is not contrasting good and evil; he is contrasting good and bad, healthy and pathological, vigorous thriving and pathetic withering. What is the Human Telos? He applies exactly the same reasoning to human beings. He locates what he believes to be our unique and defining function. 1. NOT the vegetative functions (eat and grow/reproduce) These are the minimal function for living nature. As such these are part of our nature, but not unique to humans. They are rather functions we share with all living reality. This is how he divides living (organic) reality and non‑living (inorganic) reality. 2. NOT basic animal functions (locomotion or sensitive capacities) These divide the living world between “two kingdoms.” Plants eat and grow and reproduce, but animals have these additional functions. As such these are not unique to humans, but rather functions we share with all living animal reality. 3. NOT our capacity for emotions. (Aristotle does not address this explicitly, but I believe he would recognize that other animals have emotions.) Emotional functions we share with other higher animals. This being so, these are not unique to humans, but rather functions we share with all living higher animal reality. The Human Telos The unique function of Humans is that we can reason. Thus, reason is at once our defining trait and our telos. Being a "good human being" or being good as a human requires that we reason and reason well. But Aristotle is not talking about the mere Theoretical Reason-Sophia (our exercise of reason for itself or to come to know truth), but rather Practical Reason- Phronesis, the use of reason to govern and guide our actions. He means reason to be the ability to deliberate over choices and to choose on the basis of those deliberations; we have the ability to consider two courses of action in the abstract and choose between the two based on rational appraisal. n Note: Here we see some of the significance of Aristotle’s famous definition of Man as: “The Rational Animal” Only three words but note their significance: 1. THE: (definite article) 2. RATIONAL: (Human Telos/ Segregating Trait) 3. ANIMAL: (Unlike the Platonic notion of a spirit imprisoned only for a time in a body, Aristotle claims we are essentially animals with animal natures, just not merely animal natures.) “The Rational Animal” Non-human animals act on the basis on instincts or emotional responses. Thus, their choices are not motivated or guided by rational deliberation over abstract choices. We could (and sometimes do) live our lives the same way, but this would be living the excellent life of a pig, NOT the excellent life of a human. Acting virtuously (as one is supposed to) for humans is acting rationally, activity in accor d with a rational principle. Two Approaches to Aristotle: Virtues 2. Eudemonia and Moral Virtues Aristotle arrives at his conception of the “good life” for a human (as a rational being) by asking, “What is the natural good for man?" that is, what all humans desire "for its own sake" and not "for the sake of anything else." Here it is helpful to distinguish two kinds of “value.” Intrinsic Value: Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable for itself and not merely for some other reason. Instrumental Value: Something has instrumental value if it is valuable as a means to some other end (ex. money). Aristotle points out that some things we value because they are means to other ends. But it cannot be that everything is valued (or have value) for some other reason for that would lead to an infinite regress. Thus, if we value anything at all there must be something we value intrinsically. And this thing (or things) of intrinsic value is what motivates all our actions. This is a teleological view of human action. The idea is that thoughtful, deliberate action is goal oriented. But this system of goals cannot be an infinite series (infinite regress). There must be a Summa Bonum, a Final End of human action(s). Three qualities of the Ultimate Good (Summa Bonum) 1. Intrinsically valuable 2. Proper to our nature/ unique human good 3. Realizable; Can be acquired largely independently of being given from outside Our final good? Happiness. Eudemonia: Aristotle's term for happiness in the sense of a state a thriv ing, health, actualized well-ness and full human develop ment. Aristotle's special notion of happiness is not our con ception of "feeling happy" or euphoria. These are only unsustainable sensations. Rather Aristotle is thinking of a stable state, like that of being healthy. Aristotle’s term Eudemonia means something closer to "living well" or “thriving.” And it includes all the natural human capacities (social, political, economic, creative, familial) and virtuous acts as well as good feelings. No matter how good one feels (about oneself, life etc.) one would not be happy in Aristotle's sense unless one were living a life fit for a human being, actively fulfilling your human potential, being fully human. Imagine the new father that tells you he has a wonderful life planned for his newly born son. He has amassed a huge stock of illegal drugs an he plans on keeping his son high for his entire life. The child will only experience pleasure (no difficulty, no strife, no challenge) his entire life. Would you approve of such a father? Of such a life plan? Would you wish that life for your own child? For yourself? Certainly not, Aristotle thinks. Even though a life of unending pleasure may seem appealing at first, we quickly realize there is far more to being fulfilled as a human