Philosophy 24 Exam PDF

Philosophy 24 exam Logic: Valid patterns of inference and the structure of arguments Epistemology: Knowledge and justified belief Metaphysics: The nature of reality, what the world is like Philosophy of Language: Meaning and communication Aesthetics: Art and Beauty Political Philosophy: Political e...

Philosophy 24 exam Logic: Valid patterns of inference and the structure of arguments Epistemology: Knowledge and justified belief Metaphysics: The nature of reality, what the world is like Philosophy of Language: Meaning and communication Aesthetics: Art and Beauty Political Philosophy: Political entities, how we should construct a state Moral Philosophy/Ethics: How we ought to live, what we ought to do. Deals in normative claims Hume’s Is/Ought problem -​ There is a fundamental gap between what is (facts) and what ought to be (values) -​ You cannot derive an ought from an is: no amount of factual information alone can logically lead to a moral conclusion. -​ "Is" statements are descriptive; they tell you what is happening in the world. For example, "People often lie." -​ "Ought" statements are prescriptive; they tell you what should happen or what is morally right. For example, "People ought to always tell the truth." -​ Hume pointed out that just because something is a certain way, it doesn't mean it ought to be that way. Relativism VS. Objectivism Relativism -​ We cannot make any general claims about what is right or wrong  -​ What is right or wrong is a cultural and societal specific -​ What is right or wrong is relative. There are other factors that makes us not define something. -​ For example: For some cultures polygamy is acceptable, for others it’s not acceptable. -​ Relativism has counterintuitive implications for the nature of moral disagreement. -​ Ethical beliefs dont change based on what others think -​ Relativism implies no moral progress -​ You cannot say moral beliefs are unreasonable or plain wrong Objection to Moral relativism -​ The main objections to moral relativism include its inability to account for moral progress, its difficulty in resolving moral contradictions across cultures, its tolerance of intolerant practices, and its failure to provide an objective standard for distinguishing right from wrong. Critics argue that moral relativism undermines the possibility of universal human rights, meaningful moral disagreements, and ethical objectivity. For these reasons, many philosophers argue for some form of moral objectivism, which holds that there are universal moral truths that transcend cultural or individual differences. Objectivism -​ Ethics are not up to us -​ Ethics are facts, which do not change based on what people think Normative VS. Descriptive ethics -​ Descriptive ethics is about observing and describing how people actually behave and think about morality. It’s concerned with understanding how people do (or don’t) live up to moral standards in real life.  Example: Cheating is wrong -​ Normative ethics is about prescribing and justifying moral principles and rules. It focuses on what should be done and how people ought to act, based on some system of ethical reasoning. There are three types of theories in normative ethics, Deontology: rights and rules, Virtue ethics: character and virtues, and consequentialism: maximizing the good. ​ Example: You should not cheat Consequentialism -​ Is the view that the consequences of actions matter, and we should maximize good consequences. -​ “The ends justify the means” ​ Example: The trolley effect. Utilitarianism -​ We should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. -​ On the Hedonist version: we should maximize total net happiness -​ Mills “greatest happiness principle”: we ought to choose action or social policy that provides the greatest happiness for all -​ When making a moral choice we should make the choice that will maximize pleasure and minimize pain. ​ Objections: Calculating utility (building a park or a library) , measuring wellbeing (my happiness is to drive to town everyday, my neighbors happiness is to bike to town), Impartiality (donate clothes to someone that really needs or give it to my friend that really wants), over-demandingness (donate all my salary to a organization that will save a specie from extinction), neglects individuals rights and autonomy (building a freeway that will bring prosperity but will have to relocate hundreds of people) Hedonism -​ Happiness/pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable -​ The moral thing to do is the one that maximizes pleasure -​ The good life is the one that is full on pleasure and free from pain -​ Intentions don't matter -​ It requires us to be impartial -​ Critique: There are different measurements and quality of happiness/pleasure -​ Mills Response: The lowest form of pleasure is the body pleasure, the best quality is the one that comes from hard work and intellect Benefits of Hedonism: -​ The person has personal authority ver their life. Misery hampers the good life, but happiness improves it Objections to