PHIL 60/70: Contractarianism: Hobbes & Rawls, PHIL 60: Free Will, Moral Responsibility, & Punishment, PHIL 60: Egoism, Altruism, & Human Nature, PHIL 60: Metaethics
Normative
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical: What sort of question is this: "What are the details of Mill's utilitarianism?"
Yes!
Is "What time is it?" a sentence?
Metaethical
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical, what sort of question is this: "How do you define 'morally good'?"
Applied
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical: What sort of question is this: "Should Maroon 5 take a knee during the Super Bowl?"
The bit of indeterminism might be amplified by the chaos effect.
Even if our brain had bits of indeterminism, how would that be enough for free will and big changes in our environment?
Contractarians argue that morality is mind-dependent, specifically on tacit or explicit agreements. If society or civilization were to crumble like in the walking dead, morality would evaporate, as the agreement would end. Moral realists argue that morality is grounded upon objective (ie mind independent) facts. These facts exist and show up in the world like facts about math or science. Human beings don't 'make' child abuse wrong, it just IS wrong, just like human being don't make water is H2O, it just is H2O.
Explain Contractarianism and how it differs from moral realism
Objectively, color and sound are waves. Subjectively, they are the what-it-is-like aspects of experience; what it's like to experience a ripe tomato, for instance. We can think of the objective as external to the mind and 3rd person, while the subjective is internal and 1st person. I can't be wrong about my taste preferences and when I'm in pain, so these seem to be inherently subjective too.
Explain the difference between objective and subjective. Use color, sound, pain, taste preferences as examples.
Hume argued that it is illogically to deduce ought-statements from is-statements. That is, it's invalid to derive values from facts.
Go into more detail about Hume's is/ought or fact/value problem.
The picture of freedom looks like a tree. The trunk is the past and present, which is locked, but the future is represented by the branches of which there are at least too. Consider a student (call her Quinn) sitting in class. Quinn's past is locked, but her intuition is that she could lots of different things: stay alert, sleep, take a drink, sing a pop song, go on her phone. All of these are available on the freedom picture. The determinism picture is just a line: the past present and future are all locked. The alternatives to our actual actions some *seem* possible, but they are illusions. There is only one, unique future.
How does the picture of freedom like as opposed to picture of determinism?
It expresses the proposition, Torturing innocent is morally wrong.
How might "Torturing innocents is morally wrong" be analyzed by Plato and other moral realists?
According to subjectivists, that sentence expresses the proposition: I disapprove of promise breaking.
How would "Breaking promises is morally wrong" be analyzed by subjectivists?
Sure!
Is "Boo Patriots!" a sentence?
It would seem so. Though there is a lot of overlap between legal and moral rules (e.g., it's illegal *and* immoral to abuse children), the concepts come apart, (e.g., it's immoral break a promise to a friend or cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend, but those things are not illegal).
Is morality distinct from the law? That is, are moral rules distinct from legal rules?
It's a mix, but probably more the former.
Is the US model of corrections/prisons more retributivist or about reform/rehabilitation?
For Hobbes the contract evolved slowly over time organically and we tacitly agree just with our participation in society. For Rawls, the social contract is a hypothetical.
Is the social contract real/historical or hypothetical. Is it tacit or explicit? What does Hobbes have to say? What about Rawls?
Yes, let the contract be written by those behind Rawls' veil of ignorance in the 'original position'. They are ignorant of their sex, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc. Their decisions will be dispassionate, impartial, rational, etc.
Is there a solution?
This is an empirical question and the answer depends on what sort of correction and how much is done. Perhaps taxing 85% of all income would undermine work ethic. But if you're only taxing 85% of income above 10 million dollars, that may be a different story.
Might correcting for luck or 'things that aren't our doing' or things arbitrary from a moral point of view undermine incentive to work hard? I.e., the Michael Jordans, Bill Gates, Oprahs, etc. will just leave our society?
We explained determinism by telling the causal story of the history of the universe beginning with the Big Bang and ending with my raising my arm. How did that go? What about the Waking Life Clip?
My raising my arm isn't in a vacuum. It's an event that had a cause that can be traced by billions of years ago. 14 billion years ago there was a massive explosion (the Big Bang). Massive amounts of energy was released, so after basic elements formed like hydrogen and helium. Galaxies and stars formed, etc. The Waking Life Clip succinctly explains how our bodies may be confined by physical laws:
18th century French Wrote The Social Contract
Provide some historical background of Jean Jacques Rousseau
Perhaps instead of all actions being selfish, there are degrees of altruism and egoism.
Some argue that there are degrees of altruism & selfishness. What does that mean?
The benefits of Moving to society is greatly outweigh drawbacks. We go from instincts to morality. We keep our instincts in check.
Sum up the thinking in the except from Rousseau's TSC
Maybe. But what if one student was born without eyebrows or fingers?
Suppose we had a class contest: whoever can pull the most hairs from their eyebrows in 60 seconds wins $500. Does the person who pulls the most hairs out in the time allotted *deserve* the $500?
Someone like Hobbes has to worry about cases like these. It might be best for them to say this kind of social contract is invalid because the person's poverty makes them too desperate to enter into a contract freely.
Take the case of a very poor person living in a third world country. There is no job for them except working in a sweatshop for slave wages. They 'freely' sign up for the job/enter a social contract, but isn't this really a sort of coercion or being forced?
