Ethics Review and discussion questions-Final

Why does Bentham refuse to distinguish between choices, between going to the opera and drinking gin? What would John Stuart Mill make of this example?

Bentham recognized that the same decision will not result in the same amount of hedons and sadons for each person. He would choose what would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest amount of people. John Stuart Mills would say that going to the opera is a higher pleasure and drinking gin is a lower pleasure. The higher pleasures should bring more happiness to people and have a higher value.

What is Bentham's "hedonistic calculus"? Give an example of how to use the calculus.

Bentham's hedonistic calculus is used to calculate the probable consequences of actions by measuring its intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent in terms of hedons and sadons. If the government is deciding to fund one project over another, they would calculate up the sadons and hedons depending on how each project would affect people. The government should choose the project that makes the most hedons in relation to sadons.

What does it mean to treat someone as "an end in him- or herself," rather than a means(only)?

If something is being treated as a means to an end, they are being treated as a tool to achieve something. An example would be rape: that person is being used as a tool to fulfill the rapists desires. Treating someone as an end in themself is treating them morally.

Explore the consequences of the argument that we can neither condemn nor praise other cultures. Do you agree? Why or why not?

If we can't have conversations about cultures then we can't learn from other cultures. In the opposite situation, we cannot criticize a culture that is doing horrific things. For example, if following ethical relativism, no one would have been able to say anything against the Nazi's. I don't think we should be held back from having conversations with other cultures.

Discuss the issue of rights and responsibilities: Is it acceptable to link rights with responsibilities? Why or why not?

Not always. In the case of children who commit crimes, they are not given as hefty a punishment as adults who commit the same time. This is because they are too young to recognize their responsibilities. Responsibilities and rights should be in a sort of balance.

What is the difference between the ideal situation and the actual situation in assessing the universalizability of the categorical imperative?

The categorical imperative can only be universal in an ideal situation where everyone would follow a maxim. There is no way everyone all people, in all places, at all times would agree to following the categorical imperative in an actual situation. Kant assumes that all rational beings would come to the same conclusions when using the categorical imperative, which is an naive amount of faith in humans.

Outline the four major approaches to moral phenomena that Rosenstand sketches on pp. 121-124. Which one best illustrates your own position?

(1)Moral Nihilism, skepticism, and subjectivism. Moral nihilism is the belief that there are no morally right or wrong viewpoints. Skepticism is the belief that we can't know whether there are any moral truths. Subjectivism is the belief that morals change from person to person and can't be compared. (2) Ethical Relativism is the belief that there is no universal moral truth- morals change from culture to culture. (3) Soft Universalism is the belief that deep down everyone can agree on certain basic morals. (4) Hard Universalism is the belief that there is one universal moral code that applies to all people in all places at all time. My person position would be Ethical Relativism

What are the three values that James Rachels considers universal? Can you think of any others?

1. Caring for infants 2. lying is wrong, and is 3. murder is wrong are three values considered to be universal. Maybe rape?

Discuss the utilitarian approach to the question about the permissibility of torture. Do you agree? Why or why not?

A utilitarian would have to agree that torture is permissible as long as it contributes to the greater good for the greatest amount of people. It's a tricky situation and a decision that I would not want to make, but I think the person should be tortured if it helps a great number of people.

Describe Rawls's two principles in your own words, and discuss them. Are there advantages, as you see it? Are there disadvantages?

2 Principles of Justice: 1) Liberty Principle 2) 1) The Liberty Principle-people have the right to basic freedoms; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It emphasizes justice as fairness. 2)Difference Principle. Everyone should have equal access to the same opportunities and rights. Second, if there is any unfairness, it should be distributed to those who were previously lacking opportunities. I think there are advantages to both. Having equal access to opportunities would allow a lot of people a better life and bring forth more equality. The second principle is also advantageous, because it helps those who have been oppressed.

What is the categorical imperative? Give an example. Why should someone obey the dictates of the categorical imperative?

A categorical imperative is not dependent on the situation or someone's desires. It is universally binding and absolute. There is only one categorical imperative: "Always act so that you can will that your maxim can become a universal law." People should follow the categorical imperative, because it is similar to the golden rule: "Treat others how you would want to be treated.

Why does the existence of fanatics pose a challenge to Kant's moral theory? How do you think that the Kantian should respond to this challenge?

A fanatic is someone whos' principles are considered extreme and that most people would not consider normal. Fanatics are so extreme and believe so passionately in their principles that they would want to impose suffering on their victims, even if the role of prosecutor and victim were reversed. For example, an Nazi fanatic would have no problem walking themselves to the gas chamber if they had discovered that they were of jewish ancestry. Because fanatics are principled people, but their principles are ones that seem strange to everyone else. Fanatics are so committed that if they were asked to put themselves in the shoes of their victims, that they would willing do it. This causes a problem for the golden rule. I would say to point out that these people might not be acting with reason, and therefore not morally.

What is a maxim, and what does it mean for a maxim to be universalizable? Why does the principle of universalizability fail to be a good test of the morality of our actions?

