Ethics Exam 2
(1) What is an intermediate end and what is an ultimate end, according to Aristotle? (2) What does Aristotle think the ultimate end is? Describe it. (3) And why does he think it is what he thinks it is? In other words, what leads him to his conclusion about the nature of the ultimate end? (4) Point out at least two important characteristics that this end has, according to him.
(1) According to Aristotle, an intermediate end is an end worth pursuing because it is a means to something else while an ultimate end is an end worth choosing because of itself. (2) Aristotle believes that happiness is the ultimate end (3) Aristotle concludes that happiness is the ultimate end because it is unconditionally final, it is never an intermediate end, it is self-sufficient in that it makes life worthwhile and that it by itself lacks nothing, and finally that happiness is a target and its identification provides guidance and helps us orient ourselves in life. (4) According to Aristotle, some of the important characteristics of happiness include, health, wealth, and friends and family.
Describe Aristotle's views on virtues. In doing so, be sure to include (1) a multifaceted description of the nature of virtue, (2) examples of specific Aristotelian virtues along with their relationships to corresponding vices, and (3) a specification of three or four requirements that must be met inside a person in order for the person's actions to be genuinely virtuous.
(1) Aristotle figures that virtue must be one of the things in the soul, either states/dispositions, feelings, or capacities. Aristotle concludes that it must be dispositions that are virtues, or more precisely, stable dispositions developed over time. (2) the virtue of generosity has the extreme vice of prodigality and the deficient vice of stinginess. The virtue of truthfulness has the extreme vice of boastfulness and the deficient vice of self-deprecating. The virtue of mildness has the extreme vice of meekness and the deficient vice of irascibility. (3) The requirements that must be met inside a person in order for their actions to be considered truly virtuous are that one must know what one is doing, one must decide on what one is doing, one must decide on their action for itself, and one must do their action from a firm and unchanging state.
(1) Explain in detail how the following argument works, according to Thomas Nagel: "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" (2) Afterward, provide your own reasoned view about the strengths and/or weaknesses of this argument.
(1) I start to walk off with your umbrella, how would you like it if someone did that to you? 1- I realize I would resent it 2- my resentment involves thinking that the imaginary thief has a good reason not to steal my umbrella 3-what kind of reason is this that the imaginary thief has? 4-The existence of the reason does not depend on anything specific/special/exclusive to me 5-therefore, it is a reason the imaginary thief would have against stealing anyone's umbrella 6-the existence of the reason does not depend on anything specific to the particular thief that I imagine. 7-So, it is a reason that anyone would have not to steal my umbrella 8-So, it is a reason for anyone not to steal anyone's umbrella 9-So, it is a reason for me not to steal your umbrella now to remain coherent with myself (2) Although I think this argument is reasonable, it is weak in many applicable aspects. First of all, the argument has many steps and requires anyone who is trying to develop it to have strong reasoning skills. Secondly, I believe that the argument requires a certain degree of empathy to start with, which in the case of someone trying to steal an umbrella, they would not be willing or perhaps capable of exploring such empathy.
(1) Explain in some detail the concepts of intrinsic value and instrumental value. (2) Is it conceivable/ imaginable that pain sometimes has both intrinsic value and instrumental value? Include a short defense of your answer. (3) Do you think there is anything that some people treat as having intrinsic value although in reality it has only instrumental value?
(1) Intrinsic value is something valued for itself (ex: pleasure and pain) and instrumental value is anything that is instrumentally good or bad, meaning something is valuable or invaluable because of its consequences. (2) Yes, it is conceivable/imaginable that pain sometimes has both intrinsic and instrumental value as pain is already a part of the definition of intrinsic value and it is almost always considered to be instrumentally bad as its consequences are invaluable or undesirable. (3) Yes, people treat money as highly desirable and is thought of as having intrinsic value, although, in reality, money is not intrinsically good but it is instrumentally good because of the consequences having money can bring.