being (eudemonia) than experiencing pleasure. Further, happiness as with all judgments of virtuous functioning generally, is not a matter of black and white. Few people are perfectly happy (excellent) and few people are perfectly unhappy (having NO human excellences of any kind to any degree). Close observation of the species reveals that some are thriving more than others. Further, there are certain kinds of characteristic behaviors (character traits) that are necessary for or contribute to being happy (or at least, as happy as one can be given life's ups and downs). These character traits taken in sum are what Aristotle refers to as The Virtuous Character. He recommends we attempt to develop it in ourselves and others as much as possible. (Moral) Virtue: Aristotle's term for a good habit which is necessary for or con tributes to successful living. So what ARE these good habits and how do we acquire them? Doctrine of the Golden Mean: The Aristotelian doctrine which holds that a moral virtue is always the middle ground between two vicious extremes. Examples of Virtues · Courage (midway between Cowardice and Rashness) · Temperance (knowing when to say when. midway between lasciviousness and asceticism) · Pride (Midway between hubris and lack or self-respect; made him unattractive to Christians.) · Friendliness (social skills necessary for eudemonia) o I like to point out this is not unlike our modern notion of “EQ” a cognitive skill/ability in which some people are pathologically deficient. Midway between obsequiousness and belligerence) Vice of Deficiency Virtuous Mean Vice of Excess 1. Cowardice Courage Rashness 2. Intemperance/ Lasciviousness Temperance Insensibility/ Asceticism 3. Illiberality Liberality Prodigality 4. Pettiness Munificence Vulgarity 5. Humble-mindedness High-mindedness Vaingloriness 6. Want of Ambition Ambition Over-ambition 7. Spiritlessness Good Temper Irascibility 8. Surliness Friendliness Obsequiousness 9. Ironical Depreciation Sincerity Boastfulness 10. Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery 11. Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness 12. Callousness Just Resentment Spitefulness So how do we acquire the “virtues?” (Same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice. :-) ) According to Aristotle, being an excellent human being is just like being an excellent golfer. One becomes that by practice. And keep in mind that practice, if it is useful, is a rational affair. First you need reason to identify the virtuous humans to serve as your models. Second you must use reason to analyze their example and discern the virtues. Finally, you need reason to develop the good habits yourself, requiring constant performance assessment and reassessment. Education should be structured so that it develops the bodily and mental faculties. Four Levels of Moral Development: Virtuous Person The top level of moral development according to Ar istotle. Has already developed the "Good Habits." This person is living the good life. Because his or her behavior is shaped largely by good habits, actions do not require rational deliberation on an action to action basis. Continent Person The second best level of moral development according to Aristotle. This person can usually do the right thing, but for him or her it is still a struggle requiring both reason and will-power. Incontinent Person The level of moral development according to Aristotle that is characterized by the fact that the person knows what the wise/right thing to do is, but lacks the will-power and self-control to do it. Has the theoretical knowledge, but not the practical skill. Wretched Person The level of moral development according to Aristotle where the agent not only lacks the good habits necessary for successful living, but even the awareness that his own bad habits are the cause for his misery. Three types of Lives 1. life of enjoyment 2. life of the statesman 3. the contemplative life Many suppose the life of pleasure is “the good life.” But Aristotle rejects this as insufficient and not proper to our nature, being only proper to brute beasts. (Previously noted here.) As for the life devoted to the attainment of honor or glory, Aristotle claims that this is not the true, proper end of a virtuous life either. He criticizes it as “too superficial.” For one thing, it depends upon those who give honor rather than the individual himself or herself. One can be virtuous, but be despised by his community. Conversely one can be a despicable human being, but somehow be honored by his community. But our true “good” is something that is peculiarly a person’s own which cannot be taken away. Further, he believes that many who pursue honor do so to be assured of their own excellence. But that only shows that virtue or excellence is better than honor; and for these individuals at least, excellence is if fact the true end at which they aim. The third kind of life is the life of contemplation. This is the highest kind of life for a human. Romantic Critique Now one might accept the functional account of good (i.e. “X is good.” = “X does what Xs are supposed to do and does it well.”), but reject Aristotle's notion of the human telos is or purpose he towards which he thinks all humanity is directed. For instance if one thinks of Romanticism and romantic heroes we find that they pursue values very different from those that Aristotle’s “Virtuous Human: pursues. The Romantic hero typically is not motivated by reason but rather is motivated by Passion. The point of life is not “activity within