Phil 1100 M1 Notes PDF

03/09/24 Branches of philosophy Logic ○ Governs rules of human thinking Ex. communication → wouldn't be able to hold a conversation ○ Principle of noncontradiction One cannot hold both P and not P Metaphysics and epistemology...

03/09/24 Branches of philosophy Logic ○ Governs rules of human thinking Ex. communication → wouldn't be able to hold a conversation ○ Principle of noncontradiction One cannot hold both P and not P Metaphysics and epistemology ○ The study of reality Nature of morality ○ The theory of knowledge Ex. what do we know.. what kind of knowledge can we have Value theory ○ Nature of value Ex. what sorts of things are valuable/good.. what makes life meaningful Is morality objective or subjective Moral dilemma ○ Normative discipline Evaluating things rather than just describing Endeavor to prescribe how they ought to be Ideals of right and wrong Certain rules to follow to get the right outcome → standard of critique Normative and descriptive statements Ex. Who is in power.. Who should be in power 09/05/24 Arguments Made of premises and a conclusion ○ In a good argument, the premises are logically related to the conclusion Ex. P1: if it is raining, then the streets are wet. P2: It is raining Deductive ○ Valid → if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true ○ Sound → valid AND the premises are true Ex. 1: valid + sound P1: if it is raining, then the streets are wet. P2: it is raining. C: therefore, the streets are wet Validity Yes, if the premises are true the conclusion follows Soundness Yes because the conclusion follows the premises and it is valid Ex. 2: invalid + not sound P1: if it is raining, then the streets are wet. P2: it is raining. C: therefore, the streets are wet Validity If the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow Soundness Not valid Just because the streets are wet does not necessarily mean it is raining Ex. 3 valid + not sound P1: all men are mortal P2: socrates is a duck C: therefore, socrates is not mortal Validity Yes, if the premises are true the conclusion follows Soundness Not sound because socrates is not a duck Ex. 4 P1: all ducks are cars P2: socrates is a duck C: therefore, socrates is a car Validity Yes, if the premises are true the conclusion follows Soundness Not sound because ducks are not cars and socrates is not a duck Ex. 5 P1: everyone who gets the covid vaccine will be protected C: therefore, if I don’t get it, I am only putting myself at risk Validity It is assuming everyone has received the vaccine Add missing premise to make it valid P2: everyone else has gotten the covid-19 vaccine C1: therefore, everyone else is protected from getting sick from covid-19 C2: therefore, if I don’t get the covid-19 vaccine, i am only putting myself at risk of getting sick from covid-19 Valid but not sound ○ The vaccine is not 100% effective Inductive arguments Involve probabilities ○ Strong If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true, but not guaranteed ○ Weak If the premises are true, it does not follow that the conclusion is likely to be true Ex. 1: strong P1: every saturday for the past 10 years, Bob’s alarm goes off at 5am P2: tomorrow is saturday C: therefore, Bob’s alarm will likely go off at 5am Ex. 2: weak P1: last saturday Bob’s alarm went off at 5am P2: tomorrow is saturday C: therefore, Bob’s alarm will likely go off at 5am Ex. 3: P1: most people really are nice people when you get right down to it C1: so, when you meet someone new, the chances are, they are nice too Is/ought fallacy Descriptive language ○ Describing something with no opinion, an observation Normative language ○ An opinion Ex. “should,” “ought,” “would,” “be good to,” etc Philosophers will reject an argument that tries to draw a normative conclusion from descriptive premises  Just because things are a certain way doesn’t mean they ought to be that way ○ Ex. “everyone cheats now and then, it’s not a big deal” To change to normative premise: P1: everyone cheats now and then P2: what everyone does can’t be wrong C: therefore, cheating every now and then can’t be wrong Naturalistic fallacy If something is natural or found in nature, it is therefore good Ex. P1: all animals kill other animals C1: therefore, killing animals is perfectly permissible Ex. 2: P1: all animals require food, water and some freedom of movement in order to flourish P2: pigs are animals C1: therefore, pigs ought to have food, water and some freedom of movement in order to flourish Validity Does not say that pigs ought to flourish Add P2: All animals ought to flourish P3: pigs are animals C1: therefore, pigs ought to have food, water, and some freedom of movement 12/09/24 Challenges to objective morality Subjectivism ○ Moral judgements express personal preferences ○ Truth or falsity varies from person to person ○ Simple subjectivism Ex. if someone claims abortion is wrong, this implies that they disapprove of abortion If someone believes the opposite there is no disagreement, they are both saying true things Cultural relativism ○ The view that morality is determined by the moral standards a a culture happens to adopt ○ Express a culture’s opinion ○ Truth or falsity varies from