Moral Theory Exam Guide PDF

Moral Theory Exam Guide Key Definitions Ethics & Philosophy ​ Ethics – The philosophical study of morality. ​ Philosophy – The discipline of solving or improving our understanding of intellectual problems that resist easy solutions. ​ Radically Reflective Theoretical Thinking (RRTT):...

Moral Theory Exam Guide Key Definitions Ethics & Philosophy ​ Ethics – The philosophical study of morality. ​ Philosophy – The discipline of solving or improving our understanding of intellectual problems that resist easy solutions. ​ Radically Reflective Theoretical Thinking (RRTT): ○​ Radically questioning all beliefs. ○​ Reflecting with an open mind. ○​ Engaging in a dispassionate search for truth. ○​ Seeking theoretical concepts to explain data or phenomena. ○​ In ethics, we seek moral theories that explain moral data. Theory & Moral Theory ​ Theory – A set of concepts designed to explain some data. ​ Moral Theory – A theory that explains moral data and determines what makes a right action right and a wrong action wrong. Types of Moral Theories Moral Skepticism ​ Denies that humans have moral knowledge. ​ No moral standards are justified or known to be true. Ethical Nihilism ​ No correct moral judgments exist. ​ Right and wrong are fictional concepts. Moral Dogmatism  ​ Uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of moral beliefs one has been taught. Ethical Objectivism (The Third Alternative) ​ There are objective facts in ethics. ​ Some ethical views are more reasonable than others. Why Do We Need Moral Theories? 1.​ Help resolve controversial cases. 2.​ Help answer questions about applicability. 3.​ Help answer questions about exceptions. 4.​ Help answer questions concerning conflicts and priorities. Divine Command Theory (DCT) & Infallible Guide Theory (IGT) Ambiguity in “Whatever God Commands is Right” ​ Divine Command Theory (DCT): Actions are right because God commands them. Act X is right because God Commands us to do X. ​ Infallible Guide Theory (IGT): God commands certain actions because they are inherently right. God commands us to do act X because X is right. Objections to Divine Command Theory (DCT) ​ If what makes an action right is simply that God commands it, then wrong actions could turn out to be right if God commands them. ​ Example: If God commanded us to blind human infants by sticking pins in their eyes, it would be right under DCT, but it is clearly wrong. Objections to Infallible Guide Theory (IGT)  ​ IGT is not an ethical theory because it does not explain why actions are right or wrong. ​ There must be an independent moral standard that God knows perfectly and commands us to follow. ​ Leaves morality to God’s whims and capriciousness, meaning God would have no moral reason for issuing commands. Three Reasons Why Religion is Considered Necessary for Morality 1.​ Motivation: Religion motivates people to do what is right. 2.​ Guidance: Religion helps people determine what is right and wrong. 3.​ Foundation: Some claim that without religion, there would be no right or wrong. Ethical Relativism Types of Relativism 1. Individual Relativism ​ Definition: A normative prescriptive theory stating that correct moral standards vary from person to person. ​ Formal Criterion: Act X is right for person S if X conforms to the standard of behavior S accepts. ​ Objections: 1.​ No one could ever be mistaken in their moral judgment. 2.​ No reason to revise one’s moral beliefs. 2. Descriptive Relativism ​ Not a moral theory. ​ A factual descriptive theory that maintains that different moral standards are accepted by different social groups. 3. Ethical Relativism (ER) ​ Definition: A normative prescriptive theory stating that correct moral standards vary between societies. ​ Formal Criterion: Act X is right for person S if X conforms to the standards of behavior generally accepted by S’s social group. Objections to Ethical Relativism 1.​ Certain obviously wrong actions can be considered right. ○​ Example: If self-defense justifies killing, then murder could be seen as right in some cases. 2.​ Problems in determining the relevant social group. ○​ Example: If ER is correct, then Nazis killing innocent Jews or antebellum slavery in the South wasn’t morally wrong. 3.​ Minority opinions are automatically mistaken. ○​ Any dissenting moral opinion within a society is automatically incorrect. 4.​ No ability to criticize another group’s moral standards. ○​ Even if a society practices cannibalism, ER would prevent others from criticizing it. Why Ethical Relativism is Widely Accepted 1.​ Confusing Descriptive Relativism with Ethical Relativism. ○​ Descriptive Relativism = Different moral standards are accepted. ○​ Ethical Relativism = Different moral standards are correct for different social groups. 2.​ Confusing Ethical Relativism with Ethical Nihilism. ○​ Ethical Nihilism = No correct moral standards at all. ○​ Ethical Relativism = Correct moral standards exist, but they vary. 3.​ Confusing Ethical Relativism with Ethnocentrism. ○​ Ethnocentrism = Believing one’s moral standards are right while others’ are wrong. 4.​ Confusing Ethical Relativism with Contextualism (Situationalism).  ○​ Contextualism = The same action may be right in one situation and wrong in another. Moral Principles Across Societies ​ Some moral principles are universally accepted, even if specific actions differ. ​ Example: ○​ In some societies, killing parents at age 60 is considered moral because it is believed to be in their best interest. ○​ In the U.S., helping parents is moral, but killing them is not. ○​ Same moral principle (helping parents), different applications. Ethical Absolutism & Ethnocentrism Ethical Absolutism ​ Moral principles are universal and apply to every society. ​ Certain actions are right or wrong based on these universal principles. Ethnocentrism ​ The belief that one’s own moral standards are correct, while others’ are wrong. Utilitarianism Definition & Core Principles ​ Consequentialism – The right actions are the actions with the best consequences. ​ Utilitarianism – The right action is the action that maximizes utility (i.e., maximizes the good) for all affected, out of all options available. ​ Hedonistic Utilitarianism (HU) – The only thing intrinsically good is pleasure, and the only thing intrinsically bad is pain.  ​ Preference Utilitarianism - Act X is right for person S if, out of all actions available to S, act X maximizes the satisfaction of interest of all those affected by the action. Formal Criterion of Rightness ​ Act X is right for person S iff, out of all available options, it minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure for all impacted by act X. ​ HU seeks to: ○​ Maximize pleasure (hedons). ○​ Minimize pain (dishedons). ○​ Consider everyone affected by the action. Central Features of HU ​ Monistic Theory of Good – Focuses only on pleasure as intrinsically good. ​ Consequentialist – Rightness depends on outcomes. ​ Secular – Religiously neutral, but Mill argued it aligns with many religions. ​ Universalist in Two Senses: 1.​ Applies to all persons, at all places, at all times. 2.​ Every being’s interest counts equally. ​ May Lead to Social Reform: Policies should be adjusted to maximize utility. ​ Explains Exceptions to Moral Rules: If violating a rule produces greater utility, you ought to violate the rule. Two Senses of 'Right' 1.​ Morally Required (Obligatory) – X is required; not doing X is wrong. ○​ Example: Keeping a promise to go to the movies. 2.​ Morally Permissible – X is allowed; not doing X is also allowed. ○​ Example: Relaxing after dinner. Determining What’s Right ​ Calculate the net utility of all available actions. ​ Add up hedons (pleasure) and subtract dishedons (pain).  ​ The action with the highest net utility is right, regardless of who benefits. ​ If an action benefits oneself but harms others, it is only right if it has the highest net utility. ​ If an action harms oneself but benefits others more, it is the right action. Subjective vs. Objective Rightness ​ Objective Rightness: The action that in fact produces the greatest net utility. ○​ Act X is objectively right for S, if out of all available actions, it actively leads to the best outcome for all affected. ​ Subjective Rightness: The action that has the greatest expected utility based on available information. ○​ Act X is right for person S, if given everything S has to go on, Act X has the greatest expected utility out of all options available to S. ​ Why Expected Utility Matters: ○​ We only have subjective knowledge of consequences. ○​ Unforeseeable consequences may occur. ○​ Utilitarians appeal to probable consequences since that’s all an agent has when deciding. ○​ Doing the subjectively right action probably results in the objectively right action. ​ Probable Consequences rather than Actual Consequences ○​ Goal is to do the action that produces greatest net utility ( the objectively right action) ○​ We don’t know with certainty which action will produce greatest net utility. So do the objectively right action in hope it will be objectively right. Examples of HU in Action 1.​ Convicting an Innocent Person: ○​ If knowingly convicting an innocent person prevents violent public outrage and maximizes net utility, HU says it is right. ○​ But convicting the innocent is clearly wrong, showing a tension between HU and justice. 2.​ Using an Innocent Person’s Organs:  ○​ HU seems to allow killing one person to save five lives. ○​ But this is clearly wrong. 3.​ Breaking Moral Rules: ○​ Moral rules are useful guidelines but can be broken if doing so maximizes utility. 4.​ Animal Pain Counts: ○​ Since animals feel pain, their hedons must be included in calculations. 5.​ Moral Rights May Not Exist: ○​ Some utilitarians claim moral rights are not real, only utility matters. Virtues of HU ​ Provides a Criterion for Right & Wrong Actions: ○​ The right action maximizes pleasure. ​ Provides a Criterion for Moral Rules: ○​ Moral rules are correct only if they maximize net pleasure. ​ Explains Exceptions: ○​ Sometimes violating a rule produces more pleasure. ​ Resolves Conflicting Rules: ○​ Do the action that maximizes pleasure. Objections Against HU & Replies ​ Problem of Measurement: ○​ In clear cases, there is no problem. ○​ Example: Torturing animals for fun—the animal’s pain clearly outweighs the torturer’s pleasure. ​ HU Sometimes Makes Wrong Actions Right: ○​ Sacrificing scapegoats and harvesting organs almost never actually maximize utility. ​ Breaking Promises: ○​ If breaking a promise produces greater