the bounds of rational principle,” but rather experiential: to love the greatest love, to feel the greatest patriotism, to burn with the greatest desire. This is the purpose of human life. One thinks of Thoreau “I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life,” (I've always found that rather disgusting image myself.), but nevertheless the encouragement to “live life to its fullest” seems to be an essential part of Romanticism and the Romantic Hero. Now if this is the purpose of life, if this is “the good” we should pursue then we have different virtues to develop, far different from the cardinal virtues of Aristotle and different persons will populate our Pantheon of Heroes. So one might say the good human being is one who does what human beings are supposed to do (functional account of “good”), but come up with a completely different ethical system. Thomas Aquinas’s Critique Similarly one can see Aquinas as adopting Aristotle's functional account of good but rejecting Aristotle's notion of what our true end or telos is. Aquinas agrees with much of this, but believes that Aristotle was aiming too low as to what it is that humans desire for its own sake (the true summa bonum). Aquinas is critical of Aristotle on this point. 1. What we really seek is not finite happiness, but rather infinite, indefinite happiness Aquinas maintains. (It's not like I want to be happy for the next five years and after that I don't care anymore.) Close attention reveals that what we truly want is unending, unlimited ongoing happiness and fulfillment. So Aristotle's worldly eudaimonia is not the true end we seek, nor can his (worldly/ cardinal) virtues tell us how to achieve that genuine end we desire, that is, our true Summa Bonum. 2. Further, Aquinas thought he could prove the existence of an all-powerful and all loving God philosophically. So belief in such a being need not merely rely on faith but on certain proof. (For those who do not come to believe this as a matter of philosophy there is also revelation.) Thus both philosophy and faith direct us to seek and even expect the happiness commensurate to God’s power and love. (That is to say, Infinite- just what we wanted.) 3. Thus for Aquinas, our true end (telos) is in the knowledge, service and love of God and to be united with Him in the afterlife. I like to point out how influential Aquinas and for that matter Aristotle continue to be in terms of our thinking on ethics and specifically on the claims of Roman Catholicism. As some of you might know, Catholic grade school children are catechized before receiving first Holy Communion, learning some of the teachings of the Catholic faith. A much used resource though, I believe it has been replaced these days, in the catechizing of these young Catholic children was a book called the Baltimore catechism. The catechism is arranged as a series of questions and answers and children are taught to memorize both the question and the answer. The Baltimore Catechism: Baltimore Catechism No. 1 LESSON FIRST: ON THE END OF MAN (Emphasis added.) 1. Q. Who made the world? A. God made the world. 2. Q. Who is God? A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things. 3. Q. What is man? A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God. 6. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. Question #6 is particularly interesting I believe. While this is a question that a grade schooler could understand (and that is the target audience of the Baltimore Catechism), it is profound in its depth. This is asking “for what reason do I exist?” “What is my purpose or telos?” By extension it is asking “What is the good for humans?” To what end are they directed and how are they to fully realize their latent, potential human nature?” This is the fundamental questions driving Plato’s and Aristotle’s ethics and the catechism provides Aquinas’ answer, an answer not too far from the thinking of both of these ancient Greek philosophers. It is also worth mentioning that Aquinas accepts Aristotle’s definition of human (i.e. Man is the Rational Animal) Thus the only kind of eternal life and eternal happiness a human can have is as an animal/ body. Ah! But that is precisely the eternal life the Christianity promises. And precisely what Christians are right to hope for, with God's help. The eternal life promised by Christianity is NOT one as a disembodied spirit (Plotinus’ assent of the soul), but rather human existence as resurrected bodies, the same sort of existence Christians understand Christ to enjoy now. Aquinas says “Anima mea non est ego.” And that this was anticipated, in a way, by the Pagan philosopher Aristotle. Hence Philosophy shows the necessity of the resurrection of the body, just as promised by the Christian faith, for everlasting human life. I answer that, Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions whereby he is directed to happiness, as was explained above (Question 5, Article 7). Now man's happiness is twofold, as was also stated above (Question 5, Article 5). One is proportionate to human nature, a happiness, to wit, which man can obtain by means of his natural principles. The other is a happiness surpassing man's nature, and which man can obtain by the power of God alone, by a kind of participation of the Godhead, about which it is written (2 Peter 1:4) that by Christ we are made "partakers of the Divine nature." And because such happiness surpasses the capacity of human nature, man's natural principles which enable him to act well according to his capacity, do not