Phil 1020-7 Ethics Final Exam Study Questions PDF

1 Philosophy 1020-7, Ethics Final Exam Study Questions: Note that you should also be guided in your preparation by the study questions posted on Canvas, the handouts, the quizzes and the midterm exams, as well as by the texts and your class notes. 1) In the last election your friend was eligible...

1 Philosophy 1020-7, Ethics Final Exam Study Questions: Note that you should also be guided in your preparation by the study questions posted on Canvas, the handouts, the quizzes and the midterm exams, as well as by the texts and your class notes. 1) In the last election your friend was eligible to vote, but preferred instead to go up to New Hampshire to see the foliage. This year he realized that as a good citizen he must vote. So, although the day was cold and gray and he enjoyed staying in his warm bed, he dragged himself out of bed and went to the polls. However, he remained grumpy all the way to the polls and back home, complaining about the bad weather and about the need to vote for the next president. Is your friend a virtuous person, a continent person or an incontinent person, according to Aristotle? In your answer describe the main characteristics of each type of person and the differences among them. - According to Aristotle, your friend would be considered a continent person in this situation. Here’s an explanation of why, along with the distinctions between the virtuous, continent, and incontinent person in Aristotle's framework: 1. Virtuous Person Characteristics: A virtuous person not only does the right thing but also wants to do the right thing. Their emotions and desires align with their reasoned understanding of what is good. Virtue for Aristotle involves harmony between rational choice and inclination. Example: A virtuous person would recognize voting as a civic duty, take pleasure in fulfilling it, and do so without reluctance or complaint. 2. Continent Person Characteristics: A continent person acts in accordance with reason but does so against conflicting desires. They struggle internally but ultimately choose the right action because they know it is the right thing to do. Example in this case: Your friend recognized voting as a moral and civic duty, and despite being grumpy and preferring to stay in bed, they overcame these contrary desires and went to vote. 3. Incontinent Person Characteristics: An incontinent person knows what is right but fails to act on it due to the overpowering influence of their desires or emotions. They regret their actions afterward, as they are aware of their failure to do the right thing. Example: If your friend had stayed in bed and skipped voting despite knowing it was important, they would have been acting incontinently. Differences Among Them Emotional Alignment: Virtuous individuals have emotions aligned with reason; continent individuals do not, but they manage to act rightly despite the misalignment; incontinent individuals fail to act rightly because their emotions overpower their reason. Effort vs. Ease: Acting virtuously is effortless for a virtuous person because their desires support their rational choice. For the continent person, it takes effort and self-control, whereas the incontinent person succumbs to their impulses.  2 Thus, while your friend’s grumpiness and reluctance to vote indicate they are not virtuous in this scenario, their ultimate decision to vote despite these feelings demonstrates they are a continent person. 2) What role should happiness play in ethics? Your answer should consider the question from the point of view of three of the central thinkers discussed in this course: Mill, Kant and Aristotle. Compare and contrast the three philosophers’ answers to this question. - The role of happiness in ethics varies significantly in the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle. Each offers a distinct perspective on the importance of happiness and its relationship to moral action. Here is a comparison of their views: 1. John Stuart Mill: Happiness as the Foundation of Ethics Philosophical Framework: Utilitarianism Key Idea: Happiness is the ultimate goal of ethics. Mill defines happiness as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Moral actions are those that maximize overall happiness for the greatest number of people. Role of Happiness: Happiness is the central criterion for determining the morality of actions. Mill considers it the standard of utility and argues that higher pleasures (intellectual and moral) are superior to lower pleasures (physical). Moral Motivation: Ethics is grounded in the consequences of actions, with the aim of promoting general well-being. Contrast: Unlike Kant and Aristotle, Mill places happiness as an objective and measurable outcome rather than a personal state or internal flourishing. 2. Immanuel Kant: Happiness as Morally Secondary Philosophical Framework: Deontological Ethics Key Idea: Kant argues that moral action is determined by duty and the adherence to the categorical imperative—acting according to universalizable maxims and treating individuals as ends in themselves. Role of Happiness: Kant sees happiness as desirable but morally secondary. A person’s happiness is irrelevant to the moral worth of their actions, as morality is about acting from duty, not inclination or consequence. Moral Motivation: Ethical behavior is grounded in rationality and respect for the moral law. Happiness may accompany virtue but is not its foundation. Contrast: Unlike Mill and Aristotle, Kant does not link ethics directly to personal or collective happiness. Instead, he emphasizes the intrinsic value of acting rightly regardless of outcomes. 3. Aristotle: Happiness as the Purpose of Life Philosophical Framework: Virtue Ethics Key Idea: Aristotle considers eudaimonia (often translated as happiness or flourishing) to be the highest good and the ultimate aim of human life. Eudaimonia is achieved through living a life of virtue, which involves exercising reason and cultivating moral and intellectual virtues.  3 Role of Happiness: Happiness is the end (telos) of ethical activity. It is not a fleeting emotional state but a lasting condition of flourishing that comes from living virtuously. Moral Motivation: The pursuit of eudaimonia motivates ethical behavior. Acting virtuously is intrinsically fulfilling and aligns with human nature. Contrast: Unlike Mill, Aristotle’s concept of happiness is not about pleasure or utility but about fulfilling human potential. Unlike Kant, Aristotle integrates happiness into the moral life, seeing it as the natural outcome of virtuous living. Comparison Aristotle (Virtue Aspect Mill (Utilitarianism) Kant (Deontology) Ethics) Central goal: maximizing Role of Morally secondary, The highest good, pleasure and minimizing Happiness incidental to duty achieved through virtue pain Deontological: Teleological: morality Moral Consequentialist: morality morality judged by judged by alignment Framework judged by outcomes intentions with human nature Focus Collective well-being Individual duty Individual flourishing Lower pleasure; View on Not a factor in moral Integral to happiness emphasis on rational Pleasure worth fulfillment Contrast in Views Mill: Happiness is the primary moral goal; moral actions must maximize it universally. Kant: Happiness is secondary; moral worth lies in acting from duty, independent of personal or collective happiness. Aristotle: Happiness is the ultimate goal but is defined as flourishing through virtue, not merely pleasure or consequence. Conclusion Happiness plays a critical role in all three philosophies, but its interpretation and relevance vary. For Mill, it is the measure of moral worth. For Kant, it is a secondary consideration to moral duty. For Aristotle, it is the ultimate goal, achieved through living virtuously. These differences illustrate contrasting views on the relationship between ethics, human nature, and the good life. 3) Let’s imagine that you borrowed money from a colleague and promised to pay it back by next week. However, your colleague is very forgetful, and she forgot that you promised to give it back by next week. A friend of yours just invited you to join her for a vacation in Florida this week. The trip is very attractive, but you won’t have enough money to make it if you return the money to your colleague as you promised. You know that your colleague would not really be harmed if you break your promise, because she forgot about it. You know also that you would be happier if you were to take the trip.  4 What should you do? Compare and contrast the answers that Aristotle, Kant and Mill would give to this question. Evaluate each answer shortly. This scenario involves conflicting considerations: the duty to keep a promise, the happiness gained from taking the trip, and the potential consequences of breaking the promise. Aristotle, Kant, and Mill would approach this dilemma in different ways. Here's how they might answer: 1. Aristotle: Act Virtuously to Promote Eudaimonia Answer: Aristotle would advise keeping the promise. For Aristotle, virtues such as honesty, justice, and integrity are central to living a flourishing life. Breaking the promise undermines the cultivation of these virtues, even if the other party is unaware of the breach. Reasoning: Acting virtuously contributes to eudaimonia, or a state of flourishing, which is the ultimate aim of human life. Failing to fulfill the promise would harm your character by fostering dishonesty and irresponsibility. Evaluation: Aristotle’s answer emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and the long-term development of virtuous habits. However, critics might argue that it doesn't weigh the situational context, such as the colleague's forgetfulness and the lack of harm caused by breaking the promise. 