culture to culture Both forms of moral relativism ○ The idea that truth or falsity of moral claims is relative to a person or group/culture  There is no universal moral truth but there are moral truths Cannot be both metaethical theories ○ Ones value’s can differ from that of the country they belong to 09/12/24 Subjectivism Moral judgements express personal preferences Truth or falsity varies from person to person Simple subjectivism ○ Ex. if someone claims abortion is wrong, this implies that they disapprove of abortion ○ If someone believes abortion is right and they approve of it, there is no disagreement, they are both reporting their attitudes Argument against simple subjectivism 1. When someone says “x is right” and another says “x is wrong,” they are disagreeing 2. If simple subjectivism is right, there would be no disagreement between them 3. Therefore, simple subjectivism cannot be correct Are moral judgements only expressions of personal preferences? At least some actions are morally right/wrong independently of people’s beliefs/preferences/attitudes ○ The truth of some moral claims is not relative to a person or group Example Heinrich himmler approves of Nazi party’s plans and of the orders he obeys ○ He himself orders the killing of millions of jewish people According to subjectivism: since he approves of mass killing, the claim “mass killing is permissible” is true Commander x disapproves of the nazi party’s plans and the orders he reluctantly and with a guilty conscience obeys ○ He helps facilitate the killing of tens of thousands of jews According to subjectivism: since commander X disapproves of mass killing, the claim “mass killing is permissible” is false ○ This is counterintuitive A person’s individual beliefs/preferences cannot justify their committing mass killing ○ Even if “mass killing is permissible” is technically true for himmler, his personal beliefs don’t justify his actions Even if an action is right/permissible because someone approves of it, it does not mean it is justified Odd because if we say it was the morally right thing to do, we mean that it was justified Cultural relativism The view that morality is determined by the moral standards a culture happens to adopt Truth or falsity varies from culture to culture ○ Ex. “abortion is wrong” If abortion is disapproved by the majority of people in a culture, my moral judgment that “abortion is wrong” is true If all there is to morality is the various moral codes of different societies then.. ○ No moral codes can be correct or incorrect in themselves If this is true, there are no universal and objective moral truths, there is no independent moral standards of right and wrong Rachels identifies claims held by cultural relativists 1. Different societies have different moral codes 2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another 3. The moral code of our own society has no special status 4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right in that society 6. It is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other people's societies, we should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards the practices of other cultures Cultural differences argument P1: Different cultures have different moral codes C: therefore, there is no objective moral standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another ○ Not valid → even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow ○ People might have different moral beliefs, and one or the other or both of these moral beliefs might be mistaken Ex. climate change, does it follow from the fact that people disagree that there is no objective truth ○ The conclusion could be true but does not follow P1 Implications of cultural relativism If CR is a true theory of morality, then there are several implications 1. We cannot rationally criticize other moral codes as morally inferior 2. We can decide whether something is right/wrong simply by consulting the standards of our society 3. There is no such thing as moral progress Any notion of moral reform is quite limited  We can clarify cultural standards but no criticize them as morally inferior 09/17/24 Implications of cultural relativism If CR is true, does it follow that we should be tolerant of other cultures’ moral practices? Example ○ P1: there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another ○ C: therefore, we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures Not valid, we can still disagree Why are some people tempted by relativism Can subjectivism and cultural relativism both be true theories of morality What relativism gets right 1. There is a danger in assuming our own moral standards are beyond reproach. CR/S remind us that many social practices/personal attitudes are contingent and peculiar to our own society/circumstances Many social conventions/attitudes are neither right or wrong, but simply a matter of conventions 2. Perhaps it’s true that we ought to keep an open mind and look out for our own prejudices Many of our moral beliefs may be no more than acquired prejudice Emotivism Simple subjectivism ○ Treats moral statements as reporting attitudes Can be true or false Cannot account for moral disagreement ○ Ex. “abortion is wrong” means that they disapprove of it Emotivism → form of subjectivism ○ Moral statements are expressions of attitudes Expresses attitudes but do not report them Not true or false ○ Moral language is primarily a means of expressing attitudes and influencing behavior Can account for moral disagreement ○ Ex. “abortion is wrong” is an expression of an attitude towards abortion  I disapprove and don’t want to see it occur ○ We can have disagreements in attitudes, not about attitudes Assuming we desire different things and both cannot bee, we disagree about what we want to happen If subjectivism is a true metaethical theory, then moral judgements are arbitrary ○ SS: report mere attitudes ○ Emotivism: they express mere attitudes 09/19/24 God and morality Atheist and theist ○ Believe that if god does not exist, then there cannot be objective moral values Atheists ○ Deny existence of moral values Theists ○ Affirm the existence of objective moral values, insofar as they affirm the existence of god Moral realists Affirm that there are objective morals and moral duties independently of what anyone happens to think of them Atheistic moral realism The idea that there are objective moral values even if God does not exist ○ Can an atheist be a moral realist Theist’s argument If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist ○ Objective moral values: moral values that are valid and binding whether somebody or some group believes in them or not P1: if god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist P2: objective moral values exist C1: therefore, god exists Argument for P1: ○ alternative: objective moral values just exist 1. What would it mean for a moral value like justice to just exist There would be no adequate foundation for these values Are they just free floating 2. Morals involve obligations, obligations to someone On atheistic view, what explains our obligations We need the concept of a lawgiver  3. If there were free-floating objective values, it would be entirely coincident that we evolved to correspond to them and recognize them Argument for P2: ○ We just apprehend them Despite moral values being products of a socio evolutionary process does nothing to invalidate their legitimacy We may have evolved to discover the, rather than invent them There are moral situations in which we clearly see things as right and wrong, if someone doesn’t see this, they are not seeing things as they really are Atheist’s argument Can embrace objective moral values Argument against P1: if god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist ○ What makes an action wrong is the harm to the victim, the pain in causes, the assault to one’s dignity, etc ○ If theist asks what makes harm wrong they atheist can say it just is ○ Does not imply there are free-floating values in a universe without people A duty is something owed to a person or group of persons Values are objective, they do not depend on what any particular person or group subjectively thinks about them ○ Human beings are moral agents with free will We have a conception of morality that determines our actions, thus can be held morally responsible Moral obligation and the will of good ○ Plato the euthyphro example ○ Suppose we did know which moral standards were commanded by god Are these moral standards right because God wills them or, does God have these moral standards because they are right? If moral standards are right because god wills them, then God rules by fiat ○ Good = willed by god ○ To say God wills what is good → god wills what god wills Loses the evaluative sense of moral goodness Arbitrary, god could have willed different Or does god will these moral standards because they are right ○ Implies that acting morally isn’t a matter of obeying a command ○ Implies that if god is good, then god is subject to moral standards that we might have ○ We can investigate these standards and act accordingly whether we believe in the existence of god or not Moral realism Atheists can believe in moral realism ○ Existence of moral values that are objective and binding independently of what some individual or group happens to think about them ○ Does not settle question of whether god exists Does suggest we can have coherent and rational discussions about morality no matter what our spiritual beliefs are 24/09/24 Egoism and moral skepticism One more challenge to our common sense notion of morality Morality requires that we sometimes take into consideration of the interests of others ○ Altruism: acting out concern for the wellbeing/welfare/interests of others Psychological egoism Descriptive view about human motivation → empirical theory about human psychology ○ All people are selfish in everything that they do ○ We are only ever motivated by consideration of our own good Ethical egoism Normative view → normative ethical theory ○ Humans ought to be motivated by their own good ○ We are only ever obligated to pursue our own self-interest, no matter the cost to others ○ Can act altruistically but shouldn’t Psychological egoism and ethical egoism can’t both be true Ought implies can, that one can do otherwise than one does ○ If PE is true, one cannot be motivated by