suffice to direct man to this same happiness. Hence it is necessary for man to receive from God some additional principles, whereby he may be directed to supernatural happiness, even as he is directed to his connatural end, by means of his natural principles, albeit not without Divine assistance. Such like principles are called "theological virtues": first, because their object is God, inasmuch as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ. We seek not only happiness, but unending and indefinite happiness. Further, since we can prove philosophically the existence of a good and loving all-powerful God (or so he thought) the kind of happiness we should expect him to bestow in happiness proportional to his power and love, that is, infinite bliss. Thirdly, note that Aquinas also incorporate Aristotle’s notion that happiness is to be achieved by developing virtues. The theological virtues are three: hope, love and charity. And the greatest of these is charity. Existentialist Critique Finally, we might consider Existentialism which simply rejects any notion of a fixed human nature. We'll have more to say on existentialism later, but let's at this point acknowledge that existentialists would claim that the phrase “what human beings are supposed to be” has no reference. One of the central claims of existentialism is that there is not human nature and thus each of us must choose what “Being Human” means for ourselves. Your choice or anyone else's about what it means to be human has absolutely no claim on me. Rather I must choose for myself what it means to be this humanity. While we think in terms of common nouns (human/ cat/ apple tree) we must live our lives as individuals. It's somewhat paradoxical in exactly the way that Plato suggested. We think in common nouns but we experience the world as individual moments, individuals encountering other individuals. So what we think (common noun like “cat” or “cat form”) we cannot see (since we only see individuals) and what we see (individual, particular cats) we cannot think (the generic concept of or abstract concept of “cat form”). But where is Plato thought the forms have a greater degree of reality, existentialist assure us that the really real is the individual confronting the world individually on individual terms. So what matters is not what human nature is but what I choose to be for myself. Consequently, since there is no human nature, one cannot apply the functional account of good to evaluate humans. This is not to suggest that the existentialist claims there are no criteria by which to assess our lives. The criterion is to honestly look at our lives and embrace what we see. One must take a sober and unvarnished look at one’s life, and making to excuses, ask oneself am I living up to my own values? While this is indeed a subjective test, to ask and answer this question honestly and authentically can be very convicting. Social Hedonism/Utilitarianism Note: “Egoistic Hedonism” is considered unsatisfactory as a moral theory because it explicitly rejects what many call the "Moral Point of View" – Moral action requires that one treats others and oneself equally. The Moral Point of View – Moral action requires that one treat others (and their interests) and oneself (and one’s own interests) equally. Being moral is NOT merely being prudent (as Egoism implies), but to (sometimes) sacrifice one’s own best interest for the welfare of another. As a correction to Egoistic Hedonism of Epicurus, other Philosophers (e.g. Bentham, Mill et al.) propose Social Hedonism or “Utilitarianism,” the central tenant of which is the Principle of Utility. Principle of Utility: An action is right if and only if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number (of … people?). Note: there is a minor difference between Social Hedonism and Utilitarianism. Specifically: Utilitarianism: An action is right if and only if it results in the greatest GOOD for the greatest number (of people?). (Here “good” is not specified and may include other things besides pleasure. English philosopher G. E. Moore (1873 – 1958) was this sort of Utilitarian.) Social Hedonism: An action is right if and only if it results in the greatest pleasure for the greatest number (of people?). (Here “good” is specified as pleasure. J. Bentham and J.S. Mill were this sort of Utilitarian.) Were you to go on to take another course, perhaps an upper division course in ethics, this distinction might be important. But for our purposes, the only Utilitarians we are going to be looking at are social hedonists. So, I will treat these terms, utilitarianism and social hedonism, as synonymous for the purposes of our class. Morality requires that one value everyone’s welfare, not just one’s own. Utilitarianism implies it may be morally necessary to sacrifice one’s own self interest for the good of others in some circumstances. Social Hedonism/Utilitarianism suggests a cost/benefits analysis where pleasure/pain is the "coin of the realm.” The right course of action among available alternatives is whichever one nets the greatest amount of pleasure. Most famous advocates: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) The Jeremy Bentham Version- Act-Utilitarianism Imagine I have been invited over my neighbor’s for dinner this weekend and I am trying to decide if I ought to go or not. I consider that if I go, she’s not a very good cook and her kids get on my nerves. On the other hand, there is a season of Star Trek Voyager I’ve been wanting to binge watch. I could binge watch it if I stay home. I reason: Person Affected by my action I go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s 1. Me -2 I do not go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s +2 Now, an egoistic hedonist (Epicurus) would be done. I only have to consider how much pleasure an action would bring me and weigh it against alternative actions. But the Utilitarian would say, wait, wait, wait, You can’t just consider yourself. You need to consider others affected as well. I must therefore consider my neighbor. Person Affected by my action I go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s I do not go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s 1. 