2. Kant: Follow the Categorical Imperative Answer: Kant would insist that you keep the promise. For Kant, the morality of an action is determined by whether it conforms to a universalizable maxim and respects others as ends in themselves. Breaking the promise would violate the maxim of honesty and fail to respect your colleague as a rational being deserving of trust. Reasoning: Promises are a moral duty grounded in the categorical imperative. If everyone broke promises whenever it was convenient, the institution of promising would lose its meaning and reliability. Evaluation: Kant’s approach is clear and principled, emphasizing universal moral duties. However, it can be rigid, as it does not consider the specific context, such as the forgetfulness of the colleague or the relative lack of harm. 3. Mill: Maximize Happiness (Utilitarianism) Answer: Mill might recommend taking the trip if it produces the greatest overall happiness. Since your colleague is forgetful and not harmed by the broken promise, the happiness gained from your vacation could outweigh the small or nonexistent negative consequences. Reasoning: Mill’s utilitarian framework evaluates actions based on their consequences. If the trip creates significant pleasure for you and causes no pain to others, it would be morally justifiable. Evaluation: Mill’s reasoning is flexible and pragmatic, emphasizing tangible outcomes. However, it risks undermining trust and the moral weight of promises, as it prioritizes short-term consequences over broader ethical principles. Comparison of Philosophical Answers Aspect - Aristotle - Kant - Mill  5 Aspect - Aristotle - Kant - Mill - Duty and - Virtue and - Maximization of Core Principle universal character happiness moral law - Rational, - Long-term - Consequences Focus universal flourishing and overall utility duties Role of - Integral to - Absolute - Conditional on Promises integrity moral duty consequences Situational - Minimal - None - High Considerations Evaluation Aristotle’s Answer: Strongly values character and integrity, making it a robust approach for fostering long-term trustworthiness. However, it may seem rigid in contexts where the harm is negligible. Kant’s Answer: Offers a clear, principled stance that respects promises unconditionally. Yet, it can feel overly rigid and impractical, as it does not consider the specific details of the situation. Mill’s Answer: Pragmatic and context-sensitive, offering a way to balance personal happiness with the lack of harm. However, it risks eroding trust in promises, as it allows for breaking them when harm is minimal. Conclusion The best course of action depends on whether you prioritize long-term integrity (Aristotle), principled moral duties (Kant), or practical outcomes (Mill). A balanced perspective might integrate these views: uphold the promise to maintain trust and virtue while exploring ways to enjoy the vacation within ethical bounds, such as saving for a future trip. 4) Compare and contrast Mill’s and Aristotle’s definitions of happiness. Which one do you find more convincing? Explain. - John Stuart Mill and Aristotle offer different definitions of happiness, rooted in their distinct philosophical frameworks. Comparing their views reveals significant contrasts in how they understand happiness and its role in a fulfilling life. Here's an analysis of their definitions and an evaluation of their persuasiveness: 1. Mill’s Definition of Happiness Philosophical Framework: Utilitarianism Definition: Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill emphasizes the qualitative differences between pleasures, distinguishing higher pleasures (intellectual and moral) from lower, bodily pleasures. Key Features: o Consequentialist: Happiness is determined by the outcomes of actions.  6 o Collective Focus: Moral actions aim to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. o Subjective: Happiness varies among individuals, depending on their experiences and preferences. Strengths: Mill’s view is pragmatic and inclusive, recognizing diverse ways of achieving happiness. It incorporates both individual and societal well-being. Weaknesses: Reducing happiness to pleasure and pain oversimplifies human fulfillment, potentially neglecting deeper dimensions of purpose and meaning. 2. Aristotle’s Definition of Happiness Philosophical Framework: Virtue Ethics Definition: Happiness, or eudaimonia, is a state of flourishing achieved through a life of virtue and the fulfillment of human potential. It involves rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Key Features: o Teleological: Happiness is the ultimate goal (telos) of human life. o Objective: True happiness is universal and rooted in human nature, not just individual preferences. o Holistic: Happiness encompasses intellectual, moral, and social dimensions, requiring the development of virtues like courage, temperance, and wisdom. Strengths: Aristotle’s concept captures the richness of human life and emphasizes long-term flourishing over fleeting pleasure. It integrates personal and communal well-being through virtue. Weaknesses: It can be demanding and elitist, as it assumes access to resources and education to cultivate virtue. Comparison of Mill and Aristotle Aspect Mill Aristotle Definition of Pleasure and the absence of Flourishing through virtue Happiness pain Subjective pleasure, collective Objective flourishing, individual Focus welfare development Immediate and short-term Temporal Scope Long-term life achievement consequences Role of Virtue Instrumental for happiness Essential to happiness Contextual High (adapts to individual Low (rooted in universal human Flexibility preferences) nature) Which is More Convincing? I find Aristotle’s definition of happiness more convincing for the following reasons: 1. Depth and Holism: Aristotle’s eudaimonia reflects the richness of human life, going beyond pleasure and pain to include purpose, virtue, and long-term flourishing. It addresses the deeper aspects of fulfillment that Mill’s definition might overlook.  7 2. Alignment with Human Nature: Aristotle grounds happiness in human potential and rationality, making it less dependent on subjective or transient experiences. 3. Sustainability: Eudaimonia emphasizes a stable, enduring state of well-being achieved through personal growth and virtue, whereas Mill’s pleasure-based happiness may be more fleeting. However, Mill’s definition has merit in its practicality and inclusiveness, especially in addressing societal well-being. For those who prioritize the immediate and collective impact of actions, Mill’s view offers a flexible and actionable ethical framework. Ultimately, Aristotle’s focus on long-term flourishing makes his definition more robust and inspiring for a deeply fulfilling life. 5) Compare and contrast Aristotle’s, Hobbes’s, Kant’s and Mill’s views of the standard of morality. (A standard of morality would be a fundamental principle that could be used to determine what you ought to do in a particular circumstance.) What is the standard of morality according to each one of them? Explain why each of them holds the standard that you specified in the first part of your answer? Which, if any, of these three views do you find most compelling? Explain. - Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Mill offer distinct views on the standard of morality, rooted in their broader philosophical frameworks. Each standard reflects different priorities: virtue, self-interest, duty, and utility. Below is a comparison of their views, why they hold them, and an evaluation of their persuasiveness. 1. Aristotle: Virtue as the Standard of Morality Standard of Morality: The standard is virtue, which entails acting in accordance with reason and aiming for eudaimonia (flourishing). Actions are moral if they reflect the virtues of character, such as courage, temperance, and justice. Why Aristotle Holds This View: o Humans are rational beings, and morality involves fulfilling our rational nature. o Virtue is cultivated through habituation and practice, leading to a flourishing life. o The ultimate aim (telos) of life is eudaimonia, achieved through a virtuous and balanced life. Strengths: Emphasizes personal growth, character, and long-term well-being. Weaknesses: Lacks clear guidance for specific moral dilemmas; depends heavily on societal context and education. 2. Hobbes: Self-Interest and Social Contracts as the Standard of Morality Standard of Morality: The standard is self-preservation and the social contract. Actions are moral if they align with the agreements made to escape the chaos of the "state of nature" and promote mutual security. Why Hobbes Holds This View: o In the "state of nature," life is "nasty, brutish, and short" due to humans’ natural self-interest and competition.  