considerations of the interest of others The command “one ought to pursue one’s own good” (EE), cannot be normative fo us Not a principle that we could govern our actions by Arguments for why psychological egoism is true 1. In all voluntary action, the agent is doing what she wants. Therefore, we are never really acting selflessly (desire) Response to 1: we’re not always doing what we want most, sometimes we feel obligated to do things we would prefer not to do ○ Ex. keeping promises  Even if we are always motivated by what we want most, we may not be acting selfishly or even from self-interest ○ It is the object/content of my choice that determines whether it is selfish or unselfish Ex. what if what I most want is your happiness 2. When we act “unselfishly” we feel a sense of satisfaction, therefore what we are really after is that sense of self-satisfaction → We bring out the good of others because it feels good for us Response to 2: the reason why we feel good is because we care/have compassion If we were truly selfish would we/could we derive any satisfaction from helping others ○ Can't explain satisfaction without presupposing an altruistic motive If one was only self regarding how it could explain the guilty conscience Argument from satisfaction (cont’d) We feel satisfied when we achieve our goals ○ If helping others is a goal, we feel satisfaction when we do it Does not mean it is the reason we do it ○ The feeling of satisfaction is not the goal itself ○ The goal of our action is helping, thus we feel satisfaction when we achieve that goal We need to have the goal first before feeling any satisfaction Why hold PE Self-regard is a motive in human motivation ○ PE holds that it is the only motive Legend of Gyges Glaucon argued that if the virtuous man and the rogue each had the same ring, they would act the same ○ They would act the same because they can get away with it According to ethical egoist ○ The virtuous man would not necessarily act like the rogue, but would be wrong not to ○ His only obligation is to himself EE recognizes that people can act altruistically but when they do they act wrongly ○ Altruism: to act solely out of regard for another’s well-being There is one universal and objective moral principle ○ You ought to always pursue your own good Consequentialist: act to promote the best consequences If EE is true Your only moral duty is to do what is best for you, regardless of the cost to others EE is a normative theory ○ We are always obligated to put ourselves first, not matter the costs to others ○ When we act altruistically, we act wrongly ○ The virtuous man might not necessarily act like the rogue, but he should To EE, the rouge is the virtuous one The ethical egoist might appear to have some regard for the welfare of others ○ Ex. if the egoist were to cause harm in pursuit of their own self-interest If they were to get caught/get into trouble ○ In the legend of Gyges without a ring it may be one’s best interest to comply with moral codes It is in the self-interest of the ethical egoist to live in a society which everyone else respects the rights and well-being of others ○ It will be their self-interest to follow these rules/codes when and if they are to their advantage ○ If they can get away with it and serves their interests to do so, they are obligated to break them EE as a consequentialist theory Says that one ought to act in a way that promotes my own self-interest ○ One should take whatever means necessary to achieve their own self-interest ○ It will command different particular actions for different people They will still act on the same principle ○ Maximizing their own good Is EE hypocritical Ethical egoist should encourage others to be altruistic, as they live in a society where others follow the rules ○ They will urge others to act in ways that they themselves will not act in Ex. lie and cheat but encourage others to act the opposite ○ If being hypocritical is a way of serving self-interest If EE is true then there is nothing contradictory about being a hypocrite ○ if my end is promoting my own self-interest, the best way to do that may be to advocate one action Pay your taxes but cheat on mine ○ If one can get away with it the right action is to cheat Rejecting ethical egoism 1. One might argue that the welfare of others is valuable for its own sake Intrinsically valuable vs instrumentally valuable  2. We might insist that it is morally wrong to be a hypocrite and that morality requires us to will consistently In ways that can harmonize with others ○ Ex. we should act in ways we would have others act 26/09/24 Immanuel kant Enlightenment philosopher ○ Emphasis on reason and autonomy ○ Duty-based ethics → deontology Categorical imperative To determine an action’s moral worth ○ Look to the maxim or principle of the action rather than its consequences ○ Maxim: subjective principle of action The agents intention Kant attempts to uncover and rationally defend the supreme principle of morality → categorical imperative The good will “Nothing in the world or beyond it can possibly be conceived and called good without qualification other than a good will” (Cahn pg. 87) ○ Nothing is good other than a good