Sandel says that for Rawls distribution of of wealth, should not be based on factors *arbitrary from a moral point of view*, that is, things that are not your doing, like, e.g. where you fall in a feudal aristocracy, caste-system. So what a 'meritocracy', where its about how much effort that expend. However, even how much effort you put in could be base on factors beyond your control, e.g, birth order and how wealthy your parents are. (Only 3% of student bodies at top colleges are from the poorest 25%.) Effort can be connected to privilege, too (think about the Buzzfeed 'Check your Privilege' activity (https://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you). Meritocracies are only fair if we all begin the race at the same point. But even that isn't fair because of the natural lottery (think of the natural gifts of a Michael Jordan). So to make up for natural gifts do we lead their shoes? No, for Rawls, we can permit, even encourage inequality but only if it helps everyone, especially the least off (often this is in the form of taxes). Rawls system corrects for moral luck in this way.
Watch Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's "A Fair Start" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No) and Crash Course's video on "Justice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90." What is Rawls' problem with a system that reward's natural talents? What about a merit-based system? Further, what would Rawls say about the high salaries of Judge Judy, Bill Gates, & Michael Jordan? Can they be morally justified on his view?
Glaucon is a moral skeptic. He believed that 'justice' is a necessary evil and if we could get away with acting unjustly, we would. He tries to prove this with a thought experiment in which there is a magical ring that would make the wearer invisible. (Sound like Lord of the Rings? -- it is!) Give the ring to even the most just person and it will only be a matter of time before even they become corrupt. This sentiment was echoed by British Historian, Lord Acton's saying: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Glaucon argues that we do whatever we can get away with. Justice is just a means to an end and only has instrumental value (Hobbesian) whereas for Plato/Socrates justice has instrumental *and* intrinsic/ultimate value.
Watch Tamar Gendler, Yale Philosophy Professor, during 11-16:30 min of this video: (https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-1). What is Glaucon's challenge and how does the Ring of Gyges story go?
The PAP is the principle of alternate possibilities expresses a traditional requirement of free will: Person P performs action A freely only if P does A but could have done otherwise.
What is the PAP?
The fact *that* I disapprove of promise breaking.
What is the truth-maker for the proposition, I disapprove of promise breaking, according subjectivists?
It promotes tolerances of other cultures; celebrates diversity.
What's an advantage of cultural relativism?
Beliefs
Along with propositions, what is another type of a 'truth-bearer'?
Applied
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical, what sort of question is this: "Is it okay to have the server take your plate away (and not box it up) when there's 13% of your meal left?"
Normative
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical, what sort of question is this: "Was Aristotle's list of virtues comprehensive?"
Metaethical
Applied, Normative, or Metaethical, what sort of question is this: "What's the difference between morally permissible and praiseworthy?"
Rawls argued, the imaginary parties would adopt what philosophers call the maximum-minimum (or "maximin") rule. Under this rule, the best choice is the highest minimum, which is society A.
Apply Rawls' 'maximin' rule to a choice between two societies: Society A: average wage of $20/hr & minimum wage of $7/hr Society B: average wage of $30/hr & minimum wage of $1/hr.
An example of pure altruism would be a case where someone did not ultimately act out of self-interest.
As the NYT article asks: Is pure altruism possible? To answer that, what, in general, would be an example of pure altruism?
*Western religion*: God/divine. *Moral relativists*: culture/Individual preferences. *Kant*: morality is grounded in reason, moral truths can be deduced like mathematical axioms. *Hume*: morality is grounded in human psychology: desire, emotion, and or sentiment. *Sophists* (like Thrasymachus): justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, i.e., might makes right. (Marx echoes this thinking.)
Besides the views of Hobbes & Plato. What are other views about what grounds morality?
Kant: Don't violate a person's rights (or don't use people). Mill: Maximize happiness (utility) in the world. Aristotle: Do what the virtuous person would do.
Briefly, what are the normative ethical principles of Kant, Mill, & Aristotle?
Suppose he actually felt guilty because he thought he could have done more, e.g., acted more swiftly. Oscar Schindler felt guilty. "This watch..." But what if he did it to avoid guilt. Possible, maybe even plausible, but isn't it at least conceivable that he wasn't worried about a guilty life.
But he benefitted in that he knew that he tried his best or because he avoided feelings of guilt.
It's true that it's not your fault that some people are naturally athletic or talented, but similarly it's often not entirely people's fault for being less athletic and talented.
Couldn't a Jordan or an Oprah say "It's not my fault I make millions, the people gave me the ratings and bought my tickets" Why am I being punished for that?
Politicians (usually more conservative ones) found an effective wedge issue that pushed voters toward more conservative candidates: the war on drugs/crime. Politicians who were weak on drugs/crime were having difficulty getting elected. This led to more three strikes laws, more minimum sentences for non-violent offenses, etc. This led to more arrests and more people in the system. This led to the need for more prisons/guards, etc. This extra spending cut into higer-ed spending (in the last 25+ years, CA prison spending double and we build 20+ prisons and only 1 4-year college (UC Merced). The criticism is that this is ineffective, costly and cruel, because it doesn't really rehabilitate people, it just produces future criminals the recidivism rate over 5 years is 70+, creates need for more prisons and outsourcing to private prisons who have less of an incentive to reform.
Discuss the connection between the war on drugs/crime, prison/higer-ed spending, prison overcrowding, private prisons, and recidivism.
No. It's an exclamation.
Does "Boo Patriots" express a proposition?
No. It's a command (i.e., an imperative).
Does "Don't touch that" express a proposition?
Depends on who you ask: Moral realists (Plato), cultural relativists, and subjectivists say YES. All three accept that moral sentences (i.e., sentences that contain language like "morally good, correct, bad, wrong, etc.") refer to meaningful propositions, which in turn express moral facts. For the moral realist, "Murder is wrong" is a sentence, which refers to the proposition that Murder is wrong, which in turn expresses the fact that Murder is wrong. These three 'levels', i.e., sentence, proposition, and fact represent a theory in philosophy of language that there is a triangle of language, meaning, and reality. Another manifestation of this triangle is word, concept/idea, and object, e.g., the word "chair", the idea of a chair, and a chair in existence. Another way to get clear on propositions is to think about the same sentence translated in different languages, e.g., "The house is white," "La casa es blanca" and "la maison est blanche." Different sentences, yet they have the same meaning. The proposition expressed by the sentences *is* the meaning.