8 o Morality emerges from rational self-interest and the need to create stability and peace through contracts. o The Leviathan (sovereign authority) enforces these contracts, ensuring order. Strengths: Provides a pragmatic basis for morality tied to societal stability. Weaknesses: Reduces morality to self-interest and compliance, neglecting altruism and higher ethical ideals. 3. Kant: Duty and the Categorical Imperative as the Standard of Morality Standard of Morality: The standard is duty, determined by the categorical imperative. Actions are moral if they are guided by maxims that can be universalized and respect others as ends in themselves. Why Kant Holds This View: o Humans are rational agents capable of autonomy and moral reasoning. o Morality is rooted in rational principles that are universally binding, independent of consequences. o The categorical imperative ensures fairness and respect, making morality objective and impartial. Strengths: Offers a clear, universal framework for morality; emphasizes respect for individuals. Weaknesses: Can be rigid and impractical, ignoring the complexities of human emotions and circumstances. 4. Mill: Utility as the Standard of Morality Standard of Morality: The standard is utility, defined as maximizing happiness and minimizing pain for the greatest number of people. Actions are moral if they promote the greatest overall happiness. Why Mill Holds This View: o Happiness is the ultimate goal of human life, and moral actions should aim to increase collective well-being. o Utilitarianism is flexible and can address diverse situations by focusing on outcomes. o Higher pleasures (intellectual and moral) are more valuable than lower pleasures (physical). Strengths: Pragmatic, inclusive, and outcome-oriented; considers the impact on society. Weaknesses: Can justify morally questionable actions if they maximize happiness; may neglect individual rights. Comparison of Standards Standard of Philosopher Focus Strengths Weaknesses Morality Virtue and Character and Holistic and long- Lacks specificity Aristotle flourishing virtues term in dilemmas Self-preservation Security and Pragmatic and Reduces morality Hobbes and social order stability-oriented to self-interest  9 Standard of Philosopher Focus Strengths Weaknesses Morality contract Duty and the Rationality and Clear, universal Rigid and context- Kant categorical universality principles insensitive imperative Risks justifying Utility and Consequences Flexible, inclusive, Mill harm for the happiness and happiness and consequential majority Which View Is Most Compelling? I find Kant’s view most compelling due to its universality, fairness, and emphasis on respecting others as ends in themselves. By basing morality on rational principles, Kant offers a clear, objective framework that avoids the subjectivity of Aristotle’s virtue ethics, the self-interest of Hobbes, and the potential for injustice in Mill’s utilitarianism. While Kant’s rigidity can be a drawback, it provides a strong foundation for moral action in complex, pluralistic societies. However, combining aspects of these theories may offer the most practical moral guidance. For instance, integrating Kant’s respect for individuals with Aristotle’s focus on character development and Mill’s sensitivity to consequences could yield a more nuanced and comprehensive ethical framework. 6) Aristotle and Kant defend different accounts of the source of the moral worth or moral praiseworthiness of a particular action. What according to each of these philosophers makes an action morally praiseworthy? (Hint: you may want to consider Kant’s comparison of the dutiful person and the naturally sympathetic person, and Aristotle’s comparison of the virtuous person and a good sculptor.) Compare and contrast these accounts, using well-chosen examples where appropriate. - Aristotle and Kant provide fundamentally different accounts of what makes an action morally praiseworthy, rooted in their broader ethical theories. Aristotle emphasizes the cultivation of virtue and the harmonious expression of one's character, while Kant focuses on adherence to duty and moral principles driven by rational will. Here’s a detailed comparison of their views: 1. Aristotle: Virtuous Action as Morally Praiseworthy Source of Moral Praiseworthiness: o An action is morally praiseworthy if it is performed in accordance with virtue, reflecting a harmonious alignment between reason, emotions, and actions. The action must be done knowingly, intentionally, and from a stable character trait. o For Aristotle, moral praiseworthiness depends on the moral agent’s character, not just the act itself. A truly virtuous person derives pleasure from acting virtuously.  10 Example: A generous person gives to those in need not out of obligation or self- interest but because their character naturally inclines them toward generosity. This aligns with Aristotle’s view of virtue as a cultivated habit. Key Analogy: Aristotle compares the virtuous person to a skilled sculptor. Just as a sculptor’s skill determines the quality of their work, a person’s character determines the moral quality of their actions. A person with a virtuous character reliably produces good actions, just as a skilled sculptor reliably creates beautiful works. 2. Kant: Duty as the Basis of Moral Worth Source of Moral Praiseworthiness: o An action is morally praiseworthy if it is performed from duty, guided by respect for the moral law. The agent must act out of rational recognition of what is right, independent of natural inclinations or personal desires. o Kant contrasts actions performed from duty with those done in accordance with duty but motivated by self-interest or natural sympathy. Only the former has true moral worth. Example: A shopkeeper gives correct change not because it benefits their reputation or because they enjoy fairness but because they recognize it as their duty to act honestly. This sense of duty reflects adherence to the categorical imperative. Key Comparison: Kant compares a dutiful person with a naturally sympathetic person. While the sympathetic person might help others out of emotional inclination, their actions lack moral worth unless they are motivated by duty. For Kant, moral praiseworthiness lies in rational commitment, not emotional impulse. Comparison of Accounts Aspect Aristotle Kant Source of Moral Acting virtuously, with emotions Acting from duty, with respect for Worth and reason in harmony the moral law Focus Character and virtues Intentions and principles Central; emotions must align with Irrelevant; moral worth depends on Role of Emotions reason rational duty Objective vs. Focuses on personal flourishing Emphasizes universalizability and Subjective and character impartiality A courageous person facing A soldier acts because they Example danger because it’s virtuous recognize a duty to serve Key Differences 1. Motivation: o For Aristotle, motivation involves virtuous character and emotional alignment. o For Kant, motivation must stem from rational recognition of duty, independent of personal feelings or desires. 2. Context:  11 oAristotle evaluates actions within the broader context of a flourishing life, considering the agent's development and harmony. o Kant isolates individual actions, focusing solely on the agent's adherence to duty. 3. Moral Universality: o Aristotle’s virtues can vary depending on cultural or societal context. o Kant’s duty is universal and applies to all rational beings. Evaluation with Examples Scenario: Helping a Stranger Aristotle: A morally praiseworthy person helps a stranger because their virtuous character inclines them to act generously and compassionately. The action is fulfilling and arises naturally from their developed virtues. Kant: A morally praiseworthy person helps a stranger because they recognize it as their duty, regardless of personal feelings, sympathy, or potential rewards. Even if they feel no emotional inclination to help, their rational commitment makes the act morally worthy. Which View Is More Convincing? Strength of Aristotle’s View: Aristotle’s emphasis on the integration of character, emotions, and reason provides a holistic understanding of morality. It accounts for the complexities of human behavior and the role of habituation in developing moral excellence. Strength of Kant’s View: Kant’s insistence on rationality and universal principles provides a strong foundation for objective morality, ensuring fairness and impartiality in moral judgments. Conclusion: While both views have merit, Aristotle’s account might be more compelling for personal moral development, as it aligns ethics with human nature and flourishing. Kant’s framework is ideal for establishing universal principles but may overlook the nuanced interplay of character and emotion in moral action. Combining the two—virtue cultivation alongside respect for duty—might provide the most comprehensive ethical approach. 