2. Net Value Me Neighbor -2 +1 -1 +2 -1 +1 Ok. But look, I still create more “net” pleasure by staying home and binge watching. (yeah!). Therefore this is the moral thing to do (i.e. the right thing to do) since this action results in the greatest (net) pleasure. Ah… but there is also my wife to consider. She enjoys my neighbor’s company, if not her cooking, and the thought of me lying around watching a silly science fiction T.V. series for hours will annoy her so… Person Affected by my action 1. 2. Me I go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s -2 I do not go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s +2 Neighbor 3. Net Value My wife +1 +1 0 -1 -1 0 Ok. But look now. I create no more “net” pleasure by staying home than by going. Both actions are of equivalent value and thus morally equal. It does not matter which I choose. Therefore, it is moral for me to do either since I am not creating any more “pleasure” by going than I would by staying home. (So can you guess which one I’m going to do?) Ah… but there are also those annoying children. For whatever reason, they enjoy having me over. So the final tally looks like this. Person Affected by my action 1. 2. Me I go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s -2 I do not go to Dinner at the Neighbor’s +2 Neighbor 3. 4. Net Value My wife Neighbor’s Children +1 +1 +2 +2 -1 -1 0 0 Thus “going” creates more pleasure than “not going.” I am morally compelled, by the principle of utility, to go and eat my neighbor’s lousy food and put up with her annoying children. While morality does not always require I sacrifice my own happiness for the sake of others, there are circumstances where it does, according to Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is, in one way, the most idealistic of all ethical theories: it takes for granted that people will be motivated to work for the general good. This was the ethical theory which inspired the reform movements in the newly industrialized countries of Europe during the nineteenth century. Utilitarian thinking helped bring about and justify the welfare state. (Karl Marx's political theory was a reaction to the same social inequities.) This is also the principle behind decriminalizing “victimless crimes.” If I am not hurting anyone by what I’m doing, what sense does it make to hurt/ punish me for it? In law and legal reasoning this is known as the “Principle of Harm.” Aspects of a Pleasure to Consider Since SO much depends upon correctly estimating the magnitude of the resulting pleasure, Bentham gives some pointers on what to consider. Seven Aspects to a Pleasure: 1. Intensity: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates how acute, extreme or potent the pleasure is. The more intense, the greater its value all other things being equal. 2. Duration: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates how long the pleasure lasts. The longer it lasts, the greater its value all other things being equal. 3. Purity: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates whether or not the pleasure is mixed with any aggravation. The purer the pleasure, the greater its value all other things being equal. 4. Surety: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates the risk involved in the pleasure. The more certain one is of the pleasure, the greater its value all other things being equal. 5. Propinquity (Nearness): The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates whether the pleasure is close at hand or not. The more near at hand the pleasure, the greater its value all other things being equal. 6. Fecundity: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates whether or not the pleasure is likely to give rise to other, further pleasures in the future. The more fecund the pleasure, the greater its value all other things being equal. [i] 7. Scope: The aspect of pleasure one is considering according to Bentham, when one estimates how many others are affected by the action. The greater the scope of the pleasure, the greater its value all other things being equal. Note that each of these aspects of a pleasure that Bentham points out has to do with quantity. In every case the more pleasure the better, the less pleasure the lower the value. Indeed, Bentham was what's called a quantitative hedonist. Between any two pleasures if they differ in value it was only because they differed in quantity. As we shall see, John Stuart Mill was a qualitative hedonist suggesting that two pleasures can differ in quality as well as in quantity. But we'll get to that later. Certain Intuitive Aspects of Act Utilitarianism The idea of Utilitarianism does capture how we try to reason morally at least sometimes: Imagine that a physician gives a heart transplant to Annie instead of Bill and tells us he did so because Annie is a 30 year-old single mother of 3 and their sole means of