Does "Murder is wrong" expresses a proposition? Who says 'yes'?
No. It's a question (i.e., an interrogative).
Does "What time is it?" express a proposition?
Frankfurt is a compatibilist who believes we do have free will and are morally responsible, even though our actions are determined.
Does Frankfurt believe we have free will? Does he reject or accept compatibilism.
He rejects it. He argues that freedom is possible even if we can't do otherwise, even if determinism is true.
Does Frankfurt reject or accept the PAP?
Not so much.
Does science suggest our brain is a chaotic system? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRKXFDNjwJ0
Not so much.
Does science suggest our brain is indetermined?
Noncognitivists
Does this make Ayer and Hare cognitivists or noncognitivists?
Cognitivists
Does this make Plato and the rest cognitivists or noncognitivists?
*Hobbes*: For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the State legitimate are human agreements, i.e., the Social Contract (thus morality is human or mind-dependent). This view is called contractarianism. Take the moral belief or proposition that "lying is wrong". That belief or proposition is made true by the social contract, an agreement between humans. (Again beliefs and propositions are *truth-bearers* and the social contract is a *truth-maker*.) *Plato*: What grounds moral is mind-independent; morality is grounded by the way the world is independently of humans/society. This is view is called moral realism (or moral objectivism). Take a belief that "lying is wrong". That belief is made true by the moral *fact* that lying is wrong. This fact is a part of the way the world is, a part of reality. Just like there are math and science facts, there are moral facts. None of these depend on humanity.
For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the state legitimate? In other words, for Hobbes, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions? Contrastingly, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions according to *Plato's moral realism*?
The sentence, "Water is H2O" expresses the proposition, Water is H2O, which is made true by the fact that water is H2O. This is all explained in words, so to keep things clear, quotation marks are used to signify sentences, dropping the quotation marks signifies propositions, and writing *the fact that...* signifies a fact.
Give an example of this relationship.
For Plato, morality is grounded in objective, mind-independent features of the world. Moral facts are akin to facts in math or science. For Hume, morality is inherently grounded in human psychology. "You won't find the wrongness until you turn your reflection into your own breast."
Go into more detail about Hume's rejection of Plato's realism.
For Hume, morality is grounded in human emotions. Think of the visceral, gut-wrenching reaction to abhorrent despicable acts like those of Hitler and Nassar.
Go into more detail about Hume's rejection of cognitivism.
Could a belief or knowledge about right and wrong motivate someone without a desire to do the right thing? Kant claims yes. (He calls this 'pure practical reason'.) Hume argues no. For Hume there has to be a desire. This is just a psychological fact about human nature.
Go into more detail about Hume's thesis about reason/belief and motivation.
Contradictions (any proposition of the form A and not A) are at the heart of all genuine, meaningful disagreements. Without a contradiction, there is no disagreement. Imagine Hitler arguing with someone. Hitler says, "Genocide of Jews is morally acceptable." Someone replies: "Genocide of Jews is NOT morally acceptable." The views of Hitler and his opponent contradict each other. HOWEVER, if subjectivism is correct, the views actually don't contradict each other. Hitler's view is tantamount to, I (Hitler) approve of the genocide of Jews. The other would be interpreted as, I (Hitler's opponent) disapprove of the genocide of Jews. There is no logically contradiction between the views anymore; they could both be true.
Go into more detail about the disagreement problem with subjectivism.
For subjectivists, moral judgments are analogous to taste preferences or subjective reports about experiences like pain, which can't be wrong. While you can't really be wrong about what food you like or that you are in pain (in that sense you are infallible), you CAN be wrong about morality, e.g., Hitler and Nassar. Further, just because some tolerance is good, like being tolerant of Caitlyn Jenner's trans ID, we wouldn't have to be tolerant of her, say, lying, stealing, etc.
Go into more detail about the infallibility problem with subjectivism.
If one believes that Americans have made moral progress as a culture (e.g., now women can vote; slavery has been abolished, steps have been taken toward LGBT marriage equality), then we need to sometimes move *away* from the ethics of mainstream culture; not define ethics in terms of it. Cultural relativism (as defined) does not allow for movement away from mainstream culture. If cultural relativism is correct, then it is by definition immoral to move away from these cultural standards. For instance, If a culture approves of slavery at a point in time and we're cultural relativists, then there are no moral grounds to end the practice.
Go into more detail about the moral progress problem with cultural relativism.
It's good to be tolerant of other cultures, but we don't have to tolerate anything, right? We shouldn't be tolerate of needless harm, child neglect, and dishonesty, right? This suggests that these are bedrock, universal rules about ethics, which are disallowed by proponents of cultural relativism.
Go into more detail about the universal moral codes problem with cultural relativism.
Even though it's not the person's fault that they contracted ebola (it's not like they intentionally went to an ebola invested village and asked people to cough on them), we are still justified in quarantining them. Similarly, it might not be a serial killer's fault (i.e., they are not blameworthy) that they kill (because of universal determinism or genetic/environmental reasons), but we still could be justified in isolating them to protect society.
Gregg Caruso in a philosophy bites podcast interview makes an analogy between quarantining someone with ebola and imprisoning a serial killer (maybe like a Ted Bundy). How did this analogy go?
A hunts 9 lbs/week of food. B hunts 12 lbs/week of food. Together they yield 30 lbs/week of food. (I.e., 15 lbs/week each.) Each hunter needs 10 lbs/week to survive, so each is better off to cooperate.
How did the A/B hunter gatherer example go?