7) Compare and contrast Hobbes’ view that moral duties are based on a social contract with Aristotle’s view of morality as based on the human function. What are the views of human nature that underly these two accounts? - Hobbes and Aristotle offer profoundly different accounts of morality, rooted in distinct views of human nature. Hobbes bases moral duties on the social contract, arising from the need to escape the chaos of the "state of nature." Aristotle, on the other hand, sees morality as fulfilling the human function, rooted in the pursuit of flourishing (eudaimonia) through rational activity. Here's a comparison of their views and the underlying conceptions of human nature: 1. Hobbes: Morality as a Social Contract Basis of Morality:  12 o Morality arises from agreements (the social contract) among self- interested individuals to ensure peace and security. o In the absence of a social contract, individuals exist in a "state of nature," where life is "nasty, brutish, and short," dominated by fear, competition, and a constant struggle for survival. o Moral duties are not intrinsic but are established to facilitate cooperation and avoid mutual destruction. View of Human Nature: o Humans are naturally self-interested, driven by desires for self- preservation, power, and comfort. o Rationality serves as a tool to pursue self-interest, leading individuals to recognize the benefits of social cooperation. o Altruism or virtue is not innate but stems from the pragmatic need for stability. Example: A law prohibiting theft arises not from intrinsic moral values but from the recognition that protecting property benefits everyone under the social contract. 2. Aristotle: Morality as Fulfillment of the Human Function Basis of Morality: o Morality is based on the fulfillment of the human function, which Aristotle identifies as rational activity in accordance with virtue. o The ultimate goal (telos) of human life is eudaimonia (flourishing), achieved by living virtuously and cultivating reason. o Moral duties are intrinsic, rooted in human nature and the virtues necessary for living a good life. View of Human Nature: o Humans are naturally social and rational beings, with the potential to develop virtues like courage, justice, and wisdom. o Flourishing involves harmony between reason, emotions, and actions, achieved through habituation and practice. o Altruism and cooperation are integral to the human function, as humans thrive in communities. Example: Generosity is moral because it reflects a well-developed virtue and contributes to the flourishing of both the giver and the recipient. Comparison Aspect Hobbes Aristotle Social contract to escape the state Fulfillment of the human Source of Morality of nature function View of Human Self-interested, competitive, and Rational, social, and virtuous Nature fearful Necessary for flourishing and Role of Society Necessary for order and security virtue Basis of Moral Pragmatic agreements for mutual Intrinsic virtues rooted in human  13 Aspect Hobbes Aristotle Duties benefit nature Role of Rationality Instrumental for self-preservation Central to living virtuously Eudaimonia and the cultivation Moral Focus Security and stability of virtues Underlying Views of Human Nature 1. Hobbes: o Human nature is inherently self-centered and driven by fear of harm. o Cooperation and morality are artificial constructs necessary for survival, not innate qualities. o Social contracts reflect a pragmatic compromise to secure peace and order. 2. Aristotle: o Human nature is oriented toward rationality, social interaction, and the pursuit of excellence. o Morality is intrinsic and grounded in the natural potential for virtue and flourishing. o A virtuous life is fulfilling in itself, not merely a means to avoid harm. Evaluation Strengths of Hobbes: o Realistically accounts for the role of self-interest and the need for societal structures in maintaining order. o Explains morality in terms of practical agreements, making it adaptable to different contexts. Strengths of Aristotle: o Offers a richer, more holistic view of morality tied to human fulfillment and personal growth. o Highlights the role of virtues and rationality in creating meaningful lives. Which View is More Convincing? o Aristotle’s account is more inspiring for understanding human potential and long-term flourishing. However, Hobbes provides a more pragmatic explanation for why morality and societal rules are necessary in a world where people may not naturally act virtuously. o A balanced perspective might integrate Hobbes’s emphasis on societal structures with Aristotle’s focus on personal virtue and flourishing. Society can provide the stability needed for individuals to pursue virtue and eudaimonia. 8) Compare and contrast Kant’s and Mill’s accounts of the distinction between perfect (narrow) duties, or duties of justice, and imperfect (wide) duties, or duties of beneficence. - Kant and Mill both recognize a distinction between perfect (narrow) duties and imperfect (wide) duties, but their accounts differ significantly in terms of the basis and implications of these duties. Here’s a detailed comparison and contrast of their views:  14 1. Kant’s Account Philosophical Framework: Deontology Perfect (Narrow) Duties: o These are strict and specific obligations that must always be followed without exception. o They are derived from the categorical imperative—principles that must be universalized without contradiction. o Examples: The duty not to lie, not to steal, and to keep promises. o Violating a perfect duty results in a logical contradiction (e.g., if everyone lied, trust would be impossible). Imperfect (Wide) Duties: o These are flexible obligations that allow for discretion in how and when they are fulfilled. o They arise from the requirement to respect humanity as an end in itself, promoting the well-being of others and one's own moral development. o Examples: The duty to help others and to cultivate one’s talents. o These duties do not specify exact actions but require the agent to adopt certain ends (e.g., beneficence, self-improvement). Key Distinction: o Perfect duties concern actions that are strictly prohibited or required. o Imperfect duties concern ends that one should strive to achieve but allow for personal choice in how they are pursued. Example: o Perfect duty: Never make a false promise to get money. o Imperfect duty: Contribute to a charity to help those in need (but you decide how and when). 2. Mill’s Account Philosophical Framework: Utilitarianism Perfect (Narrow) Duties: o These are duties tied to justice, protecting specific rights and ensuring fairness. o They involve obligations that are essential to maintaining social order and security. o Examples: Duties to avoid harm, to uphold contracts, and to respect individual rights. o Violations of perfect duties are particularly harmful because they undermine trust and the stability of society. Imperfect (Wide) Duties: o These are duties tied to beneficence, aiming to promote overall happiness and well-being. o They are less stringent and allow flexibility in how individuals contribute to the greater good. o Examples: Duties to contribute to others’ happiness, provide aid, or engage in acts of kindness.  15 o Fulfilling imperfect duties enhances collective utility but is not as strictly obligatory as avoiding injustice. Key Distinction: o Perfect duties involve obligations enforceable by social norms or laws and protect essential interests. o Imperfect duties involve moral encouragement to promote general happiness but are not enforceable. Example: o Perfect duty: Uphold a legal contract you have signed. o Imperfect duty: Volunteer at a community shelter to alleviate suffering. Comparison Aspect Kant Mill Basis of Logical consistency and respect Utility: consequences for happiness Distinction for humanity and fairness Absolute, exceptionless Strict, enforceable obligations tied Perfect Duties obligations to justice Imperfect Flexible obligations to promote Flexible, unenforceable duties tied Duties moral ends to beneficence Grounded in rationality and Grounded in social stability and Scope universal moral law collective happiness No external enforcement; based Perfect duties enforceable; Enforcement on moral reasoning imperfect duties voluntary Flexibility Imperfect duties allow discretion Imperfect duties allow discretion Key Similarities 1. Recognition of Two Types of Duties: o Both distinguish between strict obligations (perfect duties) and more flexible moral goals (imperfect duties). 2. Moral Weight: o Both give greater moral urgency to perfect duties, as their violation undermines fundamental principles or societal trust. Key Differences 1. Moral Foundation: o Kant’s framework is deontological, focusing on rational consistency and moral law. o Mill’s framework is consequentialist, emphasizing the outcomes of actions in terms of happiness and harm. 2. Nature of Perfect Duties: o For Kant, perfect duties arise from logical necessity (e.g., lying is always wrong). o For Mill, perfect duties are necessary to uphold justice and societal well- being. 