net utility, then you should break it. Kant’s Ethics Deontological Approach to Ethics ​ Consequences of one's actions don't matter what matters is whether you conform your behavior to certain moral rules ​ Right conduct consist of confirming one’s behavior to the categorical imperative Kant’s Disagreement with Hedonistic Utilitarianism ​ Kant disagrees with hedonistic utilitarianism because not all pleasures are good. ​ Example: Kant would say it is not good for people who enjoy torturing others to torture a child or baby. Happiness and Good Will ​ Kant denies that happiness (or pleasure) is good without qualification. ​ Condition where happiness is not good: If someone does not deserve happiness, then it is not a good thing. ​ What is good without qualification? A person with good will. Definition of GoodWill ​ A good will is a person who does what is right because it is their duty. Right Actions vs. Morally Good Actions ​ Merely right actions: Actions done in accordance with duty but not done because they are duties. ​ Morally good actions: Actions done from duty with the right intentions and for no other reason. Acting from Duty ​ An act is done from duty when it is done intentionally and solely because it is a duty. Kant’s Imperatives Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives ​ Hypothetical imperative: Commands you to do something to achieve something else. (Do X if you want Y.) ​ Categorical imperative: A universal, exceptionless command that applies to all rational agents. (Do X whether you want to or not, without exception.) The Universal Law Formula ​ Act only on those maxims that you can to be universal law. ​ A maxim is a rule of intention that guides action. ​ This formula commands us to act in ways that we would be willing to have everyone else act. Examples of Universal Law Formula 1.​ Breaking Promises: Making promises with no intention of keeping them is morally wrong. If everyone did this, promises would cease to exist. (Keeping promises is a perfect duty.) 2.​ Refusing to Help in Dire Need: Even though it is possible for everyone to refuse help, we would not be willing to live in such a world. (Helping others is an imperfect duty.) Problem with Universal Law Formula ​ Some maxims conflict, making it unclear which duty to prioritize. ​ Example: "Always keep your promises" vs. "Always help those in dire need." Kant’s theory does not provide guidance for resolving conflicts between maxims. ​ The universal law formula is too subjective. What one person can will another person might not be able to will. ​ Conflicting maxims ○​ Always keep your promises (perfect duty) ○​ Always help in dire need (imperfect duty) Perfect vs. Imperfect Duties Perfect Duties ​ Owed to specific persons. ​ Can only be fulfilled in one way. ​ Can be completely fulfilled. ​ Example: The duty to keep promises. ​ Kant’s view: If an action is not universalizable in principle, we have a perfect duty not to do it. Imperfect Duties ​ Not owed to specific persons but rather to people in general. ​ Can be fulfilled in multiple ways. ​ Can never be completely fulfilled. ​ Example: The duty to help people in dire need. ​ Kant’s view: If an action is universalizable but we cannot do it, then we have an imperfect duty not to do it. Respect for Persons Formula ​ Always treat persons as ends in themselves and never as mere means. ​ Using someone as mere means: Exploiting someone for personal gain without regard for their well-being. ○​ Example: Making promises you intend to break. ​ Treating persons as ends: Helping others thrive and flourish. ○​ Example: Helping people in dire need supports their well-being. Moral Dilemmas and Kant’s Ethics ​ Lifeboat Example: ○​ People are in an overcrowded lifeboat. ○​ Kant’s theory says it is impermissible to draw straws to decide who to throw overboard or for someone to sacrifice themselves. ○​ Throwing someone overboard treats them as mere means.  ○​ Result: All people in the boat must die rather than sacrifice anyone. ○​ Problem: This seems like an odd way to respect people. Virtue Ethics Definition of Virtues and Vices ​ Virtue: A stable character trait, manifested in habitual action, that is good for a person to have. ​ Vice: A stable character trait, manifested in habitual action, that is bad for a person to have. Importance of Virtues (Aristotle’s View) ​ Cultivating virtues is necessary for conducting a good life. ​ Being virtuous is necessary (but not sufficient) for flourishing. Rachel’s Formal Criterion of Rightness for Radical Virtue Ethics ​ Act X is right for person S in circumstances if and only if X is an action among those available that a perfectly virtuous human being would characteristically do in circumstances. ​ In simpler terms: An action is right if it is what a perfectly virtuous person would do in that situation. Integrity as the Most Important Virtue (Tracy’s View) ​ Integrity means being honest and consistently following strong moral principles. How We Learn Values 1.​ Instruction – By observing behaviors, not just words. 2.​ Study – By studying stories of people who embody admirable values. 3.​ Practice – By emulating those we respect. Character-Development Question (Tracy’s View) ​ What kind of world would this world be if everyone in it was just like me?