The state of nature for Hobbes describes what it was like for humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's an awful way to live; Hobbes famously described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." That is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature; it is living in a constant state of fear, barely surviving among competing selfish, rational, equally able people, who would steal from and kill you if it mean their survival.
How does Hobbes describe the state of nature? (Hint, think about the most famous line in Hobbes' Leviathan.) What is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature?
In many cases of 'altruism', the person feels pleasure from the action. In the charity case, 'actually that's selfish' the person might get a tax write-off. In the couple case, 'actually that's selfish' might get to brag to their yuppie friends about how noble they are (and avoid headaches of raising children). In Librescu case, he was still acting from desire, wanted to avoid a life of guilt. We could say, "Librescu, you're no hero, you just wanted to avoid survivor's guilt!" (Remember, some fates are worse than death, it's better to die now than die after 5 minutes of torture In all these cases, the egoist claims that here is a logically consistent, plausible story that can be told explaining that the seemingly altruistic action was ultimately self-interested because there was a selfish ulterior motive.
How might the egoist explain that these cases are actually selfish (i.e., cases of egoism)? That is how could we play the 'actually that's selfish' game?
It expresses the proposition: My culture morally disapproves of promise breaking.
How would "promise breaking is morally wrong" be analyzed by cultural relativists?
Forward looking.
If determinism is true, which view on punishment makes more sense to employ?
The attempt to answer the most fundamental and most general questions about ethics.
In general, what is metaethics?
It's what the world was like for humans tens of thousands of years ago. There is no society. No cities, no government, and for contractarians, no morality (at least for Hobbes).
In general, what is the state of nature?
The saying and the case both suggest that moral human behavior is much more driven by morally arbitrary factors like recently finding change in a phone booth or whether we happened to have a hearty breakfast, and less driven by the goodness of human nature.
In our discussion of human nature, we debated about whether human nature is good (or altruistic), evil (or bad/selfish/egotistical), or neutral. What did the found money in the phone booth case (See https://imgur.com/3w55try & https://imgur.com/utKXtKV) seem to reveal about human nature? What about the saying "Justice is what the judge had for breakfast"?
The saying and the case both suggest that moral human behavior is much more driven by morally arbitrary factors like recently finding change in a phone booth or whether we happened to have a hearty breakfast, and less driven by the goodness of human nature.
In our discussion of human nature, we debated about whether human nature is good (or altruistic), evil (or bad/selfish/egotistical), or neutral. What did the found money in the phone booth case seem to reveal about human nature? What about the saying "Justice is what the judge had for breakfast"?
Yep.
Is "Don't touch that" a sentence?
Yes.
Is "Murder is wrong" a sentence?
We drew an analogy between the universe and a pool table. Imagine a game of 8-ball. One player sets up the triangle of the 15 balls and the other gets ready to break. Suppose we freeze time right after the break. The cue ball is frozen, but when we unfreeze time we can foresee more or less what will happen. The cue ball will strike near the center of the top of the triangle of balls. This will cause a domino effect that will disperse the ball. Maybe the 3 ball will end up near the left corner pocket. The 11 ball might bounce off a couple balls and rails, but be sunk in a side pocket, etc. If we need precisely the initial conditions of the balls, i.e., their masses, densities, volumes, and the of the table as a whole, i.e., if the table were perfectly flat, the size of the pockets, the frictions of the green felt, etc. AND we knew all the laws of physics and geometry, we could perfectly predict how the balls would disperse. Humans may be analogous to pool balls, just like the behavior of pool balls is determined and not free, so might it be for human behavior.
Put the pool table, analogy into your own words.
One argument that all actions are selfish: (1) All human actions necessitate desire (Hume/Lewis thesis). (2) Any action from desire is selfish. Thus (3) All human actions are selfish. And this about it, often times selfishness drives cooperation like in the A/B hunter gather case.
The egoist maintains that all human actions are ultimately self-interested or selfish. (Put another way, there's no morally good act that isn't selfish.) How can this be?
Hobbes' view that life in society and under the social contract is better and that people will honor their agreements is not jeopardized by the Golden Balls defectors. It's a false analogy: the contestants in the game show hardly know each other, which makes it much easier to be deceitful. In real life the agreements made are often with people with whom we know extremely well and with whom there is substantial trust.
We watched clips of the British game show, *Golden Balls*. The contestants were allowed to converse and make agreements, yet often they would be deceitful; they would promise to *split* and then *steal*. This seems to run counter to what Hobbes would say should happen when agreements are allowed. How can we defend Hobbes in light of these Gold Balls 'defectors'?
1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.) 2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
What 2 principles of justice would people in the original What principle would those in the original position choose?
1. It doesn't allow for meaningful moral disagreements. 2. It makes everyone morally infallible, i.e., no one could get morality wrong and we would have to be tolerant of everything.
What are 2 problems of subjectivism, as discussed in class?
1. It doesn't allow for moral progress. 2. It doesn't allow for any universal moral codes.
What are 2 problems with cultural relativism?
1. The act is caused by a desire. 2. Nothing prevented one from performing the act.
What are Hobbes' two requirements for free will
1. Rejection of Plato's realism 2. Rejection of cognitivism 3. Is/ought or fact/value problem 4. Reason/belief alone cannot motivate
What are Hume's 4 theses?
Which normative ethical theory is right? What do the terms, 'good', 'moral', 'wrong', 'right' etc *mean*? Can we derive values from facts? Are there any universal or objective moral codes? Is there room for truth in ethics? That is, Do moral sentences express statements/propositions? Which aspect of human psychology does the heavy lifting when it comes to ethics: the cognitive/thinking/logical/rational/belief side or the non-cognitive/emotion/passions/sentiment/desire side?
What are examples of metaethical questions?
Taking up two spots Robbing the class case
What are examples of pure egoism/selfishness?