3. Imperfect Duties:  16 o For Kant, imperfect duties stem from respect for humanity and the pursuit of moral ends. o For Mill, imperfect duties arise from the goal of maximizing happiness. Which View Is More Convincing? Kant’s Strength: His distinction provides a rigorous, universal framework for moral duties. It clearly separates strict prohibitions from aspirational ends, ensuring logical consistency and respect for autonomy. Mill’s Strength: His emphasis on utility and societal impact makes the distinction more practical and tied to real-world consequences. Conclusion: The choice between the two depends on whether one prioritizes the universality and logical rigor of Kant or the practical and outcome-focused nature of Mill. Combining elements of both might yield a more comprehensive ethical framework: adhering to strict rules for justice (Kant) while promoting happiness through flexible beneficence (Mill). 9) Mill appears to regard an individual’s good or happiness as consisting in pleasurable experiences and the absence of painful ones. Do you agree with this view? How do you think Kant and Aristotle would have each responded to Mill’s account? - John Stuart Mill’s view of happiness as consisting in pleasurable experiences and the absence of painful ones (rooted in utilitarianism) is a compelling and influential perspective. However, its focus on pleasure and pain raises questions about its sufficiency as a comprehensive account of the good life. Here’s an analysis of this view, my evaluation of it, and how Kant and Aristotle would respond to Mill’s account: Mill’s Account of Happiness Definition of Happiness: For Mill, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. He distinguishes between higher (intellectual, moral) and lower (physical, sensual) pleasures, prioritizing the former because they are more valuable and fulfilling. Moral Framework: Actions are morally right if they maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. Strengths: o Mill acknowledges the complexity of human pleasure by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. o His account provides a practical, measurable standard for evaluating morality and promoting social welfare. Evaluation of Mill’s View 1. Strengths: o Intuitive Appeal: Happiness as pleasure and the avoidance of pain resonates with basic human motivations. o Social Utility: Mill’s account aligns individual happiness with collective well-being, emphasizing altruism and fairness. 2. Limitations:  17 o Reductionism: Reducing happiness to pleasure risks oversimplifying the richness of human life, ignoring aspects like virtue, meaning, and autonomy. o Moral Complexity: Not all pleasures are morally good, and not all pains are morally bad (e.g., the pain of hard work leading to meaningful achievement). o Individual Differences: People value happiness differently; some prioritize virtue, knowledge, or relationships over pleasure. Kant’s Response Criticism of Mill’s Hedonism: o Kant would reject Mill’s view as too contingent on subjective feelings of pleasure and pain, which he considers unreliable and morally irrelevant. o For Kant, morality is grounded in reason and the adherence to universal principles (the categorical imperative), not in pursuing happiness. Kant’s Definition of the Good Life: o True happiness, for Kant, is not about pleasure but about living in accordance with moral duty. A morally worthy life may involve sacrificing personal happiness for the sake of duty. Key Counterarguments: o Autonomy over Pleasure: Kant would argue that human dignity and autonomy are more important than the pursuit of pleasurable experiences. o Universalizability: Morality must be grounded in what can be rationally universalized, not in subjective preferences. Example: A person who helps others out of duty, even at the cost of personal pain or discomfort, exemplifies moral worth in Kant’s framework. Aristotle’s Response Criticism of Mill’s Simplicity: o Aristotle would find Mill’s focus on pleasure insufficient, as it neglects the human function (reason) and the cultivation of virtue. o Happiness (eudaimonia) for Aristotle is not merely about feeling good but about flourishing—living a life of rational activity in accordance with virtue. Aristotle’s Definition of the Good Life: o The highest good is not pleasure but a life of virtuous activity, guided by reason and aimed at achieving one’s potential. o Pleasures that accompany virtuous activity (e.g., the satisfaction of acting justly) are meaningful, but they are not the primary goal. Key Counterarguments: o Pleasure as a Byproduct: Aristotle would argue that true happiness comes from fulfilling one’s function, with pleasure being a natural byproduct rather than the essence of happiness. o Higher Aim of Life: Focusing on virtue and reason leads to a deeper, more stable happiness than fleeting pleasures.  18 Example: A person who achieves fulfillment by dedicating themselves to a meaningful career or community service aligns more with Aristotle’s vision than Mill’s. Comparison of Kant’s and Aristotle’s Criticisms Aspect Kant Aristotle Moral worth is not tied to Happiness is more than pleasure; it’s Basis of Criticism pleasure. about flourishing. Definition of Acting according to moral Living a virtuous life in accordance Happiness duty. with reason. A natural byproduct of virtuous Role of Pleasure Morally irrelevant. activity. Deontological (duty- Moral Framework Teleological (goal-oriented). based). My View Mill’s account of happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain is appealing in its simplicity and practicality. However, I find it insufficient as a comprehensive account of the good life for the following reasons: Complexity of Happiness: True happiness involves meaning, virtue, and personal growth, which go beyond pleasure. Moral Depth: Some sacrifices of personal pleasure (e.g., enduring hardship for justice or knowledge) reflect deeper fulfillment than mere pleasure maximization. Among the three thinkers, Aristotle’s account of happiness as flourishing through rational activity and virtue seems most comprehensive. It captures the richness of human experience and aligns with the idea that a good life involves more than the pursuit of pleasure—it includes purpose, excellence, and community. 10) What role does the feeling of pleasure play in the ethical views of Aristotle and Mill? - The feeling of pleasure plays a significant but distinct role in the ethical views of Aristotle and Mill, reflecting their different philosophical frameworks. Here's an analysis of how each philosopher incorporates pleasure into their ethical theories: Aristotle’s View on Pleasure Framework: Virtue Ethics (Eudaimonism) Role of Pleasure: o For Aristotle, pleasure is not the ultimate good but a natural byproduct of living a virtuous life. o A life of flourishing (eudaimonia) involves rational activity in accordance with virtue. While pleasure accompanies virtuous activities, it is not the goal itself. o The right kind of pleasure reinforces virtuous behavior. For example, a courageous person feels pleasure in acting courageously because it aligns with their character and reason.  19 o Pleasure is ethically significant when it arises from virtuous activity, as it reflects harmony between one’s desires and rational principles. Types of Pleasure: o Aristotle distinguishes between noble pleasures that align with reason and base pleasures that are bodily or excessive. The former contribute to flourishing, while the latter may lead to moral corruption if pursued excessively. Pleasure as a Guide: o Pleasure can guide ethical behavior when it is in tune with reason. However, it is not inherently reliable because it can also lead to indulgence and vice if disconnected from virtue. Key Point: Pleasure, when aligned with virtue and reason, enhances the good life but is not the primary aim of morality. Mill’s View on Pleasure Framework: Utilitarianism Role of Pleasure: o For Mill, pleasure is central to morality and human happiness. The moral worth of actions is judged by their capacity to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number. o Happiness is defined as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, making pleasure the ultimate ethical standard. Higher and Lower Pleasures: o Mill distinguishes between higher pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic, and moral) and lower pleasures (bodily or sensory). Higher pleasures are qualitatively superior because they engage our higher faculties and contribute more deeply to human flourishing. o Examples: ▪ Higher pleasures: Enjoying literature, engaging in philosophical discussion, acts of altruism. ▪ Lower pleasures: Physical sensations like eating or resting. Pleasure as the Goal: o Unlike Aristotle, Mill sees pleasure as the end goal of morality, making it central to ethical reasoning. o The moral life involves pursuing pleasures that promote the greatest happiness overall, even if it requires sacrificing one’s own immediate pleasures. Key Point: Pleasure is the ultimate aim and measure of morality, with higher pleasures prioritized over lower ones. Comparison: Aristotle vs. Mill on Pleasure Aspect Aristotle Mill Definition of A natural byproduct of virtuous The ultimate goal of morality and Pleasure activity. happiness. Secondary: enhances the Central: defines morality and Role in Ethics virtuous life. happiness.  