support while Bill is a 55 year-old bachelor. He reasons that more good/happiness/pleasure is likely to come from giving the heart to the younger patient with dependent children. Even if we ultimately disagree with him, we can see his point. He is citing relevant moral reasons. By contrast if he had said, “Well of course I gave it to Annie because I always go alphabetically.” that would strike us as weird and irrelevant. The fact that Annie’s name comes first alphabetically is morally irrelevant in a way that the amount of happiness that would result from giving her the heart does not. So pleasure/consequences do seem to play SOME role in moral thinking. But... does it play EVERY role? Perhaps not. Problems with Act-Utilitarianism (Practical and Theoretical) Practical Problems: Note: A Practical Problem is an objection to a theory which claims that whether or not the theory is true, the theory is problematic because it can't be used. 1. Estimating Values: (Seems impossible to put numbers on things like family, health, reputation) Here the objection is that we could never be so course as to assign numbers to intangible human values of the sort as family, friends, marriage, reputation, health or career. But is we can’t assign numbers, we, literally, can’t do the math. We therefore cannot use the theory to guide our actions (tell us what we ought to do). 2. Predicting Consequences: This objection maintains that we cannot know the future consequences of our actions, nor can we predict them with the needed accuracy or rapidity to make all the moral decisions that confront us relentlessly. Therefore this theory cannot be used because we cannot estimate resulting pleasures or pains. Again, if we cannot know the consequences, we cannot use the theory. Theoretical Problems: Note: A Theoretical Problem is an objection to a theory which claims that whether the theory can be used or not, the theory is problematic because it isn't true (complete, accurate, etc.). 1. "Is X (e.g. murder, lying, cheating, stealing) wrong?" Act-Utilitarianism can’t say anything more than, “Depends.” If slavery benefits more people than it harms it is moral. This is not merely the position that “the ends justify the means.” In that case, "means" matter, they are morally relevant, so much so that they stand in need of justification. But according to Utilitarianism, “means” don't matter at all. So, the morality of cheating, stealing, murdering, all "depend" on the consequences in any particular situation, according to this moral theory. Further, if two courses of action result in the same amount of pleasure, but one requires theft, lying and murder while the other did not, neither course of action would be morally preferable according to Utilitarianism since it is only interested in “the bottom line.” So if the two courses of action have the same pleasure outcome, they are equivalent on Act-Utilitarian grounds even is one requires lying, cheating and murder and the other does not. Action A Lies Cheating Murder +10 Action B No Lies No Cheating No Murder +10 Courses of actions are equivalent. 2. Diametrically opposed to "rights." Rights seem best to be understood as a check on Utilitarian Advances. Notice that my “right to property” is another way of claiming that, no matter what noble ends you have in mind (helping the poor, feeding the hungry, educating children) you are morally prohibited from taking my stuff without my permission. Likewise with rights to life or liberty. Rights are thought to hold whether good (immediate) consequences result or not, and in fact do the most work in precisely those situations in which rights violations are an expedient means to good consequences. The theoretical objections above are meant to show that Utilitarianism is counter-intuitive. Still, pointing out that a theory has weird results is not the same thing as proving it false. Furthermore, it can be said on Utilitarianism’s behalf that it is the job a moral theories to correct mistaken intuitions. Problems with Act-Utilitarianism: Responses To the Practical Problems: 1. We already do assign numbers in civil court proceedings. Now the claim that we could never assign numbers to such human intangibles such as career, reputation, health, etc., is a weak objection when it's pointed out that we do precisely this in civil court proceedings. Now this is not easy and it can be somewhat awkward. But it's not as if the jury or judge are throwing darts at a board. Presumably they take into account a number of factors to arrive at what would be reasonable compensatory damages. 2. Maybe we should only hold people responsible for the consequences that they can reasonably foresee. While it is true that I cannot know with the far distant consequences of my actions are, I can be relatively certain about the immediate consequences of my actions, at least in most cases. Therefore, one might respond that I should be held responsible for the consequences I could reasonably foresee whereas I need not be held responsible for consequences I could not reasonably foresee. To Theoretical Problems: 1. Calling a theory weird is not a critical response. 