Should I eat factory-farmed meat? Should I donate found money to charity? Should I support #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter? (These are specific moral issues or ethical questions pertaining to real-life.)
What are examples of questions in applied ethics?
Charity check case Couple who desperately wants kids but doesn't have them to avoid overpopulation. Librescu case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSDmxCC2MjY
What are potential cases of pure altruism?
Problems for ethical egoism. 1. Even if we can stamp all acts as selfish, we still need a practical way to distinguish, say, robbing the whole vs. giving all my money to class. (jumping on grenade vs. pushing students over to avoid it) 2. Opera case. Theory says okay to give to opera over famine relief. Intuition: give to famine relief. (what about 'adult film arts') 3. Inconsistent: Giant's game case. 4. Peeping Tom case. 5. Sometimes we mess up: Smoking, Eating junk food, and other self-destructive behavior
What are problems for ethical egoism?
1. The original position may devalue too much compassion, emotion, and partiality. It comes off as a bit cold and without a human touch. 2. Epistemological problem. It's not obvious what that ideal contract would look like, i.e., we don't precisely *know* what the agreements would be.
What are two problems with Rawls' solution?
There are enough people in the contract who care about animal rights that they will have to be taken seriously.
What can the contractarian say about for animal rights?
Hobbes believed that human nature was selfish and he imagined this would be clear if we could witness human behavior tens of thousands of years ago in the state of nature where there is little to no social agreements or cooperation. Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. He is credited with the notion of the 'noble savage' (though he did not use the term), i.e., a bit like the Navi are depicted in James Cameron's *Avatar*. The Navi are innocent, live in an untouched, pristine natural setting, and haven't been uncorrupted evils of capitalistic, materialistic, corporatocracy society. Some have criticized this concept as racist, as it depicts 'natives' as unintelligence, naive, and as almost sub-human without a true sense of agency, rights, and personhood.
What did Hobbes and Rousseau have to say about human nature?
Hobbes believed that human nature was selfish and he imagined this would be clear if we could witness human behavior tens of thousands of years ago in the state of nature where there is little to no social agreements or cooperation. Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. He is credited with the notion of the 'noble savage', i.e., a bit like the Navi are depicted in James Cameron's *Avatar*. The Navi are innocent, live in an untouched, pristine natural setting, and haven't been uncorrupted evils of capitalistic, materialistic, corporatocracy society. Some have criticized this concept as racist, as it depicts 'natives' as unintelligence, naive, and as almost sub-human without a true sense of agency, rights, and personhood.
What did Hobbes and Rousseau have to say about human nature?
The term privilege may be loaded to some but it seems clear that some people's starting lines are substantially behind others through no fault of their own.
What did we learn about privilege from the John Stewart/O'Reilly clip and the race for $100 clip?
Hobbes' state of nature. In both the first version of the PD and the state of nature there are few to no agreements, everyone is rational, selfish, and everyone is competing against strangers to survive. Because of the lack of agreement we are worse off. We are worse off in the state of nature because life is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We are worse off in the first version of the PD because since both people are rational and want to avoid jail-time they will each testify and both end up with 5 years. (Logically/rationally speaking, it's a no-brainer to testify because regardless of what Steve does, testifying will result in less jail time. Think about it: if Steve stays quiet, then testifying gets you 0 years instead of 1. If Steve testifies, then you testifying gets you 5 years instead of 10.
What did we say that the first version of the PD was supposed to represent?
Life with agreements under the social contract, i.e., life in society. In the second version of the PD we are allowed to talk to and make agreements with Steve, and we can enter into a contract with him. This means we can agree to both stay quiet, which makes life better. Life is better under the social contract, too; we can cooperate and live in a safe, more efficient, productive community.
What did we say that the second version of the PD was supposed to represent?
Lewis describes a case where your emotions tell you to hire a candidate named 'Neiss' yet you hire a candidate named 'Meane' because you believe, other things being equal, it's the right thing to do. Is this 'pure practical reason'? Lewis argues, no. There is still a desire present: it is just a 'cold desire', not a 'warm' one.
What does David Lewis say about warm and cold desires and whether a belief about what's right alone could motivate action?
"Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." Thrasymachus was a *sophist*. Sophistry -- using, e.g., non-rational ploys (instead of reason) to persuade, deceive, & manipulate. This makes him a moral nihilist (those who say morality doesn't exist) and a pessimist about human nature.
What does Thrasymachus say to Socrates about Justice in Book I?
Morality seems to require free will, that is if a person is morally responsible for some action, then that person had free will when they acted. Put another way, if if I didn't freely do something, then I cannot be held morally responsible. For instance if I am morally responsible for stealing a car, then I stole the car freely; No one forced me to steal it, I wasn't psychological compelled to steal, etc. Ryan's field-trip to the roof pushing vs tripping off roof and landing on friend case. Free will seems to require that one could have done otherwise. The biggest threat to free will is determinism. Determinism is the view that the laws of nature in conjunction with prior conditions entail present and future conditions.
What does morality seem to require? What does free will seem to require? What's the biggest threat to free will?
Libet's work suggests that unconscious parts of our brain prepare the body for action *before* one makes a conscious decision. So, it seems that our unconscious brain is really running the show and not our will. Free will, then, may be an illusion.
What does the work of Benjamin Libet suggest about free willl?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was an 18th century French philosopher. One of his seminal works was entitled *The Social Contract* and he made contributions to political philosophy and contractarianism.
What historical background did we learn about Jean Jacques Rousseau? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) 17th century, English philosopher. Seminal work: Leviathan Big idea: The State of Nature in which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, the Social Contract (the basis of morality and the legitimacy of the State.)
What historical background did we learn about Thomas Hobbes? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?
Suppose he died before knew the students were safe.