20 Aspect Aristotle Mill Noble (aligned with reason) vs. Higher (intellectual) vs. lower Types of Pleasure base. (bodily). Pleasure and Aligned with reason, it Rationally pursued to maximize Rationality reinforces virtue. happiness. Virtue and rationality take Maximizing pleasure takes Ethical Priority precedence. precedence. Pleasure is unreliable if pursued Lower pleasures can lead to Potential Dangers excessively. superficiality. Evaluation Aristotle: Pleasure is an important part of the good life but only when it aligns with rationality and virtue. His nuanced approach acknowledges the dangers of hedonism while integrating pleasure into a broader concept of flourishing. Mill: Pleasure is the foundation of ethics, and its elevation through the distinction between higher and lower pleasures addresses some criticisms of hedonism. However, Mill's focus on consequences may overlook the intrinsic value of virtue. Key Difference: Aristotle views pleasure as subordinate to virtue and reason, while Mill makes pleasure the ultimate criterion for morality and happiness. Both perspectives highlight the importance of pleasure but assign it different roles within ethical life. 11) Can natural inclinations be the motive of moral worthy actions? Compare and contrast Aristotle’s, Hobbes’s, Kant’s and Mill’s answers to this question. - The question of whether natural inclinations—those motivations or desires that arise from human nature—can be the basis for morally worthy actions is central to the moral theories of Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Mill. Each of these philosophers has a distinct view on the role of natural inclinations in morality, with some emphasizing them more than others. Here's a comparison and contrast of their answers: Aristotle’s View on Natural Inclinations Framework: Virtue Ethics Natural Inclinations: o For Aristotle, natural inclinations (such as the desire for self- preservation, friendship, or pleasure) are important but not sufficient on their own for morally worthy actions. o He believes humans have natural capacities, such as reason and social instincts, that can be cultivated through virtuous habits. Can Natural Inclinations Motivate Moral Actions?: o Yes, but only when guided by reason. o Virtue is the key: even natural desires must be cultivated through rationality to become morally valuable. For example, the natural inclination to be generous is morally praiseworthy only if it is motivated by virtue (such as a desire to contribute to the well-being of others) rather than simply by a desire for personal satisfaction.  21 o A virtuous person aligns their natural inclinations with rational principles, and thus their actions are both morally worthy and deeply satisfying. Conclusion: Natural inclinations can motivate moral actions, but they must be shaped by reason and virtue to be morally praiseworthy. Hobbes’s View on Natural Inclinations Framework: Social Contract Theory (Psychological Egoism) Natural Inclinations: o Hobbes argues that human beings are motivated primarily by self-interest, with natural inclinations stemming from a desire for self-preservation and the avoidance of pain. o In the state of nature, without societal constraints, humans act out of self- preservation, seeking power and resources to ensure their own survival. Can Natural Inclinations Motivate Moral Actions?: o Yes, but only indirectly. o Hobbes believes that in a society governed by a social contract, people act according to natural inclinations (self-preservation), but they do so by recognizing that following social rules (such as keeping promises) ultimately benefits their self-interest. o While actions motivated by self-interest are not morally “virtuous” in the Aristotelian sense, Hobbes sees the social contract as a rational agreement for mutual benefit—thus, actions motivated by the fear of punishment or the desire for cooperation can still be morally significant in his system. Conclusion: Natural inclinations (e.g., self-preservation) can lead to moral actions, but these actions are based on self-interest and the need for societal cooperation rather than moral virtue. Kant’s View on Natural Inclinations Framework: Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics) Natural Inclinations: o Kant rejects the idea that natural inclinations can form the basis of moral actions. He believes that moral worth comes from acting according to duty, not from following natural desires or inclinations. o Good will is central to Kant's ethics. A morally worthy action must be done for the sake of duty, in accordance with the categorical imperative, not out of personal desire or inclination. Can Natural Inclinations Motivate Moral Actions?: o No, natural inclinations are morally irrelevant in Kant’s framework. o Actions are morally worthy only if they are performed out of respect for duty, not because of personal desires or natural inclinations. For example, helping others should be done because it is a moral duty, not because one feels sympathy or kindness.  22 o Kant draws a distinction between acting from inclination (which is self- interested or emotionally driven) and acting from duty (which is universalizable and free of personal motives). Conclusion: According to Kant, actions motivated by natural inclinations do not have moral worth unless they are done from a sense of duty, adhering to the categorical imperative. Mill’s View on Natural Inclinations Framework: Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) Natural Inclinations: o Mill acknowledges that natural inclinations (such as desires for pleasure, social connection, or self-preservation) can motivate human actions. In fact, these inclinations form the basis of his theory of happiness, which is defined as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. o For Mill, moral worth depends on whether actions promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which can include both natural and cultivated inclinations. Can Natural Inclinations Motivate Moral Actions?: o Yes, natural inclinations can motivate moral actions in Mill’s framework, as long as these actions contribute to overall happiness. o Unlike Kant, who dismisses inclinations as morally irrelevant, Mill argues that actions motivated by natural inclinations can be morally praiseworthy if they result in good consequences (i.e., pleasure or the absence of pain) for the individual or society. o Mill even acknowledges that natural inclinations can sometimes lead to greater happiness (e.g., acts of kindness or generosity motivated by natural sympathy) and therefore have moral value. Conclusion: For Mill, natural inclinations can be morally worthy if they contribute to the greater happiness, even if they arise from personal desires. Comparison of Views Philosopher View on Natural Inclinations Role in Moral Actions Natural inclinations (e.g., desire for Natural inclinations can motivate friendship, self-preservation) are moral actions if they are guided by Aristotle important, but actions are only morally rational virtue, but they must be praiseworthy when they align with cultivated into virtuous habits. reason and virtue. Moral actions are based on self- Natural inclinations are driven by self- interest and the social contract, Hobbes interest and the desire for self- which ensures the survival and preservation. well-being of individuals in a society. Natural inclinations are morally Only actions performed out of a irrelevant because moral worth comes sense of duty, not driven by Kant from acting according to duty, not inclination, have moral worth. from personal desires or inclinations. Actions motivated by inclinations  23 Philosopher View on Natural Inclinations Role in Moral Actions are not morally worthy. Natural inclinations can motivate Natural inclinations (e.g., pleasure, morally worthy actions if they Mill social bonds) are central to human promote happiness and minimize motivation and can lead to happiness. pain, contributing to the greater good. Which View is Most Convincing? Aristotle offers the most balanced perspective. He acknowledges the importance of natural inclinations but emphasizes the need for reason and virtue to guide these inclinations toward moral actions. This approach seems to best capture the complexity of human motivation and morality. Hobbes provides an insightful view of how self-interest drives moral actions, but his emphasis on self-preservation and the social contract might overlook the potential for altruism or virtue beyond mere survival. Kant's rigid requirement that actions must be motivated by duty and not by inclination seems too restrictive, as it disregards the possibility that inclinations (e.g., compassion or empathy) can align with duty and enhance moral worth. Mill is perhaps the most permissive, allowing natural inclinations to directly influence moral actions if they lead to greater happiness, which works well in practical terms but risks simplifying morality to the pursuit of pleasure. 