Hedonism -​ False happiness (husband cheating, but youre happy in the mariage). And you can also feel happy even if you don't have autonomy over your life. Hedonism and the experience machine Mills Greatest Happiness Principle: -​ The Greatest Happiness Principle is central to the philosophy of utilitarianism, especially as articulated by John Stuart Mill in his work A System of Logic and Utilitarianism. -​ Actions are morally right if they contribute to the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. -​ Conversely, actions are wrong if they lead to more harm, pain, or suffering for more people. -​ Happiness is the main goal (happiness is the main goal when taking an action for the majority), Impartiality (each person's happiness counts  equally), qualitative vs. quantitative pleasure (quantitative is when you choose what gives more pleasure to all, while qualitative pleasure is the quality of pleasure ex: reading a book is more qualitative than videogame), justice and rights (sacrificing an individual right for the greater good). Deontology -​ The most controversial feature of utilitarianism -​ Permits morally reprehensible treatment if it maximizes good consequence ​ Example: Slavery is permitted because it maximizes utility. But because it harms and treats people as a mere it is immoral. -​ The idea that slavery is intrinsically wrong focuses on the features of the act. -​ It’s absolutist, it always applies, regardless of the consequences -​ The rightness or wrongness of an action is not determined with respect to consequences, nut rather with respect to moral principles, rules and duties. -​ For example: telling the truth is a duty, regardless of the consequences it might bring. -​ Deontology is about doing what is morally right because it is the right thing to do, not because of what it might lead to. Kantian Deontology -​ The formula of the end in itself: “ act is such a say that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a (or a mere) means but always at the same time as an ends” Example: If you ask someone to borrow money from them and you promise to give it back, you have to give the money back. -​ Treating as an ends: treating you as an agent deserving of respect  -​ Treating as a means: using someone as a tool, not respecting their dignity -​ For Kant we are rational and autonomous -​ Maxims - a little plan (what you are doing and why you are doing it) -​ Deception: Involves misleading someone about the maxim, so they cant consent, manipulating, lying, breaking a promise w someone. Example: a surprise road trip -​ Coercion: forcing someone to do something. Example: Kidnaping someone Contractarianism -​ Moral norms derive from contract or mutual agreement -​ Hobbes: The legitimate authority of government derives from the consent of the governed Distributive Justice -​ the fair allocation of benefits and burdens in society -​ The focus here is on how resources, rights, duties, and opportunities should be distributed among individuals or groups, particularly in ways that are considered fair or just -​ Veil of Ignorance: Imagine you don't know any of your personal characteristics (e.g., your gender, race, wealth, abilities, etc.), and you’re tasked with designing a society’s rules and principles. This is called the "veil of ignorance" because it prevents biases based on self-interest or circumstances. -​ Principles of Justice: Rawls argues that, under the veil of ignorance, rational people would agree on two principles of justice: -​ Equal basic liberties for all (e.g., freedom of speech, right to vote). -​ The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This  means inequalities in wealth, education, etc., are acceptable only if they improve the position of those who are worst off. -​ ideas about distributive justice influence policies like progressive taxation, social welfare programs, healthcare access, and education. For instance, if a government prioritizes need-based distributive justice, it might allocate more resources to healthcare and education for lower-income communities. On the other hand, if it focuses on merit-based justice, policies might reward high achievers with incentives like scholarships or tax breaks. Corrective Justice -​ The person that did something wrong apologies and do better the next time -​ Example: If you crash someones car and it was you fault you should pay all of the medical bill, etc. -​ Restoring balance, compensating the victim. -​ Individual responsability, if youre the wrongdoer you should make amends and take responsibility of the action. -​ Remediation, The injustice will receive remedies. -​ Compensation for loss, the injustice will receive compensation for the suffering -​ Retributist: Punishment is justified because it is a deserved response to a wrongdoing. The punishment is deserving because someone did it -​ Consequentialist: Punishment is justified if it will prevent others to do it. The punishment is deserving because others will not do it, and not because the wrongdoer deserves the punishment. Luck egalitarian  -​ The main principle of luck egalitarianism is that justice requires compensating for bad luck -​ Luck determines you success. Rawl believe that he doesnt believe that luck will determine you success. -​ if someone is disadvantaged due to factors like disability, poverty, or being born into an unequal social system, luck egalitarians argue society should do something to level the playing field. The difference principle -​ Maximizing Benefits for the Least Advantaged -​ Fair Equality of Opportunity Liberalism -​ And individual liberty is valuable and states should be structured to protect and promote it. -​ Liberalism places a high value on the autonomy and freedom of individuals. It emphasizes that each person should have the right to make choices about their own life, including choices regarding their beliefs, body, property, and personal relationships, as long as they don't harm others. ​ Critiques: Economic inequality, excessive individualism (liberalism places too much focus on individual rights at the expense of social cohesion.), cultural and social issues (tend to become overly focused on consumerism and materialism, undermining the moral and cultural foundations of society) The Harm principle -​ "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." -​ In simpler terms, Mill argues that individuals should be free to act however they wish, unless their actions harm others.  -​ In simpler terms, Mill argues that individuals should be free to act however they wish, unless their actions harm others. -​ Mill's idea was to limit state intervention to only what is necessary to prevent harm. He argued that individuals should be free to pursue their own version of happiness unless doing so interferes with the rights of others. The government’s role, then, is to protect individuals from harm caused by others but not to dictate or regulate personal choices that do not impact others. Paternalism -​ Paternalism refers to the practice or principle of limiting or restricting an individual's freedom or autonomy for their own good—essentially acting in a way that is intended to benefit or protect someone, even if that means overriding their own choices or decisions. -​ At the heart of paternalism is the belief that sometimes individuals make decisions that are not in their best interest—whether due to lack of information, irrationality, short-term thinking, or external pressure. Rawls Theory of Justice -​ Original Position and Veil of Ignorance: People decide principles of justice while being ignorant of their personal characteristics, ensuring fairness. -​ Two Principles of Justice: -​ Equal Liberty Principle: Everyone should have equal basic freedoms. -​ Difference Principle: Inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. -​ Priority of Principles: Basic liberties cannot be sacrificed for economic or social benefits.  -​ Critique of Utilitarianism: Rawls rejects utilitarianism, emphasizing fairness and the protection of the least advantaged rather than maximizing total happiness. -​ Political Liberalism: Justice as fairness can be supported by an overlapping consensus of diverse moral, religious, and philosophical views. -​ Social and Political Institutions: The structure of society must be designed to reflect the principles of justice, ensuring fair distribution of goods and opportunities. -​ Rawls' theory offers a robust, fair, and democratic vision of justice that prioritizes the protection of basic freedoms and the well-being of the least advantaged. Feminist and racial justice critique of Rawls theory -​ Feminist critiques of Rawls focus on the neglect of gendered power dynamics, particularly in the private sphere (family, caregiving) and the assumption of neutrality that overlooks women’s lived experiences of oppression. -​ Racial-justice critiques argue that Rawls’ theory does not sufficiently account for historical and structural racial inequalities, and that a more robust framework is needed to address racial justice. Paternalism vs. Harm-principle -​ Paternalism justifies interference for the person’s own good, even if they aren't harming others, while the harm principle only justifies interference when someone’s actions directly harm others, not when the person might harm themselves. -​ In short, paternalism is about protecting individuals from their own choices, while the harm principle is about preventing harm to others. Challenges with applying mills harm principle -​ While Mill’s harm principle provides a clear ethical guideline for when it is justifiable to interfere with individual liberty, its application is fraught with challenges. The definition of harm, the severity of harm, and the role of cultural and moral differences all create difficulties in applying the harm principle consistently and effectively. Moreover, the tension between individual freedom and the well-being of others in complex societal contexts often requires careful balancing and interpretation. Harm can be subjective -​ It doesnt guide on how severe the harm needs ro be in order to justify interference