What if we say that in the Librescu case, he benefitted from his action (because he got comfort in knowing he saved students), thereby making it selfish?
A participant in a psychology experiment is ask to wait in a room with two doors: Door A & Door B. A neuroscience grad student is watching the participant behind a two-way mirror. The grad student desperately wants the participant to walk through door B (maybe they get a $10k research grant). They've even rigged it so that if the participant even thinks about doing anything other than going through Door b, they will be a big red button in front of them that will trigger the person to be robotically forced to walked through Door B. (Perhaps this was accomplished by the grad student performing stealth brain surgery on the participant the night before and surgically implanting wireless electrodes in their brain giving the grad student the means to remotely control them.) The grad student is just about to push the big red button, but then something amazing happens, the participant gets up and walks through Door B *on their own*. Most people would count this as an act of free will, but notice, say Frankfurt that the person *could not have done otherwise*, i.e., they were going through Door B no matter what. Since this is a case where someone has free will although they were determined and couldn't do otherwise, Frankfurt argues we should reject the PAP and embrace compatibilism.
What is Frankfurt's 'Door A/B or neuroscientist behind the 2-way mirror' case supposed to show.
His appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and his book "On Bullshit"
What is Harry G. Frankfurt most famous for?
Rawls in an American philosopher (1921-2002) who's most famous work is *A Theory of Justice*. His big ideas were: *justice as fairness*, *the original position*/*veil of ignorance*, and his *2 principles of justice*. He taught as a professor for many years at Harvard.
What is John Rawls' historical background?
Rawls' version of the social contract is one in which people in the initial situation (he calls it the original position) make the contract. These are idealized hypothetical people. They are unbiased because they are behind a *veil of ignorance* and don't know things like their gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economical status, disability status, religion, country affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. The rules they come up with would be fair because they wouldn't cater to any particular group.
What is Rawls' Justice as Fairness?
Oscar is about to torture the child. Thus, Oscar ought to be stopped. This seems like a legitimate inference, yet notice it's an ought from an is.
What is an Oscar-like counterexample to Hume's is/ought problem?
Egoism is the view that the morally right thing to do is to maximize one's happiness/utility or self-interest. (I.e., Do whatever is best for you.)
What is egoism?
Is there a systematic way to resolve the ethical dilemmas of applied ethics? In general normative ethics is the study of principles, theories, or rules that guide how one should act. Applied ethics answers, "Specifically, what should I do?" while normative ethics answers, "In general, what should I do."
What is the big question that normative ethicists try to answer?
The chaos effect (also know as butterfly effect) is where a small change in the environment very quickly leads to big change, like butterfly flaps wings, then tsunami in Japan. Or the coffee can pool example.
What is the chaos effect? What is an example of a chaotic system?
The difference principle only allows inequalities that help the worst-off. You must guarantee the worse off a fair deal. Rawls is compensating for moral arbitrary natural endowments (like Michael Jordan)
What is the function of Rawls' difference principle?
There are many different versions of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) that have been studied by many different sorts of academics including, economists, psychologists, game theorists, and philosophers. We discussed two versions of the PD. In the first, no communication or agreements are allowed. There are two people: say you and a stranger named Steve. Both of you have been brought in by the FBI to potentially testify against each for a drug crime. (You know you are innocent and you have no evidence either way that Steve is guilty.) You both have 2 options: either testify against the other or stay quiet. If you and Steve both stay quiet, you both will get one year in prison. If you and Steve both testify against each other, then you both get five years. If you testify against Steve and he stays quiet, Steve gets 10 years and you go free. If Steve testifies against you and you stay quiet, you get 10 years and he goes free.
What is the prisoner's dilemma?
The social contract is a strategy for maximizing self interest. For Hobbes, the social contract is the set of agreements/laws/rules that grounds the State or government. These rules include the 1st amendment and other basic freedoms. They include rules like murder/theft, etc. is illegal. Or that the government will protect its citizens with military, police, and firefighters. That the government will provide public goods like roads, infrastructure, clean water, trash/recycling services, sewage, power grids, utilities etc. That the gov. will provide free and or subsidized education pre-K through 12th and college and subsidized healthcare. Will provide social security. That citizens will abide by these rules and be honest, decent, have integrity, and care for the vulnerable and underserved & represented including children. That people will be free to create, and cultivate humanities, philosophy, and art: performance (music, theater, dance, radio) and visual (painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, film/TV), and literature (novels, poetry). And will be free to pursue sciences and technology. The one disadvantage of living under the contract for Hobbes is that we give up the absolute freedom of living in the state of nature.
What is the social contract for Hobbes? What is the advantage of living under it? What's the disadvantage of living under it?
The way the world is, independently of human psychology. That is, the truth-maker (for realists) for said statement is the objective (or mind-independent) fact *that* promise breaking is morally wrong.
What is the truth-maker for the statement/proposition, Promise breaking is morally wrong, according to moral realists?
Ring of Gyges, Socrates and Thrasymachus, Lord of the Rings, Lord of the Flies, The Invisible Man, Riker episode of Star Trek, Walking Dead, Lost.
What literature, film, classic philosophical texts, and TV depict absolute power or one being able to get away with not following the contract?
The cognitive, thinking, logical, rational, true-belief seeking part vs The non-cognitive, emotional, passional, sentimental, desirous part.
What parts of human psychology might play a role in morality?
Something that can be -- or that can bear -- truth or falsity. Something that can be appropriately be labeled or branded as 'true' or 'false'.
What precisely is a truth-bearer?
Something that can be -- or that can bear -- truth. Something that can be appropriately be labeled or branded as 'true' or have a truth value.
What precisely is a truth-bearer?
The maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, so pretty much everyone is getting out, so there's more of an incentive to rehabilitate. This model is much more about forward looking rehabilitation than backward looking punitive retribution. It seems to be much more effective.