12) If someone lies to me, or breaks a promise to me, I think that I have been treated unjustly. What does this feeling of injustice amount to? Compare and contrast Hobbes’s, Kant’s and Mill’s answers to this question. - The feeling of injustice that arises when someone lies to you or breaks a promise is a powerful emotional reaction that suggests a violation of some expectation or moral standard. This feeling can be understood and explained differently depending on the philosophical framework. Here's a comparison of how Hobbes, Kant, and Mill would interpret this feeling of injustice: Hobbes’s View on Injustice Framework: Social Contract Theory (Psychological Egoism) Hobbes’s Account of Injustice: o Injustice arises from the violation of the social contract, which is the fundamental principle governing human interactions in a society. o According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, without a governing authority, individuals are motivated solely by self-interest. In this chaotic state, people might lie or break promises, but this would lead to insecurity and distrust, ultimately undermining social cooperation. o In a civilized society, people enter into a social contract to form agreements and respect mutual promises. When someone breaks a promise or lies, it violates the contract that ensures mutual trust and cooperation, and this is perceived as injustice because it disrupts the social order and  24 threatens the individual's ability to pursue their own interests in a secure environment. What Does the Feeling of Injustice Amount to?: o For Hobbes, the feeling of injustice when someone lies or breaks a promise is a recognition that self-interest and social cooperation have been undermined. The feeling of injustice is a natural response to the disruption of the social contract, as it threatens one's own security and well-being. o The individual perceives the violation of a promise or a lie as a breach of an agreement that was made for mutual benefit. Conclusion: For Hobbes, the feeling of injustice is tied to the violation of the social contract, and it reflects an understanding that such violations threaten personal security and the stability of social life. Kant’s View on Injustice Framework: Deontological Ethics (Duty-Based Ethics) Kant’s Account of Injustice: o Injustice is fundamentally a violation of moral duty, not merely a breach of social or personal agreements. o Kant’s categorical imperative dictates that individuals should act according to principles that can be universally applied. When someone lies or breaks a promise, they are acting on a principle that cannot be universalized (e.g., if everyone lied or broke promises, trust and communication would break down, making promises meaningless). o Moral Law: Kant believes that individuals have a duty to respect the autonomy and dignity of others. Lying and breaking promises disrespect others by treating them as mere means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. What Does the Feeling of Injustice Amount to?: o For Kant, the feeling of injustice when someone lies or breaks a promise is a moral reaction. It reflects the violation of the moral law, specifically the duty to be truthful and keep promises. This feeling is not just about the social contract or personal consequences, but about the failure to treat others with respect and dignity. o The injustice is not simply about the practical harm caused by lying or breaking a promise, but about the moral wrong inherent in acting contrary to a duty. Conclusion: Kant sees the feeling of injustice as a recognition of a moral violation. When someone lies or breaks a promise, they fail to respect the autonomy of others and act contrary to their moral duties, which leads to a sense of injustice. Mill’s View on Injustice Framework: Utilitarianism Mill’s Account of Injustice:  25 o Injustice in Mill’s framework is defined by the harm caused to overall happiness. Lying or breaking promises is seen as morally wrong if it produces negative consequences, such as eroding trust, causing harm to individuals, or undermining social cooperation. o Mill would argue that actions that harm others, especially by violating trust, are unjust because they disrupt the happiness and well-being of society. The impact of lying or breaking a promise can lead to a loss of trust, making social cooperation more difficult and potentially causing suffering to others. What Does the Feeling of Injustice Amount to?: o For Mill, the feeling of injustice when someone lies or breaks a promise is a response to the harm caused by the violation. It indicates that the action in question has consequences that negatively affect the well-being of others. o The feeling of injustice arises because lying and breaking promises undermine social utility, reducing happiness and causing pain to others. Conclusion: Mill views the feeling of injustice as a consequence-based reaction. It reflects the harm caused to the collective happiness, as lying and breaking promises lead to negative social consequences, eroding trust and cooperation. Comparison of Views Philosopher View on Injustice Feeling of Injustice Injustice arises from the violation The feeling of injustice is a response to of the social contract, which Hobbes the disruption of mutual trust and the ensures social cooperation and stability of the social contract. personal security. Injustice is a violation of moral The feeling of injustice reflects the duty and respect for the autonomy violation of moral duties, such as truth- Kant of others, based on the categorical telling and promise-keeping, which imperative. treat others as ends. The feeling of injustice is a response to Injustice occurs when actions the harm caused by actions that Mill produce harm, disrupting overall undermine trust, cooperation, and happiness or social utility. overall well-being. Evaluation Hobbes provides a pragmatic view of injustice, seeing it as a threat to self- interest and social order. His account highlights the importance of trust and cooperation in society. Kant offers a duty-based understanding of injustice, focusing on the violation of moral law and the moral dignity of individuals. His view emphasizes the importance of respecting others as ends in themselves. Mill sees injustice in terms of consequences, arguing that actions that disrupt social harmony and harm others are unjust. His approach emphasizes the collective well-being over individual rights.  26 Of the three, Kant’s view might be considered the most principled in its moral reasoning, as it focuses on the inherent dignity of individuals and the respect for universal moral laws. However, Hobbes’s and Mill’s views offer important insights into the practical and consequential aspects of injustice, particularly in terms of social cooperation and happiness. 13) Consider the following situation. A magistrate is faced with a very real threat coming from an angry mob demanding a culprit for a crime. Unless a criminal is immediately produced, promptly tried and executed, the mob will certainly take their revenge on a small and vulnerable group in the community. In that event there is sure to be a massacre with many innocent victims. The magistrate knows that the identity of the real criminal is unknown and that the police have no clue how to go about finding him. He knows that there is a man, a shiftless character who is universally disliked in the community, whom he knows to be innocent of the crime but could be easily framed so that the mob is very likely to be convinced of his guilt. By framing this individual the magistrate is reasonably confident that he could avoid the killing of large numbers of innocent people. What should the magistrate do? How do you think Mill would answer this question? How do you think he would defend his answer? You should explain the answer from the act utilitarian and the rule utilitarian perspectives. How do you think Kant would answer this question. How do you think he would defend his answer? - This is a classic ethical dilemma that tests the balance between individual justice and the greater good. The magistrate faces a choice between framing an innocent person to prevent a massacre of innocents or refusing to frame the innocent person, which might lead to widespread harm. This question can be answered in different ways depending on the ethical framework used. Below, I will compare and contrast Mill's act utilitarianism, Mill's rule utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics in response to the dilemma. Mill's Act Utilitarianism Principle: The right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes overall suffering in the specific situation. Mill’s Answer: Under act utilitarianism, the magistrate should frame the innocent man because it would prevent a massacre and save many innocent lives, which would lead to a greater overall happiness than letting the mob kill many innocent people. o Defense: The immediate consequences of framing the innocent man would be the sparing of many lives. Even though framing an innocent person is morally problematic, the greater good—in this case, saving the lives of many innocent people—justifies the action. The harm caused to the innocent man (wrongfully framing him) is far outweighed by the lives saved and the suffering avoided by stopping the massacre. o