will Other talents of the mind are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects as well as the qualities of temperament ○ Understanding, wit, judgment ○ Courage, determination, perseverance Cahn says these qualities can become harmful if our intention is not good Same with the gifts of fortune ○ Power, wealth, honor, happiness What is good without limitation Not gifts of nature: wit, intelligence, judgment, etc. or qualities of temperament, courage, perseverance, etc Not gifts of fortune: wealth, health, power etc Not well-being or happiness Qualities like “moderation in the emotions and passions, self-control, and calm deliberation” May seem to constitute the inner worth of a person but they are not good without qualification or limitation ○ “Without the principles of a good will, they may become exceedingly bad (Cahn, pg 88)  “A good will is good neither because of what it actually performs or achieves nor for its fitness to attain some proposed end, but simply by virtue of its volition, good in itself and esteemed much higher than all that it could bring about tn favor of any inclination, indeed even the sum total of all inclinations” (Cahn, pg 88). ○ The satisfaction of the “sum total of inclinations” → well-being/happiness “We must therefore develop the concept of a will highly esteemed as good in itself alone. Already existing in a sound and natural understanding, this concept does not need to be taught but only illuminateed. When estimating the value of all our actions, a good will always takes first place and constitutes the condition of all the rest” (Cahn, pg 88). Duty and Moral Worth Duty → obligation ○ The good will under subjective/limiting conditions and obstacles Which actions have moral worth according to kant ○ Actions done from moral duty Example 1. someone who helps because it serves their self-interest Someone donates to a charitable organization because it looks good on their c.v. → the reason they do it ○ No moral worth: the reason they do it is only for selfish reasons 2. Someone who helps because they have a strong inclination (desire) to help someone contributes their time to a charitable organization because they just feel like doing it ○ Inclination to be charitable ○ Accords with duty 3. Someone who helps even when it doesn’t serve their self-interest and they don’t have an inclination to do it Someone is preoccupied with their own adversities but is moved to help another, not from inclination/desire but out of duty ○ They help, not because they want to, but because they recognize that is is the right thing to do (pg. 89) 01/10/24 Duty and moral worth p.89 1. The person has an indirect inclination to help, they help not because they want to but because it serves some other purpose of theirs No moral worth: they help because they benefit from helping 2. The person helps because they have a strong feeling/inclination to help No moral worth: they help because they feel inclined to  3. The person helps even though it does not serve their interests and they do not feel like doing it, but because they recognize it as the right thing to do Moral worth: they help, not because they want to but because recognize that it is the right to do Respect for the moral law Moral worth of an action does not depend on its result, nor any principle of the will that has to borrow its motive from its expected result (Cahn, pg. 89) ○ Duty is the necessity of an act done out of respect for the law (Cahn, pg 86) Imperatives We act according to principles ○ Principles that constrain our actions, they tell us that there is something that would be good to do. These principles are formulated as imperatives (Cahn pg. 89-90) Ex. You ought to brush your teeth, study, tell the truth Hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperatives → conditional command ○ Tell us that an action would be good as a means to do something else Categorical imperatives → unconditional command ○ Tell us that an action is good or necessary in itself There are as many hypothetical imperatives as there are ends ○ Ex. if you want to succeed in school, you ought to study There is one categorical imperative “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that is should be become a universal law (Cahn, pg. 89) ○ Your actions or rather their principles must be universalizable Maxim ○ Your subjective principle of action Example: can you lie to borrow cash you need but cannot repay Kant’s answer is no: if everybody in this situation were to do this, there would be no such thing as a promise, so the principle of my action could not be universalized ○ Question is not about whether we would dislike living in a world in which everyone lied Not about the negative consequences but there would be no such thing as a promise Morality is not something we learn from experience according to kant ○ Experience may confirm our moral judgements Ex. in feeling of respect for another’s conduct  ○ Cannot tell us what we should do Second formulation of the categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Cahn. p.91) ○ Means: what we use to do → the things we use and the actions we take to create our ends ○ Ends: what we aim to do How can we treat