What this Bloomberg report on a prison in Norway ("THEN THIS HAPPENED S1 • E6 How Norway Reinvented Prison" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb-gOS3p44U). How is this different than prisons in US?
The fact *that* my culture morally disapproves of promise breaking.
What would be the truth-maker for the statement/proposition, My culture morally disapproves of promise breaking, according cultural relativists?
Hard determinists argue that we don't have free will because we can't do otherwise than what we actually do. Ayer and Moore maintain that we *can* do otherwise than we actually do -- *at least hypothetically*. For instance, even if we choose vanilla ice cream, we, hypothetically, could have opted for chocolate (if prior conditions or the laws had been different). This is problematic because what we get aren't actually alternatives. It's like if one went to an ice cream shop and behind the counter there is a carton of vanilla ice cream and next to just a sign that says 'hypothetical chocolate'. That's not a real choice! Lehrer says it's like a
What's Ayer & Moore's conditional freewill and what's a problem for it.
He is a compatibilist and argues that it is morally irresponsible and harmful for neuroscientists to suggest that people don't have free will because it's at least and open question and people who question their free will start to behave immorally.
What's Dennett's view on free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBrSdlOhIx4
Mackie argues that if objective/real moral properties existed they would be metaphysically and epistemologically queer. The only way to come to know objective facts is the scientific method; there's no moral equivalent to this method, and we don't have a moral intuition or faculty to detect real moral properties, says Mackie. It's a tall order to answer the big metaphysical questions, then, for would-be objective moral properties, i.e., whether there exist and what they are like.
What's Mackie's argument from queerness?
In short: what we believe, say, and write is made true by the way the world is. Beliefs and propositions are examples of *truth-bearers* and are made true by *the world*, *the facts*, *reality*, and or *state of affairs*, which are *truth-makers*. For instance, my *belief* that the Sun is larger than the Earth is true, and it is made true by reality, by *the fact* that the Sun *is* larger than the Earth.
What's Mulligan, Simons, and Smith's view on *truth-makers* vs *truth-bearers*?
It would only be a matter of time before an 'incorruptible' person shows their true colors if given absolute power (represented by a ring that makes one invisible)
What's Plato's ring of gyges suggest about human nature?
Stace provides a common sense definition of free will: it's the difference between, say, Gandhi fasting for peace in India (a free action) and a person fasting in the desert because there's no food (not a free action). One acts freely, for Stace, when they do want they want and they are not internally or externally forced. An internal force might be a compulsion to gamble or to move one's face (like in the case of Tourette's syndrome). An external force could be one being held at gunpoint.
What's Stace's free will look like
Neither view allow for *any* truth in ethics nor the existence of moral beliefs. This strikes many as extreme.
What's a major problem for both emotivism and prescriptivism?
Mackie's argument from 'queerness': there are important unanswered questions about the nature (or metaphysics) of objective moral facts and how we would come to know them (this is an epistemology problem). If they exist, they would be very different from facts in science and math.
What's a major problem for moral realism?
The initial contract should be whatever maximizes joint interests. So it doesn't need to be fair, it just needs to maximize the joint interest of all parties.
What's a reply to the circularity problem?
If correct it could provide us with universal and objective ethical rules, which could be used to settle ethical debates and issues. Realism avoids the pitfalls of moral relativism.
What's an advantage of moral realism (i.e., moral objectivism)?
It's extremely flexible, tolerant of all moral viewpoints
What's an advantage of subjectivism?
Suppose a friend promised to pick you up. After waiting an hour, you walk the 5 miles to their house to confront them for flaking on you. Upon arrival, you find the police not letting anyone in and out of the area (there was a loose gunman -- say). Luckily they have just apprehended the gunman and leave the neighborhood. You enter your friend's house and find them. You say, "Wow I was about to be so mad that you flaked, but then I saw that you couldn't have picked me up because the police wouldn't let anyone leave." They respond, "Police? The police were here?" "Yeah, you didn't hear the sirens?!" "No I was playing video games with headphones!" "Well why didn't you stop to pick me up?" "I just got lazy, sorry." Does the friend have the right to be mad at you for flaking? Presumably, yes, because they decided to be lazy and didn't know they couldn't have left. Further, it seems right to hold the friend morally responsible for flaking -- even though they were determined to stay home (because of the police). This story is an argument for compatibilism: a case where someone couldn't have done otherwise (i.e., they were pigeon-holed/ locked into/ determined to perform one and only one action) and yet they still seem to freely do something and are morally responsible for it.
What's an updated version of Frankfurt's thought experiment where someone still seems to be morally responsible and act freely, even though they couldn't have done otherwise?
One retort to the claim that all actions are selfish is to flip the argument on its head and vehemently claim that, in fact, all actions are ultimately altruistic and that there is no pure selfishness. That is, you could just as easily defend the idea that no selfishness exists. For any so-called selfish acts we need only say, 'actually' that's altruistic. With the person taking up two spots, you could say that they want to encourage people to get exercise by parking further away. There's the George Castanza case where everyone claims he's selfish. 'Seemingly' he says but 'actually' he was a brave leader leading the way. If that's right, then which theory wins? It's gotta be a draw
What's another way to challenge the psychological egoist?
Hard determinism: Determinism is true and we don't have free will. Soft determinism/Compatibilism: Determinism is true *and* we have free will. Metaphysical libertarianism: much of the world is determined but many human actions are not because humans have free will. Indeterminism. Human actions are akin to quantum behavior, i.e., not determined.
What's hard determinism, soft determinism (compatibilism), metaphysical libertarianism, and indeterminism?
Where our brain behaves like an electron (i.e., like a indetermined quantum system) NOT like an pool ball on a pool table (which is a classical Newtonian determined system)
What's picture of indeterminism look like?
Absolute freedom, that is, there are no laws, and you can do whatever you can get away with (which is arguably a lot more than you can get away with under a social contract).
What's the biggest thing one gives up for leaving the state of nature?
Contractarians claim that the initial contract must be made fairly. But fairness doesn't exist until the contract is made. Fair by definition is just abiding by the contract or acting in accord with contract. How can we act in accord with something before it's written? Think about, a dialog between people about to write the original social contract. One person says, "Whatever we agree to, it should fair." "Yes, someone replies." A third person is puzzled... "Wait, what is 'fair'?" They absolutely have a valid point.
What's the circularity problem for Hobbes?
The Backward looking view emphasizes retribution, the idea that the person deserves punishment just in virtue of the fact that they committed the injustice. Kant supports this view. The Forward looking view says that what's done is done, hurting or punishing the person who committed the injustice is not inherently good. It can only be justified if their is a net good in the future, e.g., it serves as a deterrent, rehabilitates/reforms, protects society from more harm. Mill & utilitarians are fans of this view.
What's the difference between backward and forward looking views on punishment?
Leeway incompatibilism is the idea that we don't have free will because we can never do otherwise than we in fact do. Source incompatibilism is the idea that we don't have free will because we are not the ultimate source of our actions, i.e., don't blame me blame the deterministic causal chain that led to me and my actions. (This could be traced all the way to the Big Bang.)
What's the difference between leeway and source incompatibilism?
Actual historical contracts have often been racists, sexists, discriminatory, and biased in all sorts of ways, e.g., slavery, apartheid, women not being able to vote, Jim Crow laws, bans on gay marriage.
What's the problem with actual/historical social contracts?
There seems to be an epistemological (or knowledge) problem, that is, it isn't clear or obvious what the hypothetical or ideal social contract would look like. I.e., we don't really *know* what it would say; we can only make an educated guess, which might lead to a lot of disagreement.
What's the problem with ideal social contracts?
If every action is by definition selfish, then the term 'selfish' can only be applied trivially. It's not a helpful term anymore, that is, to say of an action that it is selfish (i.e., a case of egoism) is just to say that it's an action. What if we did the same thing with 'red'. Red applies to somethings and not others. Selfish applies to some actions and not others. If red applies to all things by definition, then saying something is red isn't helpful. Similarly, if all actions are selfish, then saying something is self isn't helpful, that is, it doesn't really tell you anything, it isn't informative. Another way to think about it, theories that are true no matter what are dubious. They certainly are not scientific. Popper argued that all good scientific theories must be falsifiable. So "Everything happens for a reason" or "God doesn't give us more than we can handle" sound nice and might have pragmatic value in believing them, but what's the difference between "reasonable" bulletpoof (or unfalsifiable theories) and "unreasonable" ones "like all trees on campus do backflips when no one is looking (or recording) and go back when you do without leaving a trace." Also, think about the "everything happens for a reason theory" suppose tomorrow it's WWII, "ETHFAR", then next day, aliens come and torture us" "ETHFAR", then next day it's even worse aliens, and so on. If you could say it no matter what, then doesn't it lose it's meaning. There may be pragmatic value but maybe at too high a cost, Christian Scientist case of not giving kids medicine without with they would die. And infallible theories can be at least neutralize by their infallible negations, like "nothing happens for a reason" Which theory wins? Has to be a tie.
What's the problem with purporting that all human actions are selfish by definition?
Not all desires are of the same type. A desire to steal is different from a desire to protect children. The latter isn't necessarily selfish. Consider Lewis' cold and warm desires. A case could be made that the former are sometimes altruistic. Also the author of the NYT article says there's a difference between satisfying a desire and *being* satisfied.
What's the reply to the previous argument?
They both agree that we should reject Plato's realism. For them morality is like color & sound: subjective. Hume goes one step further and rejects cognitivist altogether. Mackie still is a cognitivist.
Where do Mackie and Hume agree and where do they disagree?
Cognitivist say the cognitive, thinking, logical, rational, reason, belief side does the heavy lifting. Noncognitivists argue it is the emotional, non-cognitive, non-rational, emotion, desire side that plays the more important role.
Which side do cognitivists like Plato say does the heavy lifting or plays a more important role in matters of morality? What about noncognitivists?
Emotivists like Ayer & Stevenson analyze moral sentences as exclamations, like, Murder... boo! Prescriptivists like Hare analyze them as commands, like, Don't murder.
Who says "Murder is wrong" functions as an exclamation or command?
Intuition: helping others is good for its own sake (and just not good instrumentally). Hobbes: helping others is only good instrumentally (and not for its own sake). In other words there's a motivation problem for Hobbes: We are doing good things but for the wrong reason. You shouldn't, e.g., help the poor just because the social contract says so or just because it indirectly is in your self-interest. You should help others like the poor because this is inherently good.
Why does Hobbes' theory have a problem with helping others?
First people who are considered to be powerless are often mischaracterized. E.g., give them a level playing field (access, accommodations and they flourish). Second, there is a potential benefit to living in a society that takes care of all. Put a different way, if you could choose a society that lets persons with disabilities fall by the wayside vs. one that enables them (but it will cost you a bit more), people tend to prefer the latter. Also, we could become that way, it could have been us, we might have relatives, we feel good in doing it, and there are stakeholders who do care.
Why might those in protective of rights for persons with disabilities find Hobbes' view unpalatable?What can be said for those who are powerless or who can't hold their weight? What motivation do we have to help them?
No. Hobbes rejects Plato's moral realism/objectivism. Hobbes denies that morality is human/mind-independent. For him morality is grounded in human/social agreements that evolved into the web of agreements that is our current social contract.
Yes or no: For Hobbes does morality exist outside of the social contract?