Application of the Principle: From an act utilitarian perspective, the goal is to choose the action that produces the best outcome in the specific instance. Here, framing the innocent man seems to result in the greatest net benefit (saving lives and preventing a massacre), even though it violates justice in the short term.  27 Mill's Rule Utilitarianism Principle: Rule utilitarianism focuses on following rules that, when generally followed, will produce the most happiness over time. The correct action is determined by adherence to rules that are expected to lead to the greatest utility if they are followed universally. Mill’s Answer: Under rule utilitarianism, Mill would likely argue that framing the innocent man is not justified. He would argue that in the long run, if everyone followed the rule that it is acceptable to frame innocent people to avoid chaos or danger, this would undermine trust, justice, and fairness in society, ultimately leading to a lower overall happiness. o Defense: While framing an innocent person might have immediate benefits (preventing a massacre), the long-term consequences would be detrimental. If it became a rule that framing innocent people is permissible to prevent social unrest, the general public would lose trust in the justice system, which would increase societal fear, instability, and resentment. Over time, this would result in greater harm and a decline in overall happiness. o Application of the Principle: Rule utilitarianism would favor a rule against framing innocents, as consistently following such a rule would, in the long run, lead to a more just and stable society with better overall outcomes. Although the magistrate’s action might seem justified in the short term, violating the rule would likely have worse consequences for society’s happiness in the future. Kant’s Perspective Principle: Kantian ethics is grounded in the categorical imperative, which dictates that we must act according to rules that can be universally applied and treat individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. For Kant, moral actions are not based on consequences but on duty. Kant’s Answer: Kant would argue that the magistrate must not frame the innocent man, even if doing so could prevent a massacre. Framing an innocent person is a violation of moral duty and a violation of justice, as it treats the innocent man as a mere means to an end (preventing the massacre), rather than respecting his inherent dignity as a person. o Defense: According to Kant, moral actions are determined by adherence to duty and universalizable principles, not by the outcomes of those actions. If the magistrate frames the innocent man, he is acting contrary to the moral law and violating the principle that one should never treat others merely as a means. Furthermore, lying, cheating, and unjust punishment cannot be universalized without leading to moral contradictions. If everyone did this, trust in the judicial system would break down, and society would become morally bankrupt. o Application of the Principle: Kant would argue that duty must always take precedence, even in extreme cases. The magistrate cannot justify  28 framing an innocent person, as it would violate the universal moral law and disregard the innocent man's rights. Comparison of the Philosophers' Views Answer to the Philosopher Reasoning Dilemma The magistrate should The immediate consequences (saving lives) Mill (Act frame the innocent outweigh the harm of framing an innocent Utilitarianism) person to save many person. The focus is on maximizing lives. happiness in this specific situation. Allowing the framing of innocent people The magistrate should Mill (Rule would set a bad rule and lead to worse long- not frame the innocent Utilitarianism) term consequences (loss of trust, injustice), person. ultimately reducing happiness. Framing an innocent person is morally wrong The magistrate must because it violates duty and treats the Kant not frame the innocent individual as a means to an end, undermining person. moral principles and universal law. Conclusion Mill (Act Utilitarianism) would likely argue that framing the innocent man is the morally correct choice, given that it leads to the best possible outcome in terms of minimizing harm and saving lives. Mill (Rule Utilitarianism) would argue against framing the innocent man, because although it might lead to immediate benefits, it undermines the long-term stability and happiness of society by allowing unjust actions. Kant would reject framing the innocent man under any circumstances, as it violates fundamental moral principles of duty, justice, and respect for individuals as ends in themselves. Which of these views is most compelling? This depends on one's ethical priorities: If consequences matter most, then Mill’s act utilitarianism might seem appealing, as it seeks to maximize happiness in the face of immediate danger. If justice and rules are central, then Mill’s rule utilitarianism or Kant’s deontology might be more compelling, as both emphasize the long-term importance of following just rules and acting in a morally consistent way. 14) Suppose someone goes in for his yearly physical. As it happens there are five patients in the hospital, each of whom needs an organ transplant (kidney, heart, liver, etc.) to survive. Suppose that with the organ each of these people can look forward to roughly as many years of life as the healthy person would have. And suppose that otherwise all six people are roughly comparable in terms of the impact they would have on others’ happiness. Suppose that the doctor is in a position to kill the healthy person and distribute his organs to the five patients in a way that no one will suspect. Assume therefore that this action would create the greatest happiness overall. The act-utilitarian  29 would require the doctor to kill the healthy person and harvest his organs. What would the rule-utilitarian say? - In this scenario, the act-utilitarian would argue that the doctor should kill the healthy person and harvest their organs because it maximizes overall happiness. The five patients would survive and enjoy a similar number of years of life as the healthy person, and the overall happiness of society would increase due to the lives saved. However, this raises an important question about rule-utilitarianism, which focuses not just on the consequences of a single action, but on the consequences of adopting a general rule of behavior. Rule-Utilitarian Response A rule-utilitarian would argue against killing the healthy person, even though it would create the greatest immediate happiness in this particular case. Rule utilitarianism suggests that we should act according to rules that, when generally followed, produce the best overall consequences. The key distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism is that the latter considers the long-term impact of adopting rules that apply universally, rather than the consequences of isolated actions. Why the Rule-Utilitarian Would Object: 1. Undermining Trust: o If it became a rule that doctors could kill healthy individuals to harvest organs in certain situations, it would undermine the trust that patients have in the medical system. People would no longer feel safe seeking medical care, and they might avoid visiting doctors altogether due to fear that they could be killed for their organs. This would severely harm societal well-being and trust. 2. Slippery Slope: o Allowing a rule that permits killing for organs in one case could lead to a slippery slope, where similar actions might be justified in other contexts. For example, it could eventually justify killing people for other purposes, such as economic benefit or political gain, leading to widespread fear and instability. 3. Erosion of Rights: o Rule utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of individual rights and justice. Allowing the doctor to kill the healthy person would violate the right to life and undermine the principle that individuals should not be used as mere means to an end (i.e., as organ donors). If the rule condoned sacrificing individuals for the greater good, it would erode the fundamental moral rights that protect individuals from being harmed for the benefit of others. Long-Term Consequences: Even though this specific action might seem to produce the greatest happiness in the short term, the long-term consequences of adopting such a rule would likely lead to less happiness overall. The rule would create fear, distrust, and insecurity in society, which would harm the general well-being in the long run. Conclusion The rule-utilitarian would reject the idea of killing the healthy person for their organs because, although it produces the best outcome in this isolated case, adopting such a rule  30 would have negative long-term effects. These effects—such as the erosion of trust in medical professionals, the potential for abuse, and the violation of individual rights— would outweigh the immediate happiness created by saving the five patients. Therefore, the rule-utilitarian would argue that the doctor should not kill the healthy person, even if doing so would maximize happiness in the short term.