A maxim is the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to make a decision on something. A maxim states what you are about to do, and why you are about to do it. Maxims are your own rules you dictate to live by. A maxim is a record of an intention and its underlying reason. To tell whether a maxim is universalizable you need to clearly formulate your maxim, then imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on that maxim. Then ask, can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world? If the answer to the last question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable and is morally acceptable, if the answer is no then the maxim is not universalizable and the action is considered immoral. The principle of universalizability can sometimes fail to be a good test of the morality of our actions because people will have a reason to do something if doing it will get them what they want or care about, and because doing their moral duty sometimes fails to get people what they want, people sometimes lack any reason to do their moral duty, making it perfectly rational for people to violate their moral duty. A maxim is the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something. If a maxim is universal, it means that you've thought about what the world would be like if everyone did it and the world ends up better. It fails to be a good test of morality, because situations are unique. Say someone lies to avoid being hurt. If we universalize the maxim of lying to avoid hurt, no one would trust each other.

How would a utilitarian respond to the suggestion that alien beings would be allowed to abduct involuntary human subjects for lethal medical experiments provided that they give humanity a cure for all viral diseases, including AIDS? Evaluate the answer from the standpoint of an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian.

A rule utilitarian would say that the abduction of innocent people would be immoral because it does not conform to the rule that leads to the greatest good. Abduction in general would not lead to the greatest good. An act utilitarian would say that it would be moral. As long as the aliens bring back cures for viral diseases, then the abduction is moral because it would bring about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

What is a thought experiment? How can Rawls's "original position" be called a thought experiment? What are the social advantages of this position? Can you think of any disadvantages?

A thought experiment considers a hypothesis, theory, or principle thinking through its consequences. The original positions is a thought experiment because the purpose is to imagine what we'd change in the world if we forget our position in and had the chance to start all over. The social advantages would be creating a fair system for everyone. A disadvantage would be that it's very hard to forget one's position in society.

3. What does Kant mean by "the good will"? How is it possible for someone to do the right thing, but still lack a good will? Do you agree that actions are praiseworthy only if they are preformed from the good will?

According to Kant "Goodwill" is the only one thing that is valuable, not matter what. Only one thing in any situation that is bound to add value to it. Good will is made up of two parts: The ability to reliably know what your duty is, and a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake. It's is possible to do the right thing, but still lack good will when your motives and decisions are not based on moral standards. He gives an example of two store keepers where the first, only gives the correct change to customers because of the fear that if he didn't word would get around and people would no trust him. The second gives customers the correct change because he wants to treat his customers fairly and believes cheating people is wrong. So Kant says that the behavior of the second store owner is morally worthy because of the motivation behind the action. I do think that there is more worth in a decision if the motives are based on moral values. I do have a problem with some of Kant's reasonings, in one sentence he says that you should do something just because its morally right and you should not ask questions or weigh consequences, then he says the a decision is only morally right depening on the motivation of the person making these decisions. The good will is the ability to know what your duty is and a commitment to do that duty for its own sake. There is not calculations of cost and benefits like consequentialism has. It is possible for someone to lack good will, for example if someone is try to do good, but that good will only benefit themselves in the end and not others. This would result from that person not thinking about their duties while making a decision. I think there are some actions that deserve praise that aren't exactly connected to goodwill. But most actions with goodwill intents are praiseworthy.

What does it mean to say that stealing is wrong, according to expressivism? Do you find the expressivist translation to be plausible? Why or why not?

According to expressivists, moral claims are not moral truths. Their job is to vent and express commitments. When saying 'stealing is wrong', it's more like 'Don't steal!' or 'Please refrain from stealing!'. I think it could be plausible. Making a statement without making it a truth is entirely possible, because there are many unique and complex situations in which this truth will have to apply.

How does act utilitarianism differ ethical egoism? Which do you think is more plausible and why?

Act utilitarianism says that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, while bad welfare is the only thing that is intrinsically bad. An action is morally required because it does more to improve overall well being than any other action you could have done. Ethical egoism is the position that people should do what is in their own self-interest. The decisions of act utilitarianism factors more than just person wellbeing in the decision. I think ethical egoism isn't very plausible by itself. There are many bad things that people would do if they just acted in their own self-interest.

What constitutes (and what does not constitute) "harm" for Mill? How might this relate to the debate about freedom of speech?

Actions that cause harm and omissions or inactions that cause harm. If it doesn't have to be a specific action in order for the harm principle to apply, then one could argue that freedom of speech could be restricted because things like harassment bring mental harm to people.

Explain how one would show that a moral duty is absolute according to Kant's moral theory?

An absolute moral rule is a rule that can never be permissibly broken. Moral duties cannot conflict with other moral duties, and if they do, they can't all be absolute. Some of them must give way to others. An example of an absolute rule according to Kant would be lying and killing. Kant never really explains why a moral duty is absolute. One could say that things considered as absolute moral duties such as not lying or killing are not rational. One could claim that doing those things is always rational and therefore absolute.

What is it for an action to be optimific? How might an action bring about more happiness than any other alternative, but still fail to be optimific?

An action is optimific if it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. If the action has less benefits than drawbacks, then I'm assuming it would fail to be optimific.

What is an amoralist? Can expressivism make sense of the idea of such a person? If not, is this a problem for the theory?

An amoralist makes morals claims, but is unmoved by them. Expressivists say that our moral judgements motivate us, because they are what we feel. Amoralists think that something like giving money to charity is praiseworthy, but don't donate their own money to charities. Expressivists have to say that amoralists are either deceiving themselves or lying, which is a problem for the theory.

How does the notion of an "ideal observer" solve some of the problems with relativism and subjectivism? What do you think is the most serious objection to ideal observer theory?

An ideal observer is someone who is fully equipped with information and reason to clearly avoid logical fallacies and make the right decision. It says that an act is right because it would be the choice if I/ a society is fully informed and perfectly rational. I think the most serious objection is that an ideal observer could think anything. They could think genocide is good. If an ideal observer supports genocide, then it become morally required.

What does Sartre mean by anguish? Explain, and give an example of how it feels and why it happens.

Anguish is the feeling when a person realizes that they have to make a choice and that choice will have far-reaching consequences. An example would be in war, when a general knows he could be sending his soldiers to their deaths. If he realizes the horrible consequences of the situation and shoulders them, then he is living with authenticity.

What is autonomy? Do you think people have it? Why or why not?

Autonomy is the freedom to choose one's own actions. I think people have a limited amount of autonomy. But it is true that there are many factors influencing our decisions. Our choices have causes that are ultimately beyond our control and are necessitated to be what they are and therefore are not autonomous.

Do you think that Avatar presents the Na'vi as a culture that has better values than the U.S. military? How does logic require that an ethical relativist answer this question? Explain.

Avatar does present the Na'vi culture as better than that of the US military. They are often seen as aggressive and imperialistic and uncaring about the other culture. An ethical relativist would say that we can't compare the two sets of values and should not enter into a discussion praising or condeming either.

Explain Sartre's concept of Bad Faith by using two examples: one of Sartre's and one of your own.

Bad faith is when a person claims their actions are determined by the situation and avoiding the consequences. Sartre uses the example of a woman on a date who doesn't know how to react to a guy holding her hand. She starts to turn herself into a 'thing' and by becoming more 'thinglike' she removes herself from the consequences. My example would be if a rapist argues that a girl was asking to be raped because of the clothes she wore, he is avoiding the consequences and weight of his actions.

According to Rachels what is the reason why all surviving cultures in fact share certain moral values? Do you agree with him? Explain.

Because these values are all essential to the survival of a culture. Some cultures may come to different conclusions through these morals, but the logic is the same. Like the example of the Inuit culture that kills female babies to keep the population balanced and protect the babies that are already living. The main moral behind this is to protect children, which is a moral we share.

Give a brief account of the similarities and differences between classical, difference, radical, and equity feminism.

Classical feminism focuses on classification as human beings and gendered beings. Difference feminism focuses on the inherent differences that both can benefit from. Radical feminism wants to focus on the causes of the discrimination and inequality of women. Equity feminism focuses on the image of women, saying that women have gained equality already.

What is the difference between cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism? Why are both theories inconsistent with ethical objectivism?

Cultural relativism claims that correct moral standards are relative to cultures while ethical subjectivism claims that correct moral standards are endorsed by individuals. Ethical objectivism is the view that some moral standards are objectively correct and some moral claims are objectively true. Cultural relativism is inconsistent with this, because it is claiming that these moral standards are true because the ideals of the society allow it, not due to any objectivity. The same goes for ethical objectivism. It is saying that a person's moral rules true and correct simply because they approve of it.

Why might someone find either form of relativism attractive?

Cultural relativism helps conflicts with other cultures. If we look at a different culture and disagree, we can chalk it up to their different morals. Ethical subjectivism allows people to be the creator of ethics, which allows for society to be wrong about ethics (something that has happened multiple times).

What kind of claim is Ruth Benedict making when she claims that there are no universal moral standards? What does it mean to say that "[we] have no right to claim that our choice is better than any other culture's"?

Cultural relatvism. She means that there are no morals that apply to all people, in places, at all times. We cannot take our culture's morals, which have been formed through many years and how we live, and apply them to another culture. To do so would be ethnocentric.

Clarify the differences between descriptive and normative ethics. Can we always separate the activity of description and normative judgment?

Descriptive ethics aims to describe peoples beliefs, claims and behaviors. Normative ethics uses judgement and attempts to evaluation if actions and things are in fact good or bad, and what it takes in fact to be a good or bad person. It is hard to just describe something without judgement so sometimes description and normative can't always be separated.

What is meant by distributive justice? What is meant by criminal justice? Explain the difference.

Distributive justice are theories of how to distribute goods in society fairly. Criminal justice is justice upheld by the law. Criminal justice is for people who have done something wrong, distributive is about how much scarce resource does each person get.

What do error theorists typically claim is the 'error' at the heart of our moral practice? Is the assumption that they identify really essential to our moral thought? If so, do you agree that it is an error?

Error theorists claim that the core mistake that undermines morality is its assumption that there are objective moral standards that supply everyone with an excellent reason for obedience, regardless of what we care about. I think it is essential to our moral thought. Why do we think incest is bad? Well, because the two people taking part in incest are related, but why does that bother us so much? It's gross, but why is it gross? We just believe this kind of stuff without question.

What are the two types of moral nihilism, and what is the main difference between them? In what ways does each theory agree with ethical objectivism, and in what ways does each disagree?

Error theory and expressivism. Error theory says that there a no moral features, no moral judgements are true, and no moral knowledge. Expressivism says that there are no moral features and no moral judgements are true, but there are morals. There is no error at the heart of moral thinking. According to them, making moral judgements is us trying to describe the world we live in, not speak truth. Ethical objectivism. Ethical objectivism is similar, because it states moral law are uncreated and not subject to any will, human or deity.

How can an ethical objectivist allow for the existence of moral standards that apply only to some cultures, but not to others?

Ethical objectivists will say that some standards, like prohibiting recreational slaughter, apply universally, but others, like public nudity, do not apply universally. They explain this by saying basic moral principles apply to everyone, everywhere. When applying these principles to different living situations, they can generate more specific moral standards that allow cultural variation.

In view of the theme of female genital mutilation in Possessing the Secret of Joy, do you find ethical relativism to be an appealing or a problematic moral theory? Explain.

Ethical relativism "becomes controversial when the culture has a belief of practice that puts people in harm's way". I find it to be a problematic moral theory. Genital mutilation of any kind is horrible to me and I could not fathom why it would be acceptable. Accepting ethical relativism and looking the other way would be hard to do.

Describe the theory of ethical relativism, and illustrate it with an example from the text.

Ethical relativism states that there are not moral universals- morals change from culture to culture. This is seen in the example of the Kwakiutl Indians that view death as an offense that should be retaliated against, no matter if the cause was natural or intentional. The chief's sister died and so they sent out of war party to kill seven men and two children and killed them. They were convinced they did the moral thing. But in our culture, someone who goes and shoots up a school because they are upset is crazy. Ethical relativists say that we cannot judge their culture of senseless killing.

One might object that ethical subjectivism generates contradictions. How might subjectivists respond to this criticism? Do you find their replies to be adequate?

Ethical subjectivism generates contradictions because a pro-life and pro-choice person can't both be right, but by definition ethical subjectivism says they are both right. The strategy is to change the statements. The death penalty is immoral is changed to 'the death penalty is wrong, according to me' or 'Abortion is wrong' to 'I disapprove of abortion'. No, because if I say rape is wrong I'm saying that I disapprove of rape, not that I think rape has an inherent element of wrongness to it. Most people, when making moral statements, are not just talking about how they feel.

In what sense does ethical subjectivism make us morally infallible? Is this an advantage or disadvantage of the theory?

Ethical subjectivism says that morality in the eye of the beholder. So if an individual decides that something prejudiced is right, then he is technically right. Subjectivism turns such things as slavery and ethnic cleansing into moral truths, which is a great disadvantage to the theory.

Discuss Dworkin's two models, and identify his own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Example KKK Model 1- State can inflate individuals rights and deflate benefits to community. Model 2- State can deflate individuals rights and inflate community benefits. Dworkin would say that you always have to pick model 1. I do not agree with him, I think in certain situations you need to deflate an individuals right to matain safety and benefits to society.

Discuss the issue of good disposition versus good conduct: Foot claims, with Aristotle, that a person who has a good disposition is slightly better than a person who has to control him- or herself. Kant would say the opposite. Explain these viewpoints, and take sides: Which do you agree with, and why?

Foot says that someone who likes to do good is a morally better person, because the struggle is a sign that there is a lack of virtue. Kant says that the person who has never faced temptation would be more susceptible. Also, he states that true virtue shows itself in the face of temptation. I think Kant's person would be better under stressful situations, but one doesn't really have to be better than the other.

In your view, is gendered nature determined primarily by "nature" or by "nurture"? Explain.

Gendered nature is determined by nurture. We are taught how to express ourselves through what gender we are by our parents. We aren't born knowing that guys should be tough and not like pink or girls should like dolls.

Discuss Levinas's view that the Other is more important than myself. What does he mean? Do you agree? Why or why not?

He means that other ethical beings are more important than yourself. You should put their needs before yours. I don't think it's a good thing. Maybe if everyone put their needs before the other person, but if one person puts their needs last that is a good way to get into an abusive relationship.

Evaluate Gilligan's statement that "Sensitivity to the needs of others and the assumption of the responsibility for taking care lead women to attend to other voices than their own and to include in their judgment other points of view." What might Levinas (Chapter 10) comment on this statement?

Historically women have been delegated to caretakers first, meaning they have to take care of the kids and the needs of men before their own needs and be sensitive to emotions and needs. Because of this it usually influences what they think to be similar to the people they care after. Levinas would say that women respect the Other. She ought to put the needs of her husband and children before her own.

What is a hypothetical imperative? Explain in detail, and give an example.

Hypothetical imperatives are decisions that depend on the situation and one's own desires. If someone decides on a maxim, like the store owner saying, "I will not steal from my customers, because I will lose them." She is deciding depending on the situation what the smart thing would be. The decision not to steal is a hypothetical imperative.

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives? Why did Kant think that morality consists of categorical imperatives?

Hypothetical imperatives are imperatives (commands) of reason. They command us to do whatever is needed in order to get what we care about. They require us, on pain of irrationality, to do certain things, but only because such actions will get us what we want. Categorical Imperatives are also a command of reason, but unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives are rational requirements that do not depend on what we care about. They are requirements of reason that apply to everyone who possesses reason. Categorical imperatives command us to do things whether we want to or not, with the result that if we ignore or disobey them, we are acting contrary to reason. The hypothetical imperative consists of commands of reason, that tell us to do whatever is needed in order to get what we care about. The categorical imperative is also a command of reason, but it does not depend on what we care about. It tells us to do things whether we care about them or not. Kant says that morality consists of categorical imperatives, because we are rational beings who know what we need to do.

Which brand of feminism do you think is the most relevant today? Are you a feminist? If yes, why? If no, why not?

I think radical feminism is most relevant today. I would also consider myself a radical feminist, maybe a classical feminist. I am a feminist because I think there are still systems in place today that keep women back from having the same opportunities as men.

Which utilitarian reply to the Argument from Injustice do you think is the most promising? Do you think this reply is ultimately successful? Defend answer.

I think the last argument, that justice must sometimes be sacrificed is the most promising. Utilitarians accepting the fact that their theory will sometimes make people do things that go against conventional wisdom. Accepting utilitarianism as the radical doctrine it is is better than changing it to fit every criticism. Utilitarians say that justice sometimes needs to be sacrificed when the results of doing so would be optimific. This reply has a chance of being successful.

4. Kant endorsed the principle of lex talionis, which states that we should treat criminals as they treated their victims. What do you think is the strongest objection to such a view? Can this objection be overcome?"

I think the last objection is the best, that it is deeply immoral to prescribe a punishment. We would have professional torturers, killers, and rapists on the state payroll if every criminal were expected to endure what they have made their victims endure. I don't think this can be overcome. Knowing someone is going to be tortured or raped and not doing anything to stop it, whether they deserve it or not, is pretty immoral.

Do you think that people who lie more often see themselves as lying for selfish reasons or utilitarian reasons? Can a person's reasons for lying be both selfish and utilitarian at the same time?

I think there may be coincidences where lying could be both selfish and utilitarian, but I think if someone is lying often they are probably doing it for the greater good of themself rather than others. People who lie often probably see themself as selfish, but if they're really out of touch with reality, they probably see their decisions as utilitarian.

Explain the problem of induction as it relates to the debate about moral norms.

Induction is the idea that you can take past experiences and use those to draw a conclusion about what will happen in the future. How do past experiences give us any reason to believe that future experiences will be the same. The problem would be the logical fallacy of begging the question because one of the premises is also the conclusion. "The future will resemble the past" Ethical relativism uses inductive reasoning and bases reasoning on empirical data. Ethical relativists say that they have looked for universal morals and found none, therefore they don't exist. Making blanket statements about the future is dangerous and its own undoing.

Utilitarianism requires us to be impartial. What does this amount to? In what sense does utilitarianism require that we treat all people equally? Is this a negative or positive feature of the theory?

It amounts to everyone counting equally, no one's interests are more important than others. It means that we are to treat everyone with the same consideration, despite whether they're a friend or a stranger. It's generally a positive trait of the theory, but can have its drawbacks. Some people need our help more. Like take someone with a bullet wound at urgent care and some person with a broken finger. That person who has the bullet wound is going to have his interests considered more.

Why would hard universalism (moral absolutism) be the attitude most often supported by ethical theories and everyday experience? What does this position say about the nature of ethics as a theoretical or reflective endeavor? Why might one prefer the consistency and universalism of this position?

It could be the most supported because most moral absolute philosophers use common-problem solving techniques to explain the universals. I think the nature of ethics is trying to get everyone to understand each other and it shows through hard universalism being the most popular.

Evaluate the following statement: "Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will." Explain "good will," and give reasons why you think the statement is correct or incorrect.

It does not matter whether an action brings about bad consequences, the intent behind the action is what counts. Say for example your friend decides to give your dog a treat. Your dog is allergic to certain things and has a bad reaction. This act would be moral because of the intent. I don't think the statement is correct. Someone can have goodwill behind an action, but that doesn't mean the action itself is moral.

Is integrity always a virtue? Why or why not?

Kant believed that integrity was the virtue of consistency. He believed that having having integrity and living with principles requires that you resist making an exception of yourself. Yes, it is a virtue of consistency. It demands that you resist making an exception of yourself and follow your principles even when doing so is at a cost.

2. According to Kant, what is the source of human rights? What does his account imply about the rights of animals and disabled humans? Do you find his views on this subject plausible?

Kant believed that the source of human rights was rationality and autonomy. These traits are the basis for living a meaningful life. He believed that because humans have rationality and autonomy we have moral rights that protect us from certain kinds of treatment and entitles each of us to a minimum of respect, just because we are human. This account implies that animals and disabled humans do not have right because they are not capable of making rational decisions and living an autonomous life. I do not find his views on this plausible, I find it hard to agree that just because someone is disabled, usually this is at no fault of their own, that they should not have rights and be treated like a second class citizen. Kant says rationality and autonomy are the sources of human rights. Animals are not ration and for the most part disabled humans are not autonomous and sometimes not rational, so under Kant's view, they would not have human rights. I don't think our rights come from things such as rationality and autonomy, I think it would be something more simple than that.

According to Kant, it is always irrational to act immorally. What reasons does he give for thinking this? Do you agree with him?

Kant believed that when we act on an immoral behavior we are being inconsistent. We are making an exception of ourselves, and acting as though we are more important than others and that we are exempt from rules that others have to obey. Kant says that we are not more important than others and we are not exempt from any rules. Because when we act on a maxim that can't be universalized, we are contradicting ourselves. When we do this, we are reasoning badly and making mistaken assumptions and makes immoral behavior irrational. No, I don't agree with him. It might be true for some situations, but there are people who know exactly what they are doing when they are doing bad things. Their goals are probably just not moral.

What is Kant's criterion of rationality for the recognition of personhood? What (or who) does it leave out?

Kant says that rationality is being able to use your reason to get the right result. If a being is rational, then they are a person and have moral autonomy. This excludes animals, mentally disabled, and children.

If rationality and autonomy explain why we are as important as we are, how (if at all) can we explain the moral importance of infants and non-human animals?

Kant tries to explain this by saying that when we hurt infants and non-human animals, we are wronging who these infants/non-human animals belong to. Therefore, they have rights through people who are rational and autonomous, but not on their own.

What are some problems with the categorical imperative?

Kant was a very strong believer in consequences not having moral value. John Stuart Mills points out that the categorical imperative is all about looking at the consequences. Therefore, Mills says that consequences should be involved in all decision making processes. Another problem is that the categorical imperative assumes there is a moral conflict between duty and inclination, but what it's possible to have conflicts between two duties. Another problem is that some people could create a maxim to universalize that is morally wrong by making the group the maxim applies to very small.

1. What is the relationship between Kant's principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity? Do the two ever give conflicting advice? If so, which do you think is a better guide to our moral obligations?

Kant's principle of universalizability is when you clearly state you maxim and apply the rule of universalizability to determine if an action is moral. The principle of humanity states to always treat a human being as an end and never as a mean. Kant believed that one must act out of intrinsically "good will". - or to fulfill some objective moral duty. That being said, he did not think that the consequence of an action necessarily played a role in the moral evaluation of someone's action - more so their motivation or intention for doing it. Kant provided several "tests" to see if someone was acting morally, one being the principle of universalizability and one being the principle of humanity. Principle of universalizability: A maxim is right only if it is universalizable: In a world in which everyone did that, could you still do it? Based on fairness and consistency. Principle of Humanity: Always treat a human being an end and not merely just a mean. Basically you look at for their well-being for their best interest. Not that you are using them for your benefit. Based on rationality and autonomy. These two principles can give conflicting advice though. (lawn mower and mailman example). While the principle of universalizability clearly emphasizes the moral importance of fairness, another of Kant's formulations directs our attention to the respect and dignity that serve as the basis of morality. The principle of universalizability emphasizes the moral importance of fairness, while the humanity principle directs our attention to the respect and dignity that serve as the basis of morality. While universalizability says if a maxim is abled to be imagined in a situation where everyone did it, and it was right, but that doesn't mean that maxim is treating someone as a means to an end? I think the humanity principle is, because it can apply better to situations. Using someone just to achieve something usually isn't the best course of action.

Identify the three human rights advocated by the libertarians, and explain briefly (your answer should contain a definition of negative rights and positive rights).

Libertarians advocate for negative rights, ones that cannot be infringed upon by the government. Right to privacy, right to choose, and and right to privacy. Positive rights are ones that are protected by the state.

According to Mill, how can we make a decision without knowing the consequences? Explain and discuss.

Mill would say that we can make a decision without knowing the consequences by using knowledge from past situation to create a rule that would conform to the principle of utility which states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. (Rule utilitarianism)

What is the difference between monoandrogyny and polyandrogyny?

Monoandrogyny means raising boys and girls exactly the same, there are no gender roles. Polyandrogyny is a form of polygamy where both males and females have more than one mate at a time.

Analyze this argument: If there is such a thing as moral luck, then we can be responsible for things that we cannot control. But we cannot be responsible for such things. So there is no moral luck.

Moral luck is found during cases in which the morality of an action depends on factors outside our control. This is a problem of negative responsibility and is therefore wrong. I don't think there is moral luck.

Discuss the three negative rights, and identify the philosophers who advocate them. Outline some of the social and political consequences of enforcing these rights. Do you agree to such consequences? Why or why not?

Negative rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson are two people who advocated for them. Right to life could be misconstrued as the anti-abortion movement view. Also according to this theory, right to life means you have the right to not have your life be interfered with. This creates problem for people who can't work for themselves. They would be left to die.

Think carefully about what you are doing when you are forming your own moral judgements. Does the expressivists analysis of moral judgements accurately capture what you are doing? Why or why not?

No, I usually don't make my moral judgements based on feelings. Sometimes moral judgements involved facts and generalizations.

When someone decides to act on principle against the wishes of the community, can we always assume, with Kant, that this person is doing the right thing? How would Kant decide? How would a utilitarian decide? How would you decide?

No, they are not always doing the right thing. Kant would decide through the categorical imperative if the decision was the right thing to do. A utilitarianism would look at what this person is trying to achieve and decide whether or not they are useful for the majority of people in that community

Mayo wants us to emulate role models. Can you think of a person, either a historical figure, a living person, or a fictional character that you would like to emulate? Explain who, and why (or why not).

Not really. Maybe a famous feminist figure from the early 1900s who was not racist. I'd want to emulate them because they are fearless in a time where standing up for women was dangerous. I want to have that kind of strength.

Explain and evaluate the philosophy of radical feminism, with reference to the quote by Andrea Dworkin.

Radical feminists are not extremists. They seek to look at the causes of the inequality and how we got here. The questions are: how did gender discrimination arise? Which structures keep the discrimination going? Answer is usually, it arose with patriarchy. Andrea Dworkin says, "In order to achieve a single standard of human freedom and one absolute standard of human dignity, the sex-class system has to be dismembered." She focuses on the system in place.

How does Sartre's view of Hell in No Exit relate his view of dominance between individuals? What might Levinas comment on this play?

Relationships between people are hell. Because of the manipulation game people play with each other, interacting is actual literal hell. Levinas would say that the characters in the play are only suffering because they are putting their own needs before everyone else's needs.

What is rule consequentialism? How does the theory deal with the problem of injustice that threatens act utilitarianism? Do you find rule consequentialism to be a plausible ethical theory?

Rule consequentialism is the view that an action is morally right just because it is required by an optimific social rule. Describe the rule, imagine a society where everyone did that rule, and then ask: "Will society be better off if this rule is followed rather than another rule?" Rule consequentialism says that even if we know breaking the rules will get better results, we must always obey moral rules. I think it is a very plausible ethical theory.

Explain the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism draws up general rules based on the utlity princciple. Rule utilitarianism says that as long as an action conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, then it is moral. Based on past experience. Associated with John Stuar Mill Act utilitarianism views each moral situation as unique. Applys the utility principle to each act. Act utilitarianism states that as long as the act brings about the most good for the most people then it is a moral act. Associated with Bentham

Explain what Nietzsche's slave morality is. Why does he find it dangerous? .

Slave morality is like when slaves hate and fear their masters and resent those with power. The slave morality historically ends in revolt. The slave morality and herd mentality are the same thing. Cultures today still have master morality and herd mentality, and the herd has maintained the resentful feelings towards those who are strong. Nietzsche says that it is a bad thing to keep the people with a master morality back is a back thing

What is the Kingdom of Ends?

The Kingdom of Ends is achieved when all rational beings accept the categorical imperative and live by it. This community has moral universals that all people follow treat each other as ends in themselves.

Explain the paradox of hedonism.

The Paradox of Hedonisim is the idea that the more you pursue happiness the more it will elude you. Those who seek only happiness and fixate on aquiring it, are bound to be dissapointed. If you look for pleasure , chances are you won't find it. Pleasure will come to you when you are not looking for it.

Provide your own example of a slippery slope argument and explain how it can best be defended/critiqued.

The argument: if we allow same-sex marriage to be legalized then more people will be gay and gay people will take over the world and subjugate heteros. Historically, legalizing gay marriage does not cause anything else but more marriages. Therefore, the slippery slope argument has no basis.

What is the best explanation of the existence of widespread disagreement in ethics? Does the existence of disagreement suggest a lack of objective moral truth?

The best explanation would be the lack of education and guidance makes people disagree. If all people were properly educated, then they would agree. I don't think it does. Perhaps not enough evidence for moral truths have been gathered to make people come to a consensus.

How might one be an ethical objectivist without being intolerant or dogmatic?

The claim that there are objective moral standards is neutral about how broad minded we should be. It is a view about the status of moral claims. All ethical objectivism says is that the correct moral code-whatever that may be- is objectively true.

Explain the difference between the Golden Rule and the what if everyone did that? test. What problems arise for each? Do you think that they can be remedied?

The golden rule tells you to treat others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule is meant to be a test of morality where you would base you actions on whether you would or would not want someone to do the same thing to you. The problem that arises with the golden rule is that it makes morality depend on a person's desires. An example of this problem would be the action of hitting someone. Generally most people do not enjoy being hit, so according to the golden rule if you would not want to be hit, then you should not hit others. But what about people who enjoy being hit? If a person would enjoy being hit, then according to the golden rule, it would allow them to go around hitting others. For the question, what if everyone did this? Would require the person to think about what would happen or what would the consequences be if everyone decided to do the action that I am about to do? For example, if during traffic jams everyone decided to use the emergency lanes, then emergency vehicles would not be able to provide help to those in need. So therefore it is not moral for someone to use the emergency lanes during a traffic jam, because if everyone did the same thing it would be inevitably disastrous. The problem that arises with this is that it cannot be applied in all cases. For example is the argument that homosexual sex; if everyone participated in homosexual sex, it would quickly lead to disaster for the human race would die out. Now if you ask the same questions for a priest who has decided to remain celibate, you would get the same results as asking the question regarding homosexual sex. So the problem with this test is that it makes the morality of an action depend on how it is described. The Golden Rule doesn't look at the consequences. It just states that you should act according to your own maxims, treat others as you'd like to be treated. So if you don't like to be hit, don't hit people. A problem with this is that there are people like masochists who actually like to be hit. Does this give them a right to go around hitting people? Kant's 'what if everyone did that?' test is concerned with whether an act is moral through how the world would be like if everyone did it. If the result is negative, then it is not moral. Problem with this test is that it assumes an actions universability is a guarantee of its rightness.

What is the harm principle? Explain with an example.

The harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. Says that you should not interfere with the lives of others, the exception being if they are bringing harm to others. Say if someone is an alcoholic. He is bringing harm to his family by spending his paycheck, which they need to survive, and getting violent and angry. You should only be allowed to have an intervention when his actions are harming someone other than himself.

Comment on Kant's apparent opinion that women and people of color may not be as rational as white males. What implications could this have for his theory of "ends in themselves," if any? How does it compare with Kant's statement that all of humanity should be treated as ends in themselves?

The implication would be that he would not find slavery or rape of a woman to be treating them as means to an end. Since they are not rational beings, they don't deserve to be treated as ends in themselves. His discrimination contradicts his ethics.

What is the connection between Nietzsche's master morality and his notion of living an authentic life?

The master morality is something that a strong-willed leaders of the old world had. It is the morals of a warlord. Nietzsche says that living an authentic life consists of realizing that there is nothing beyond this life, so pursue life with vigor like someone with a master morality.

Can ethical relativism make sense of the idea of moral progress? Does moral progress really exist?

The problem is that relativism can't make sense of the most basic kind of moral progress, because it a society's deepest beliefs are true by definition, then they cannot change for the better. According to ethical relativism, any change in morals would be neither better nor worse, progress does not really exist.

Is there any way of measuring how much happiness is brought about by an action? Do we have any method for comparing the happiness of two different people? If the answer to these questions is 'no', is this a problem for utilitarianism?

There is no way to put a specific numerical value on happiness at all, or even happiness brought on by an action. This makes it hard to compare the happiness of two different people, because the same situations bring about different amounts of happiness for people who are not the same. Yes it is a problem for utilitarianism in some cases. In a lot of cases, there are clear cut answer in which action creates more overall benefits, but in other cases it is not so clear.

Some critics of the error theory claim that it is false because (i) its defenders are untrustworthy, and (ii) disaster would result were most people to accept it. Why are these criticisms problematic?

These criticisms are taking part in basic logical fallacies. Saying that the defenders of error theory are untrustworthy, therefore it is wrong, is the logical fallacy of appeal to character. Saying that disaster would result if most people were to accept it is the slippery slope fallacy.

What, to you, is a person? Is it necessarily the same as a human being? Explain. Is it conceivable that a person might not be human?

To me, a person is someone who can communicate with me effectively and lives in a human society on Earth. Traditionally, thinking of a human being involves genes and physical characteristics. In the old days, people didn't see rival tribes of handicaps as people.

What is "universalization"? Explain, and give an example.

Universalization is asking oneself whether your moral or maxim should be universal. The question is, "What if everybody did this?" For example, if a bank robber stops to think, "What if everyone robbed banks?" and comes up with that there'd be no more banks to rob.

Critics claim that utilitarianism demands that we be saintly in our motivations. Explain this criticism and then discuss why you find it (im)plausible.

Utilitarianism requires us to always be on the lookout for chances to do good. Most people cannot live like this. The whole idea of a moral theory is to be something that most people can live by. Utilitarians would say that they don't think people should always be looking to improve the world, because those people usually fail. It sounds like a weak argument to me, but I think as long as the rule are not applied to every little thing you do, then it could be a livable system.

How do utilitarians account for cases in which we lack moral knowledge? Do you find such an account plausible?

Utilitarians are split between those who believe the morality of an action depends on the expected results, and those who think they depend on the actual results. Those who depend on actual results can never be completely sure what the right thing is, because the consequences of an action usually don't just exist in one time period. I find that account a little implausible. If we never know what is moral, then how are we supposed to determine what to do in the first place.

How do utilitarians reply to the thought that certain kinds of action are intrinsically immoral? Do you find their replies convincing?

Utilitarians say that a wrongness or rightness of an action depends on the results, not on the act itself. Any action can be morally right as long as the outcomes are optimific. I don't find it particularly convincing. Like I said before, take the example of rape. I can't think of any example where the outcome of rape would be optimific. There are just some things that are wrong.

If utilitarianism is correct, then we may be morally required to undertake substantial sacrifice for others. What limits on such sacrifice does the utilitarian favor? Are these limits acceptable?

Utilitarians say that our moral duty is to do the best we are capable of. Going above and beyond the call of duty is not necessary, even though it is admirable and praiseworthy. Even then, doing what we are capable of can still be a great sacrifice. I think the limits are acceptable. No one should be expected to do something they cannot.

Utilitarians think that some humans are morally equal to some animals. What exactly do they means by this, and how do they argue for it? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

Utilitarians would say that animals and marginal humans are equal, marginal humans being those whose mental lives are no more developed than those of nonhuman animals. Animals are considered equal because they can suffer, which is what you need in order to be apart of the moral community. Basically the argument is that these marginal humans should be treated the same as the animals that we test one. I don't agree. Testing on animals is one thing (something I don't agree with), but testing on a living person is another. Both have rights, but marginal humans rights should have precedence.

Most utilitarians think that sometimes people are not to blame for performing actions that are very wrong, and that sometimes people should not be praised for doing the right thing. Why do they think this? Do you agree?

Utilitarians would say that if someone does something bad, but the intent was to do something good, then they are not to blame. The intent is more important than the results here. The same logic is behind why some people should not be praised for doing the right thing. If the intent that that person had was bad, then they should not be praised. I think intent matters in the morality of an action, but it doesn't necessarily determine it.

Utilitarians reject the existence of absolute moral rules (other than the principle of utility). Do you think that there are any absolute moral rules? If so, what are they, and how can their absolute status be defended against the utilitarian view that ends justify the means?

Utilitarians would say that it is morally okay to violate any rule if doing so will raise overall well-being. I think absolute moral rules are tricky. We could say, never murder anyone is a moral absolute. But what if someone is trying to murder you and you have the chance to save yourself, but you'd have to murder them. I think there are some things like rape and cannibalism that just can't be justified. I cannot think of a situation where the end result of rape would justify the means.

If we accept relativism, why must we "bow to majority rule"? Should we assume that the position of power will flow out of a democratic, numerical majority?

We must act according to the morals of the majority of the culture, like it depends on a vote. Yes because numerical majority usually gets the power.

Why does the fact that people make logical arguments about moral issues raise a challenge for expressivism? How might an expressivist respond to this challenge?

Yes, because you can't argue logically with expressivism. The arguments goes: (1) Actions that dehumanize people are immoral, (2) Torture dehumanizes people, and (3) Therefore, torture is immoral. An argument an expressivist would make would be something like (1) don't dehumanize people! This premise cannot be used to support a conclusion.

Can actions be performed in more than one society at a time? If so, and if cultural relativism is true, how might this lead to contradiction? Can cultural relativists escape this problem? Why or why not?

Yes, each society has their own set of unique values. Some of them contradict each other, making at least of of the cultures wrong. Cultural relativists try to change this problem by saying moral judgments are only true relative to social agreements, which would make moral and legal rules the same thing. Murder can't be legal and illegal at the same time. There are many people in a society who disagree with the society's rules, so this is a kind of problem that cultural relativists can't escape.