Philo 23 Final Outline PDF

OUTLINE PAPER A Final Output in PHILO 23 Made by: Cedric James Negradas Submitted to: Sir. Gabriel Kintanar Date of submission: 12/09/2024 I. INTRODUCTION TO AQUINAS............................................................................................................

OUTLINE PAPER A Final Output in PHILO 23 Made by: Cedric James Negradas Submitted to: Sir. Gabriel Kintanar Date of submission: 12/09/2024 I. INTRODUCTION TO AQUINAS.......................................................................................................... 3 II. MOTIVATING NATURAL LAW THEORY: The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory.................................................................................................................................................... 3 III. 4 TYPES OF LAW IN AQUINAS NATURAL LAW THEORY............................................................ 4 IV. SUMMARY OF AQUINAS NATURAL LAW THEORY...................................................................... 6 V. THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT ( DDE )...............................................................................7 VI. SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT NATURAL LAW THEORY.................................................................. 7 VII. INTRODUCTION TO UTILITARIANISM.......................................................................................... 9 VIII. HEDONISM..................................................................................................................................... 9 IX. THE FOUNDATIONS OF BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM............................................................ 10 X. THE STRUCTURE OF BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM................................................................. 11 XI. HEDONIC CALCULUS................................................................................................................... 12 XII. PROBLEMS WITH BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM..................................................................... 12 XIII. MILL’S UTILITARIAN PROOF...................................................................................................... 13 XIV. MILL’S QUALITATIVE UTILITARIANISM.....................................................................................13 XV. MILL’S QUALITATIVE UTILITARIANISM......................................................................................14 XVI. COMPARING THE CLASSICAL UTILITARIANS.........................................................................14 XVII. NON-HEDONISTIC CONTEMPORARY UTILITARIANISM: PETER SINGER AND PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM........................................................................................................15 XVIII. ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUE ETHICS INTRODUCTION.................................................................15 XIX. THE FUNCTION ARGUMENT......................................................................................................16 XX. ARISTOTELIAN GOODNESS.......................................................................................................16 XXI. EUDAIMONIA AND VIRTUE........................................................................................................ 16 XXII. DEVELOPING THE VIRTUES.....................................................................................................16 XXIII. PRACTICAL WISDOM (PHRONESIS).......................................................................................17 XXIV. VOLUNTARY ACTIONS, INVOLUNTARY ACTIONS AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.......... 17 XXV. OBJECTION: UNCLEAR GUIDANCE........................................................................................ 17 XXVI. OBJECTION: CLASHING VIRTUES......................................................................................... 17 XXVII. OBJECTION: CIRCULARITY................................................................................................... 18 XXVIII. OBJECTION: CONTRIBUTION TO EUDAIMONIA................................................................. 18 XXIX. MORAL GOOD AND INDIVIDUAL GOOD................................................................................ 18 XXX. INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS.................................................................................... 19 XXXI. SOME KEY IDEAS.....................................................................................................................19 XXXII. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY........................................................................................ 19 XXXIII. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY....................................................................................... 19 XXXIV. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY....................................................................................... 19 XXXV. SECOND FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE........................................ 20 XXXVI. THIRD FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE........................................... 20 XXXVII. PROBLEMS AND RESPONSES............................................................................................20 XXXVIII. THE PRIMARY SUBJECT OF JUSTICE...............................................................................20 XXXIX. WHY THE BASIC STRUCTURE?........................................................................................... 20 XL. HOW TO DETERMINE THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE?........................................................... 21 XLI. THE ORIGINAL POSITION.......................................................................................................... 21 XLII. WHICH PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WOULD BE CHOSEN IN THE ORIGINAL POSITION?....21 XLIII. THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE....................................................................................... 22 1  Outline of Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory I. INTRODUCTION TO AQUINAS A. Background: 1. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a revolutionary thinker philosophy, theology, and science. He was a member of the Dominican Friars 2. Taught by Albert the Great (1208–1280), His approach integrated aristotelian ideas into theology, contrasting with platonic thought. 3. Aquinas sought to move away from Plato’s thinking and introduced Aristotelian ideas to science, nature, and theology. 4. His most famous work, Summa Theologica, spans three and a half thousand pages and contains influential ideas, such as proofs for God’s existence. remains foundational to catholic teaching. II. MOTIVATING NATURAL LAW THEORY: The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory A. Divine Command Theory (DCT): 1. Many religious individuals argue morality is determined by God's commands (e.g., "Do not steal because God forbids it"). 2. Aquinas critiques this view, identifying a significant problem: a) If something is good simply because God commands it, morality becomes arbitrary (e.g., God could command anything, even morally repugnant acts). b) If God commands something because it is inherently good, then morality exists independently of God’s will. 2  B. The Euthyphro Dilemma: 1. Originating from Plato’s Euthyphro, the dilemma asks: a) Either God commands something is right because it is? b) Or it is right because God commands it? 2. The first option implies morality exists independently of God. 3. The second option makes morality arbitrary. 4. Aquinas rejects DCT and chooses the first option: “morality exists independently, and God’s commands reveal moral truths”. C. Role of God in Morality: 1. God’s commands help reveal moral truths but do not determine them. 2. This positions morality as rooted in reason and the natural order, which Aquinas develops further through his concept of Natural Law. III. 4 TYPES OF LAW IN AQUINAS NATURAL LAW THEORY A. Eternal Law ( God’s plan/purpose for all things ): 1. Reflects God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. 2. Eternal Law is part of God’s mind and has always existed. 3. All things have a telos (purpose or goal), aligning them with the Eternal Law when they fulfill this purpose. a) Example: (1) The telos of an acorn is to grow into an oak tree. 3 B. Natural Law ( Our partaking in the Eternal Law which leads to primary precepts ): 1. Humans partake in Natural Law through reason. It is this that makes us distinct from rats and rocks. 2. If we all act according to reason, then we will all agree to some overarching general rules (what Aquinas calls primary precepts). a) The first primary precept is that “good is to be pursued and done and evil avoided” he thinks that this is the guiding principle for all our decision making. 3. Natural Law does not generate external set of rules that are written down for us to consult but rather it generates general rules that any rational agent can come to recognize simply in virtue of being rational a) Example: (1) For Aquinas it is not as if we need to check whether we should pursue good and avoid evil, as it is just part of how we already think about things 4. Aquinas gives some additional examples of “primary precepts”: a) Preserve and protect human life. b) Reproduce and educate offspring. c) Know and worship God. d) Live in a society. These precepts are primary because they are true for all people in all instances and are consistent with natural law. 4  C. Human Law ( Humans making specific laws to capture the truths of the natural law which lead to secondary precepts ): 1. Created by governments, groups, clubs, societies etc. to form what Aquinas introduces as “Human Law” or “Secondary Precepts” 2. Secondary precepts include rules like “do not drive above 70mph” or “always wear a helmet.” 3. It is only morally acceptable if they are consistent with Natural Law D. Divine Law (): 1. Discovered through revelation, should be thought of as the Divine equivalent of Human Law 2. Divine laws are those that God has, in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those “mysteries”, those rules given by God which we find in scripture. a) Example: (1) The Ten Commandments IV. SUMMARY OF AQUINAS NATURAL LAW THEORY A. Everything has a purpose or function (telos), and actions are morally right if they fulfill that purpose. B. Primary Precepts are general and absolute, but Secondary Precepts may vary based on societal context. C. Divine Law complements Natural Law by providing moral clarity on issues where human reasoning is fallible. 5 V. THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT ( DDE ) A. The DDE addresses situations where actions produce both good and bad effects. B. An action is not just about what we do externally but is also about what we do internally (i.e. our motivations). a) Example: (1) Imagine a child brought up in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive family. He is frequently scared for his life and is locked in the house for days at a time. One day when his father is drunk and ready to abuse him again he quickly grabs a kitchen knife and slashes his father’s artery. His father bleeds out and dies in a matter of minutes. Do you think the son did anything wrong? C. If an act fulfils four conditions then it is morally acceptable: 1. The 1st principle is that “The act must be a good one”. 2. The 2nd principle is that “The act must come about before the consequences”. 3. The 3rd principle is that “The intention must be good”. 4. The 4th principle is that “It must be for serious reasons”. VI. SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT NATURAL LAW THEORY A. Aquinas’s theory works on the idea that if something is “natural,” that is, if it fulfills its function, then it is morally acceptable. B. However, there are unanswered questions relating to natural: 1. Why does “natural” matter? 2. We can think of things that are not “natural” but which are perfectly acceptable, such as wearing clothes, taking medication, or body piercing. 6  3. Conversely, there are things that are “natural” but morally unacceptable, such as violence in response to an unfaithful partner. Therefore, it is not true that we can discover what is morally acceptable or not simply by discovering what is natural and what is not. C. Reproduction and morality: 1. Aquinas believes reproduction is natural and morally acceptable, meaning sex without the potential for reproduction is morally wrong. 2. This would make actions like homosexuality and contraception morally wrong, even with qualifications about timing or intent. D. The issue of human purpose: 1. Aquinas thinks everything has a goal (telos). 2. While it may be plausible for things like acorns or eyes (which grow or see), it is less clear for humans. 3. Philosophers like existentialists, such as Simone de Beauvoir, argue there is no such thing as human nature or a human function. 4. If we are unconvinced humans have a goal, the whole approach to ethics seems flawed. E. Problems with the Doctrine of Double Effect: 1. For Aquinas, intent plays a critical role in determining the morality of actions. a) Example: Two doctors both remove a uterus, leading to fetal death: (1) One intends to remove the uterus (foreseeing fetal death). (2) The other intends to kill the fetus. 2. The Doctrine of Double Effect considers this difference in intent as morally significant, but it raises questions about how we understand intentions. 7  F. Applying Natural Law 1. Aquinas assumes rational reflection aligns people with the Natural Law and Divine Law. 2. However, disagreements remain, even after extensive rational deliberation. 3. Rational agents often fail to converge on moral issues, even in seemingly objective areas like mathematics. Outline of Utilitarianism VII. INTRODUCTION TO UTILITARIANISM A. Utilitarianism suggests that we can decide what is morally right or morally wrong by weighing up which of our future possible actions promotes such goodness in our lives and the lives of people more generally VIII. HEDONISM A. Hedonism is a theory of well-being 1. A theory of how well a life is going for the person living that life B. Hedonist believes that what defines a successful life is directly related to the amount of pleasure in that life; no other factors are relevant at all. C. Therefore, the more pleasure that a person experiences in their life then the better their life goes, and vice versa D. Epicurus held the hedonistic view that the primary intrinsic good for a person is pleasure; meaning that pleasure is always good for a person in and of itself, irrespective of the cause or context of the pleasure. 8  1. According to this theory pleasure is always intrinsically good for a person and less pleasure is always intrinsically bad. E. Fred Feldman (1941–) is a defender of a theory known as Attitudinal Hedonism. 1. According To this theory, psychological pleasures can themselves count as intrinsically good for a person. F. Robert Nozick (1938–2002) attacked the hedonistic idea that pleasure is the only good by testing our intuitions via a now famous thought-experiment G. Nozick’s Experience Machine thought experiment challenges Hedonism by asking whether people would choose a pre-programmed pleasure machine over real life experiences, suggesting that people value more than just pleasure. IX. THE FOUNDATIONS OF BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM A. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) 1. was the first of the “classical utilitarians”.Driven by a genuine desire for social reform. 2. He based his moral theory on hedonistic principles, viewing pleasure as the only intrinsic good and pain as the only intrinsic evil. 3. Bentham wanted to be as much involved in law, politics and economics as abstract philosophising. 4. Bentham is a hedonistic utilitarian. 5. Bentham’s Principle of Utility posits that actions are morally right if they tend to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if they tend to produce the opposite. 9 X. THE STRUCTURE OF BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM A. In addition to being hedonistic, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also: 1. Consequentialist/Teleological 2. Relativist 3. Maximising 4. Impartial B. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is consequentialist, meaning it evaluates actions based solely on their outcomes in terms of pleasure or pain. It is also teleological, focusing on the end goals of actions. C. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is Relativistic rather than Absolutist. Absolutist moral views hold that certain actions will always be morally wrong irrespective of context or consequences. a) Example: (1) For example, manycampaigning groups suggest that torture is always morally unacceptablewhether it is carried out by vindictive dictators seeking to instil fear in a population or whether it is authorised by democratically electedgovernments seeking to obtain information in order to stop a terroristattack. For absolutists then, the act of torture is absolutely wrong in all casesand situations. D. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is maximising because it does not merely require that pleasure is promoted, but that the greatest pleasure for the greatest number is secured. a) Example: (1) For example, if you gain some pleasure from spending money on a new book, but that money could have produced more pleasure had it been donated to a local charity for the homeless. E. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also impartial in the sense that what matters is simply securing the maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum number of people. Theory is associated with the idea of equal consideration of interests. 10 XI. HEDONIC CALCULUS A. Bentham recognised that such Problems of Calculation Relating to the pleasure associated with future actions needed addressing in order forUtilitarianism to be a workable moral theory. B. Bentham therefore created theHedonic Calculus (sometimes known as the Felicific Calculus) in order to help an individual work out how much pleasure would be created by differing possible actions C. The Hedonic Calculus, as suggested by Bentham,is based on assessing possible pleasures according to their: 1. Intensity 2. Duration 3. Certainty 4. Remoteness: How far into the future the pleasure is 5. Fecundity: how likely it is that pleasure will generate other related pleasures 6. Purity: if any pain will be felt alongside that pleasure 7. Extent: how many people might be able to share in that pleasure XII. PROBLEMS WITH BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM A. Problems of Calculation: The Hedonic Calculus may struggle to compare qualitatively different pleasures, such as intellectual versus physical pleasures, making precise comparison difficult. B. Problem of Relevant Beings: The focus on human pleasure might exclude non-human animals, which can experience suffering and joy. C. Demandingness Objection: Utilitarianism requires maximizing total pleasure at all opportunities, which can be excessively demanding on individual behavior. D. Tyranny of the Majority: The theory may justify actions that benefit the majority at the expense of minority rights and needs. E. Problem of Wrong Intentions: Utilitarianism’s focus on consequences can disregard the moral importance of intentions. 11  F. Problem of Partiality: It does not allow special consideration for loved ones or close associates, which can be perceived as overly calculating and cold. XIII. MILL’S UTILITARIAN PROOF A. John Stuart Mill argues for a version of Utilitarianism that incorporates both quantity and quality of happiness. He claims that individual happiness contributes to general happiness. B. Mill’s proof is based on the empirical observation that people naturally desire their own happiness, suggesting that happiness is inherently desirable. C. Higher pleasures (intellectual, emotional) are considered more valuable than lower pleasures (physical), and competent judges prefer higher pleasures. XIV. MILL’S QUALITATIVE UTILITARIANISM A. Mill introduces a qualitative aspect to pleasures, distinguishing between higher (intellectual, emotional) and lower (physical) pleasures. B. According to Mill, competent judges—those who have experienced both types of pleasure—prefer higher pleasures. C. This qualitative distinction aims to address criticisms of utilitarianism as overly hedonistic. 12 XV. MILL’S QUALITATIVE UTILITARIANISM A. Act Utilitarianism: Bentham’s theory focuses on the direct consequences of actions. If an action maximizes happiness, it is deemed morally right. B. Rule Utilitarianism: Mill proposes that we should follow rules that generally promote the greatest happiness. This approach allows for a more systematic evaluation of rules in terms of their broader societal impact. 1. Strong Rule Utilitarianism: Always adheres to rules that maximize happiness, even if it means sacrificing some pleasure in specific situations. 2. Weak Rule Utilitarianism: Allows for breaking rules if doing so results in greater overall happiness, but still seeks to uphold general rules as guidelines for moral behavior. C. Mill’s rule utilitarianism includes the Harm Principle, which asserts that power can only be rightfully exercised over an individual to prevent harm to others. XVI. COMPARING THE CLASSICAL UTILITARIANS A. Bentham: His utilitarianism is hedonistic, focusing on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. It is act-utilitarian, valuing the direct consequences of actions. B. Mill: His approach incorporates a qualitative distinction between pleasures and introduces rule utilitarianism, which values adherence to rules that generally promote happiness. Mill’s version also addresses issues of partiality and minority rights more explicitly than Bentham’s. 13 XVII. NON-HEDONISTIC CONTEMPORARY UTILITARIANISM: PETER SINGER AND PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM A. Preference Utilitarianism: Peter Singer argues that the good of a life is determined by the satisfaction of preferences, not just pleasure. It is impartial and relativistic, weighing preferences equally regardless of who holds them. B. Challenges: Preference Utilitarianism faces issues such as dealing with irrational or harmful preferences and balancing individual rights with societal good. It must consider non-human animals in moral calculations, addressing their capacity for suffering and joy. Outline of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics XVIII. ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUE ETHICS INTRODUCTION A. Aristotle (384–322 BC) was a scholar in disciplines such as ethics,metaphysics, biology and botany, amongst others. B. Aristotle’s moral philosophy is based around assessing the broad characters of human beings rather than assessing singular acts in isolation. C. Aristotle was a teleologist, a term related to, but not to be confused with, the label “teleological” as applied to normative ethical theories such as Utilitarianism. 14 XIX. THE FUNCTION ARGUMENT A. All objects have a telos. B. An object is good when it properly secures its telos. C. The telos of a human being is to reason. D. The good for a human being is acting in accordance with reason. XX. ARISTOTELIAN GOODNESS For all things that have a function or activity, the good and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function. Achieving a good life involves acting in accordance with our telos. XXI. EUDAIMONIA AND VIRTUE Eudaimonia is the state that all humans should aim for as it is the aim and end of human existence. Flourishing is the best translation for eudaimonia, which is acting in accordance with our telos. Virtues are character dispositions or personality traits, focusing on character rather than actions. Virtue is acting on the basis of the Golden Mean, a response neither excessive nor deficient. XXII. DEVELOPING THE VIRTUES We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. Ethical characters are developed by practical learning and habitual action. Cultivating a virtuous character requires a lifetime of work. 15 XXIII. PRACTICAL WISDOM (PHRONESIS) Practical wisdom is the most important virtuous disposition or character trait. Virtue apprentices can learn from the wisdom and virtue of others, such as Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, or King. XXIV. VOLUNTARY ACTIONS, INVOLUNTARY ACTIONS AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Voluntary actions are freely chosen; involuntary actions are affected by force or ignorance. Actions in ignorance (self-created ignorance) differ from actions from ignorance (external barriers). Non-voluntary actions occur when ignorance is present, but there is no regret. XXV. OBJECTION: UNCLEAR GUIDANCE Virtue Ethics may be accused of being a theory of unhelpful and nonspecific moral platitudes. Virtue Ethics provides guidance in the form of “v-rules,” such as “do what is honest” or “avoid what is envious.” XXVI. OBJECTION: CLASHING VIRTUES Courageous behaviour may, in certain cases, mean a lack of friendliness. Practical wisdom can steer a path between clashing virtues. 16 XXVII. OBJECTION: CIRCULARITY An act is virtuous if it is an act that a virtuous person would commit in that circumstance. A person is virtuous when they act in virtuous ways. Virtuous people are living and breathing concrete guides, helping us understand virtuous actions. XXVIII. OBJECTION: CONTRIBUTION TO EUDAIMONIA Virtuous dispositions may not always contribute to flourishing. Being virtuous is necessary for achieving eudaimonia, even if external factors may scupper it. XXIX. MORAL GOOD AND INDIVIDUAL GOOD A virtuous person advances their own journey towards eudaimonia and makes life better for others. Living a virtuous life is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee eudaimonia. 17  Outline of Kantian Ethics XXX. INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS A. Immanuel Kant revolutionized ethics by emphasizing reason over consequences. B. Morality derives from rationality and is independent of desires. XXXI. SOME KEY IDEAS A. Good Will: The only thing unconditionally good. B. Duty: Actions have moral worth only when performed out of duty. XXXII. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY A. Distinguishes between acting in accordance with duty and for the sake of duty. B. Actions driven by desires lack moral worth. XXXIII. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY A. Categorical Imperative: Actions must align with universal moral laws. B. Hypothetical Imperative: Actions depend on personal desires or goals. XXXIV. ACTING FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY A. Act only on maxims that can become universal laws. 18  XXXV. SECOND FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE A. Treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means. XXXVI. THIRD FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE A. Act as if you were a lawmaking member of a universal kingdom of ends. XXXVII. PROBLEMS AND RESPONSES A. Conflicts of duties, role of intuitions, and scope of morality in addressing non-rational agents. Outline of A THEORY OF JUSTICE XXXVIII. THE PRIMARY SUBJECT OF JUSTICE A. The basic structure of society determines the distribution of fundamental rights and duties. B. Major institutions influence individuals' rights, duties, and life prospects. XXXIX. WHY THE BASIC STRUCTURE? A. Effects are profound and begin at birth, shaping life expectations. B. Institutions favor certain starting points, creating deep inequalities. 19  XL. HOW TO DETERMINE THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE? A. Based on the hypothetical original position of equality. B. Social contract theory applies to principles chosen collectively. XLI. THE ORIGINAL POSITION A. No knowledge of personal status or fortune to ensure fairness. B. Principles chosen behind a "veil of ignorance." C. Greek & Roman 1. The propriety of the name “justice as fairness”: it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. XLII. WHICH PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WOULD BE CHOSEN IN THE ORIGINAL POSITION? A. The first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while B. The second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society. 20 XLIII. THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE A. PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. (political activities, speech, thought, property, rule of law) 1. This allows for political participation (not just leaving the decision making to people like ….. celebrities in the senate.) B. PRINCIPLE OF DIFFERENCE: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both 1. Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage [justifying various programs that transfer income and establish opportunities to people at the bottom, and 2. Attached to positions and offices open to all [equal opportunity-relevant qualifications-relevant discriminations]. 21