(1) Precisely define and describe utilitarianism. (2) Explain what value hedonism is. (3) Provide a definition of consequentialism. (4) Are there any relationships between value hedonism, consequentialism, and utilitarianism?
(1) Utilitarianism states that an action is right if and only if it brings about as least as much net happiness or at least as much utility as any other action that could be chosen (2) Value hedonism is an axiological theory (specifies what has value and what is worth pursuing) that holds pleasure alone as good in itself (3) Consequentialism, a form of utilitarianism, states that an action is right if and only if its consequences would be at least as good as the consequences of any alternative action that could be chosen. (4) Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism as it is consequentialism combined with value hedonism that defines utilitarianism. Both consequentialism and utilitarianism aim at maximizing good for everyone.
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer argues in favor of doing much more to reduce hunger in the world. First, describe the multiple key points of Singer's argumentation. Finally, present your own reasoned view of one part of Singer's defense of his conclusion. Your reasoned view should focus, not on Singer's conclusion, but on any part of his argumentation in favor of that conclusion.
(1)Singer argues that there are 2 morally irrelevant differences that are the reasons people are not doing more as they should to reduce hunger in the world. He identifies that it is the distance between the potential benefactor and the potential beneficiary and the number of potential benefactors that are the irrelevant differences between helping someone close to you versus someone across the world. (2) In my own defense of Singer's conclusion that we all should be doing more to reduce hunger in the world, I would argue that someone needs a strong case to not help others rather than a strong case to help others. The misfortune of others is not something that should be allowed to be ignored, as Nagel's 'how would you like it' argument could be applied.
Compare and contrast consequentialism and deontological absolutism. In doing so, include a precise definition and description for each theory. Include also an example of how the implications or prescriptions of the two theories my differ.
The theory of consequentialism states that an action is right if and only if its consequences are at least as good as the consequences of any alternative action. Deontological absolutism states that certain kinds of actions are always wrong, no matter what the consequences might be. The two theories are similar in that the both consider the consequences or the ultimate outcomes of actions, however, they differ in that consequentialism focuses on judging the moral worth of those consequences and deontological absolutism focuses on judging the actions themselves. An example where the conclusions of consequentialism and deontological absolutisim would differ would be in the case of the trolley problem. In that problem, a train is on a path to run over five people on the tracks but someone standing by could switch the train's path to only run over one person. According to consequentialism, it would be the most right to change the course of the train to only kill one person. However, deontological absolutism states that by changing the path of the train, one would be getting involved and engaging in the act of killing someone which is always wrong, so the theory would tell that person to do nothing.
In our discussion in class on "The Objective Basis of Morality" by Thomas Nagel, we considered three arguments (a) that attempt to show why one should avoid harming others and (b) that Nagel rejects for various reasons. First of all, precisely describe these three arguments that we discussed in class, and explain why Nagel rejects each one of them. Secondly, provide your own reasoned view about any one of these three arguments.
Why should we avoid harming others? (arg 1) Because of possible punishment in an afterlife. Nagel rejects this argument since the fear of punishment and hope for reward do not seem to be correct motives for morality. (arg 2) Treat others well, otherwise, they will not treat you well. Nagel rejects this argument since it appeals to self-interest, relying on the fear of negative consequences and the hope of positive consequences for oneself which do not seem to be the correct motives for morality. Additionally, this argument provides no reason for doing the right thing if others won't find out about it (arg 3) Because God commands it Nagel rejects this argument because he argues if God exists and forbids what is wrong, that still isn't what makes it wrong. Additionally, non-believers still frequently care about not harming other people. My view: Addressing the argument that one should care about not harming others because God commands it, it seems like an irrelevant argument for anyone who does not believe in God. Believing one should care about not harming others cannot be interdependent on believing in God since there are examples of non-believers who care about not harming others. Similarly, the argument "because God commands it" is simply a 'because I said so' argument that has no true justification behind it as simply saying something is right or wrong doesn't explain why that is so.