2. Reform the Theory John Stuart Mill’s Version - Rule Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill attempts to refine Utilitarianism in a way that deals with the aforementioned problems. Mill accepts the idea that calculating every decision according to such criteria is a practical impossibility on a day to day basis. What ethics needs to provide then, are general action guiding rules. He uses the logic of Utilitarianism to provide us with good, action guiding (moral) rules. Rule Utilitarianism: A moral theory which states that a moral rule is correct if and only if, following the moral rule, generally, results in the greatest good for the greatest number. And an act is moral if and only if it accords with a correct moral rule. According to this view, the right act for a person to do is the one which conforms to the (right) moral code of the community; the right code for the community to adopt is the one which, when adhered to by all, will best promote the general good. Because of the practical limitations on pleasure assessment, personal bias, efficiency and time constrains of moral decision making and consequence predictions, etc., morality must be about general action-guiding directives (rules of thumb- policies) rather than individual act assessments. Therefore the moral question cannot (for practical reasons) be “What action in this particular case will produce the greatest pleasure?” but rather “Generally, what actions produce the greatest pleasure?” Rule-utilitarianism was devised to cope with cases in which it appeared that applying the utilitarian standard directly to practical situations would lead us to contradict the traditional code of morality which enjoys strong intuitive support. This version (Rule Utilitarianism) does address some of the objections raised against Act Utilitarianism: PO1: As we move to the question of “General Good/ Happiness” the calculations can be more rough and estimated. PO2: Again, since we are no longer concerned with predicting individual causal chains linked to individual actions, the business of evaluating the utility of a policy is more manageable and less speculative. (See marketing, economics, sociology, city engineering, etc.) TO1: Mill has a means of justifying such intuitive moral claims as “Lying is wrong.” “Cheating is wrong.” “Murder is wrong.” etc. independently of knowing the individual consequences of individual actions. In this way, he could reasonably claim that his theory confirms our most basic moral intuitions, rather than contradicts them. Mill believe that Rule Utilitarianism yielded results that were in conformity with Christian Ethics and traditional ethics generally. TO2: Further, Rule Utilitarianism provided Mill with a way of trying to justify rights, moral duties and a “Liberal Society.” Note: It's obvious enough that a theory which attempts to base morality on the general good must also answer the question about what the “good” is. Rights to Personal Autonomy: Mill Against Paternalism Mill argues against Paternalism in 'On Liberty" Paternalism: Refers to those laws or other prohibitions imposed on persons which constitute a limit on an individual's personal freedom for his or her own good. Mill argues that the government (and society in general) should stay out of an individual’s private (self-regarding) affairs. He acknowledges that we ought to encourage character development, but not through punitive regulation. Mill is thus seen as an early proponent of a “Liberal Society,” that is, a society where government stays out of our private affairs as much as possible, (That government is best which governs least.) Government ought only limit our individual freedom when our exercise of that freedom impinges on the freedom of another. But note: The ONLY thing which justifies the rights of the individual according to Mill, is Utility. That is, generally speaking, it is an empirical fact that society or government micro-managing the private affairs of individuals is a less efficient means to general happiness than letting people pursue happiness privately unmolested by government. However, if this is the ONLY justification of rights, then in principle, should government develop more efficient methods or regulating the private lives of citizens , it would be justified in taking more intrusive action. Mill would have probably disapproved, even under these circumstances. However, it is unclear what philosophical objections his system would present. Godless Morality According to Mill, our knowledge of moral values and moral obligations is based upon experience, the experience of ordinary people. This appeal to human desires and preferences, rather than to Reason (Rational/ Moral Structure of the Universe) or Nature (teleology) or the Will of God earned utilitarianism the reputation of being a "godless" doctrine. “Mill’s Heresy” Mill departed from Bentham's doctrine that all pleasures were of equal quality (Push Pin was as Good as Poetry) by saying that some kinds of pleasure are intrinsically better than others. Unlike Bentham who was a “Quantitative Hedonist” Mill was a “Qualitative Hedonist.” Quantitative Hedonist: one who holds that the only value difference between two pleasures is amount. (Bentham) Qualitative Hedonist: one who hold that two pleasures of equal quantity may differ with respect to value based on their respective qualities. (Mill) Mill’s Utilitarianism was accused of being a “swinish doctrine” since it only appeals to pleasure. Mill counters that this would only be the case if we imagined humans capable only of swinish pleasures. But humans can experience more that those, and these latter are superior. How can we know which pleasures are superior to which? Experience, says Mill, specifically, by consulting the feelings and preferences of people who have a wide experience of life. “Of t

Philosophy Practice Quiz - Ethics Questions PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript