Moral Philosophy Final Study Guide

What, according to classical utilitarianism, is the only thing in the universe that has intrinsic value?

"According to act utilitarianism, well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable" - F.E. 122 - Pleasure, utility, satisfaction, etc. Acknowledge that this goes by different names all meaning the same thing

Imagine a person who rescues someone in danger only in order to get a cash reward. Using Kantian theory, explain whether or not this counts as doing the right thing, ethically speaking.

It seems as though this is not OK - You shouldn't treat someone as a mere means and in doing so undermine their rationality, agency, exploit them, etc. - Intentions matter - even if you helped them, you treated them as an ATM and didn't treat them as an ends

Kantians are sometimes accused of "rule fetishism" or "rule worship" by consequentialists. Briefly explain what consequentialists mean when they make this criticism.

Objection essentially states that Kantians are too worried about rules of conduct and not about results. When others don't act morally, it seems as though the rules we must abide by could lead to bad results, yet Kantians say we need to any way - Consider murderer at the door scenario - telling him the truth seems weird

Briefly explain one common objection to virtue ethics.

One of the common objections is that virtue ethics simply doesn't give enough moral guidance in tough situations - We know we should be acting as a virtuous person would, but it is not easy to tell how to do that, which virtuous people to use as an example, to know who even is virtuous, or to know how to act in the same way - What do we do when it seems like certain virtues conflict? - There are simply so many ambiguities it is hard to know what to do

How do consequentialists define morally right action? Briefly explain.

Principle of Utility - actions are morally required that do more to improve overall well-being than any other possible action. - The best thing to do is the thing that produces the best consequences - This involves impartiality, an objective view of well-being without personal priority

How do virtue ethicists define "morally right action"?

Remember that what is good comes before what is right - Current debate among philosophers as to if virtue ethics even needs to worry about moral rightness - Broadly,what is morally right is doing what a virtuous person would do

Assume money has diminishing marginal utility and assume that consequentialism is true. Very briefly, explain what follows in terms of how we should view income and wealth inequality.

- All else equal, it seems as though the consequentialist should prefer an even distribution of money - Because of diminishing marginal utility, income inequality is inefficient Extra: - Its not that simple though - people derive pleasure from money at different rates - Wage has impacts on productivity - Inequality can be justified, but consequentialists would definitely take issue with the current wealth distribution

What is the "redundancy objection" to contractualism? Explain very briefly.

- Are certain actions right because contractualism selects them or does contractualism select them because they are right? - Seems like we use a different idea of morality when deciding what we would do behind the veil - If this is the case, contractualism isn't telling us what is right or wrong, it is making us decide in a less biased way - If it offers no real reasons why things are right or wrong, do we need it as a moral theory?

Briefly explain the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value. Use an example of each to illustrate.

- Instrumental Value: Something valuable because of the good things that will come of it - in that it helps us achieve / serves as a means for a goal - Intrinsic Value: Something worth pursuing in its own right, valuable in and of itself. - Instrumental value depends on intrinsic value, but not vice versa - Examples: Happiness = intrinsic, exercise = instrumental

Why, according to contractualists, do we need to have moral rules in the first place?

- Morality is the set of rules that allow us to have social cooperation - Social cooperation allows us to live much better, gets us out of the prisoner's dilemma - Therefore we have good reason to seek out moral rules ensuring cooperation

Briefly explain what the consequentialist ought to say to respond to the demandingness objection? What's their best saving reply in your view?

- No one said morality was easy -I think the best reply is the following rhetorical question: So you think we should just knowingly refrain from making the world a better place?

Explain briefly the distinction between morally obligatory and morally supererogatory action. Very briefly contrast how Kantians and consequentialists view this distinction.

- Obligation - we are bound to do something, will have done wrong if we don't do it. If you fail to do something, you have done something morally wrong - Supererogation - Not required, but would be nice - above the call of duty. Consequentialism doesn't distinguish enough (anything that would increase well-being is required) and kantian ethics has a clear obligation (formula of humanity), with room for supererogation

John Rawls is a contractualist philosopher who uses the device of the "Original Position" as a procedure for selecting moral rules. Why does the "Original Position" ask us to select rules from behind a "veil of ignorance"? Briefly explain Rawls's reason for setting things up like this. What's the point?

- Original position asks us to select rules, motivated by self interest, from behind a 'veil of ignorance' - This is a procedure designed to find rules that would generate accepted standards of cooperation. - Impartiality is important because the social contract concerns everyone and should be agreed upon by everyone. - By including the veil, we ensure that the results wouldn't leave certain people very badly off, so we theoretically ensure rules everyone can get behind

Explain the difference between an objective and a subjective approach to understanding well-being.

- Subjective Approach: Well-being consists of what I want, whatever that might be. If I am getting what I want, I am living well - Objective Approach: Well-being is defined by an objective standard independent of preference

Kantians argue that one key characteristic of human beings makes them deserving of respect and dignity. What is that characteristic?

- The Ground floor of Kantian ethics is that humans are rational agents - We are free, capable of making reasoned choices about what to do - Because humans have the capability to reason and think, we shouldn't treat them as if they don't, as mere means

How does Aristotle define "virtue"? Explain very briefly.

- With the capacities Aristotle views as key to our flourishing come certain virtues, - traits that help us flourish (develop these capacities) - Courage, Temperance, Kindness, Generosity

What is the "demandingness objection" to consequentialism? Use one example to illustrate why this is a potential problem for consequentialism.

Consequentialists say we should always be doing the thing that most maximizes utility - This would require too much of us though - it doesn't leave room for our individual desires - we have our own lives and should still be able to enjoy them, not spend every second working for others / the general good - Example: My shirt has a small hole in it. I can get by fine with the hole and give the money for a shirt to someone more deserving. But really, shouldn't I use some of the money I worked for to reward myself with little things like a shirt with no holes?

What is "diminishing marginal utility"? Give an example to illustrate.

Essentially, the more you consume of a good, the less pleasure you get from each additional unit consumed - Money could be an example. Bill Gates probably values or derives less pleasure from finding a dollar on the street than someone struggling to make ends meet - Or food - If I'm hungry, eating one burger is great, but by the 3rd or 4th I will no longer be deriving pleasure but instead a stomach ache!

Thomas Hobbes famously said that a "state of nature" would be a "war of all against all" in which life was "nasty, brutish and short." In a sentence or two, very briefly explain his point.

Essentially, the state of nature is a huge prisoner's dilemma - Everyone would benefit from cooperation, but it won't happen because it is too risky for the individual to initiate - No chance for social cooperation because we are all out for our own self-interest

Very briefly explain how "prisoner's dilemmas" affect cooperation among people. Use one example in your response to illustrate.

Situation: - 2 suspects - If both betray the other, they will both serve 2 years - If one betrays and the other stays silent, the betrayer goes free and the other serves 3 years - If they both stay silent, they each only serve 1 year It is in both of their interest to say silent, but knowing that if they do so, the other could betray and walk free forces them to betray each other - EX: nuclear arms race

Give an example of an action that would be morally wrong from the perspective of contractualism and briefly explain why the contractualist would find it to be wrong.

Slavery! - You wouldn't agree to slavery from behind the veil of ignorance because once it is lifted you could be a slave and that clearly wouldn't be good

In your own words, explain the "Formula of Humanity." What would be an example of an action that violates it?

The formula of humanity says that we should always treat others as an end, not as a mere means - Never treat someone as a means to a goal while undermining their rationality, agency, etc. Extra: - This involves a distinction between a means to an end (ok), and a mere means (not ok) - Its ok for someone to be a means if you respect their agency in doing so - Intentions matter!

Briefly rehearse the basic gist of Aristotle's "function argument," making sure to state its conclusion as well as the reasoning Aristotle gives to support it.

The function argument is that X is a good X that fulfills its function well - animals, plants, objects seem to be good in that they fulfill their functions well - Inductively, we reason that a good human is one that fulfills its function well

What, for Aristotle, does it mean for our lives to be going well? What, in other words, does he say about what it means for us to live well (flourish)? Very briefly summarize the gist of his account.

To Aristotle, we flourish when we develop and regularly exercise our natural capacities, specific emphasis on our rational capabilities - Rational - Embodied - Social - Sentient - Emotional

In the famous example where a murderer knocks at the door and asks whether you're hiding someone in your home (so they can kill them), consequentialists have a clear way of explaining why the right thing is to lie. But, on the face of it, Kantians seem forced to say that lying in this case is wrong. Is that correct? Very briefly, give a Kantian case for why it might be permissible to lie in the murder knocking at the door case.

You can argue on behalf of resistance - The murderer is trying to undermine your agency and treat you as a mere means to achieve his goal, you don't have an obligation to put up with this - Similarly, you shouldn't allow your honesty to be used as a tool against you