others as ends in themselves These formulations are equivalent When we make ourselves exceptions to rules that we would have others follow, we also act on principles to which others could not consent ○ Manipulate, deceive or coerce Acting morally requires respecting others as rational beings and ends in themselves Autonomy and heteronomy Autonomy ○ To give oneself the law → to be self-determining Acting on the categorical imperative is to be determined purely by your reason, not by desire for some object ○ You are not free → not empirically determined by your desires ○ To treat others as autonomous beings Not deceive, manipulate, or coerce Requires respecting the autonomy/freedoms of others Heteronomy ○ To take the law from someone/something else → to be determined by another Acting merely from desire is to be determined by nature, by something outside of you You are a slave to your empirical nature Kantianism and deontology Duty-based ethics ○ Right actions are those that are moral obligatory ○ Wrong actions are those that are morally impermissible Intentions matter ○ We must do the right thing for the right reason ○ From the motive of duty Morality is rational ○ Moral imperatives are commands of reason 10/03/24 Utilitarianism The right action is that action that promotes the most utility Hedonistic utilitarianism Utility is happiness or the experience of pleasure and absence of pain ○ Two components 1. Consequentialism 2. hedonism Consequentialism → forward looking theory Right actions ○ Those which bring about the best consequences Right or wrong according to their consequences Forward looking theory ○ We ought to act in ways that promotes the best consequences Hedonism A theory about what is valuable or what is good ○ The only thing valuable is pleasure and absence of pain Principle of utility The greatest happiness principle ○ Right actions are those which producer the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people For bentham the question is how much and how for how long ○ Our experience of pleasure and pain can be quantified in terms of intensity and duration Mill’s hedonism The only things desirable as ends: ○ Pleasure and freedom from pain Objection Some have objected that utilitarianism is mistaken because it attributes to human beings “no better or nobler object of desire and pursuit” than pleasure (a mere feeling) ○ Is pleasure really the only thing valuable in itself ○ “A doctrine worthy only of swine” Mill’s response The sources of pleasure are different for human beings than for swine Humans will find pleasure in activities that swine do not and cannot ○ “The pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments” are of higher value as pleasures than “mere sensation” (pg. 15-16) Mental or higher pressures Bentham and others valued the mental pleasures ○ they seemed to provide a greater quantity (intensity and duration) of pleasure in the long run (p. 16) Mill says these pleasures are also more valuable because they are of a higher quality Competent judges Mill’s answer ○ “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure (pg. 16-17).” P1: if there are people who experience two kinds of pleasure and consistently prefer one over the other (and they would not resign it for any quantity of the other), then that kind of pleasure is superior P2: there are people who experience two kinds of pleasure and consistently prefer one over the other (and they would not resign it for any quantity of the other) C: that kind of pleasure is superior Mill thinks that hose who are are acquainted with both the higher and lower pleasures consistently prefer the pleasures that involve the higher facilities: ○ intellect, imagination, understanding Ex. those who have read plato or shakespeare and who have also watched the bachelor would prefer to read plato and shakespeare Even though we sometimes opt for the more immediate and lower pleasure, most of us would not choose to opt for a life which did not contain any of the higher pleasures ○ Mill thinks that you would not choose a life that only contained the bachelor over a life that also included plato or shakespeare, etc Higher pleasures Few of us would change lives with a pig even if that pig’s life was maximally satisfying for a pig  The active engagement of the higher faculties is a crucial component of human happiness and explains why we prefer a human life over a similarly fulfilling animal life ○ Ex. wishing to be a cat or dog when stressed, but would not ultimately want to switch lives for it Happiness vs content Anyone who thinks that humans are less happy than pigs confuses the difference between happiness and content ○ “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied” (pg. 19) A being with higher faculties require more to be happy and is capable of more acute suffering and accessible to it at more points A life filled with higher pleasures may be truly happier according to mill even if there is more discontent Objections to utilitarianism Objections to utilitarianism can target 1. Consequentialism 2. hedonism Rule vs act utilitarianism Rule ○ We evaluate the consequences of adopting the rule Act ○ We evaluate the consequences of the individual act