ethics exam 3:final exam

4 components of virtue

affective: youre prone to having certain emotional responses to certain things dispositional: you have a tendency to act in a way that fits the virtue and be motivated by certain reasons intellectual: possessing a virtue affects how you reason, what you pay attention to in a given situation and what reasons you consider worth acting on dentity: possessing a virtue is part of your self identity, who you see yourself as. if you dont yet have the virtue, possessing it is part of the person you aspire to be, an ideal you hope to live up to

objection to claim 1 in unifying thesis: all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, ethical egoisms principle of self interest, and so explains what they all have in common

all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, EEs principle of self interest sometimes its in your best interest to treat another person badly ex: murder (killing an innocent person) in this case, to follow the principle of self interest you need to murder that person but this rule still applies dont murder someone so this is wrong: this shows the rule against muder cant come from EEs principle of self interest similar remarks apply to other rules

examples of pe

always find a way to benefit from something giving a pencil, giving to the homeless - makes you feel better, makes you look better to the people around her doing good deeds creates a reputation of doing nice things - true aim of actions is feeling good/being a good person true motivation for any action at bottom is self serving mom saves kid from being hit by a bus and she dies benefits cause she gets hero status and looks like a great mom

principle of humanity

always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself introducing the idea of "respect" for persons, for whatever it is that is essential to our humanity.

hedonistic act utilitarianism

an act is morally right (obligatory) if it produces the greatest balance of happiness and pleasure over unhappiness and suffering of humans happiness and pleasure/ unhappiness and suffering both bentham and mill are hedonistic act utilitarians mill's special brand of happiness and pleasure amounts to flourishing of sentient creatures - wellbeing

the virtuous person sets the standard

an act is morally right just because it is the one that is a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation what kind of person should i aspire to be what makes an action morally right or morally wrong - thats what a virtuous person acting in character would do have answers to both of these the virtuous person is a moral exemplar, they set the standard and serves as a role model for the rest of us

putting all of these reasons together is a typical formulation

an action (motive, policy) is morally right if and only if it does more to produce (forward looking, consequences) the amount of goodness (optimific) when compared (comparative) to the available alternativies (maximizing) an action or policy is morally right if and only if it produces the most good when compared to the available alternatives consequentialist views can differ over what is intrinsically valuable what counts as goodness?

the pinciple for utility pt 2

an action is morally required if and only if it does more to improve overall wellbeing than any other action you could have done in the circumstances individual circumstances it doesnt say that the best act is the one that benefits the greatest number of people figuring out our duty is not so simple as counting people who will be positively affected its a net balance of wellbeing over fairing poorly

principle of utility

an action is morally required if and only if it does more to improve overall wellbeing than any other action you could have done in the circumstances decide actions think of consequences of every action looking for greatest balance over improvent of well beingminus any detriment to well being

consequentialism

an approach to evaluating moral choices on the basis of the results of the action taken - collection of views; a family of views according to which the moral rightness of any action or policy depends soley on the goodness of the overall state of affairs it brings about looks to the future to decide what we do now 4 features: focus on consequences maximizing comparative forward looking

a right

an entitlement to act or to have another individual act in a certain way it is an entitlement not to be violated or infringed upon unjustifiably has to be vague to allow all the rights we as people have - some are how i behave (right to develop talents) some are how others treat you (right to not be mentally abused)

yields the best results for society when nearly everyone follows it.

an optimific social rule is a rule which

CMR: dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way EE: dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards CMR: we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own EE: we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought) CMR: there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures EE: for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress

are any of the ethical egoism undesirable consequences analogous to the undesirable consequences cultural moral relativism has? which ones?

hypothetical imparatives

are principles of rational action but they dont apply to everyone and they dont apply all the time because people grow, change, and evolve over time interests/desires/goals change from kids to adults only apply if you have the revelant goal/desire/interest so if morality exists it cant consist in hypothetical imperatives because doing the right thing woud be the same for everyone morality must be categorical

cogency

argument is cogent if and only if the premises really do provide good reasons to accept the conclusion 2 things required for cogency: the premises MUST be true - all of them premises MUST support the conclusion (pertains to reasoning of argument) different degress to which premises support their conclusion

ethical pluralism

aristotleian ethics is a form of ethical pluralism any view that holds there is more than one fundamental moral rule virtue ethics is a form of ethical pluralism because there is technically a moral rule corresponding to each virtue for each virtue, there is a moral law that corresponds to it ex: being fair - moral rule is be just ex: kindness - moral rule is be kind ex: generousity - moral rule is be generous but for virtue ethics what counts as following the rule must be figured out on a case by case basis - it all depends on the circumstances

action - objection 1

as long as some people lack basic needs (food, shelter, sanitary living conditions) we are morally obligated to give our excess money and free time to help even if we are financially unable to we are morally obligated to help people as long as people lack basic needs (no money, give your time) we must forgo luxuries for ourselves and our family what counts as a luxury? vacations, gifts, braces, computers, college education called moral saints problem: in order to pursue moral obligations we must pursue global wellbeing as a full time job

from euthyphro (a dialogue written by plato but spoken by socrates to this man euthyphro)

background: socrates is in athens defending himself against criminal charges when he meets his friend euthyphro who is in athens to turn his father in for murder of an intruder who was given no food water and eventually died - why turn father in? most serious problem for divine command theory traces back to ancient times reported by plato in his Euthyphro whether morally right should be defined as what the gods command socrates is doubtful, asks: is an action right because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right?

point 1 of whats wrong with EE: it doesnt offer a good explanation of why bad actions are bad

bad actions are bad because of what happens to the perpetrator and not the victim

2nd objection to virtue ethics: virtue ethics is at best a supplemental theory

based on priority problem pg. 268-270 why we still need a theory about what makes actions right or wrong for virtue ethics an act is morally right just because it is the one that a virtuous person acting in character would do in that situation this cant be right - true, no virtuous person is a rapist but the fact that a virtuous person rejects rape is not what makes it wrong - what happens to the victim? why rape is wrong: it shouws contempt for the victim, violates their rights, imposes harm without consent, perpetrator treats the victim as inferior a virtuous person not committing terrible acts should not and is not what makes that action wrong and vice versa for right acts why is honesty right? it cant be because a virtuous person thinks its right there has to be another explanation we still need an explanation for why each action that is wrong is wrong, why each vice is wrong and why each virtue is a virtue the other theories tried to do that

moral education: how to acquire virtue

because a virtue is a complex character trait you cant simply be told how to be virtuous no principles you can blindly follow can only be acquried through training, practice and experience first, rule following, model following, and habit formation, then eventually, moral understanding

how to meausure the value of pleasure

bentham's criteria: intensity and duration hapopiness and pleasure over pain and suffering 2 dimensions: intensity and duration (more intense and lasts longer) ex: happy pills better than a good book

according to the course is impartiality an attraction a detraction or sometimes an attraction and sometimes a detraction of act utilitarianism

both - an attraction and a detraction

attraction 4 of utilitarianism: moral flexibility

can explain why many moral rules can be permissibly broken in special circumstances rule against lying rule against harming an innocent rule against torture ex: granny at the disco you have a cool grandma and is a pretty popular dj..one gig had hundreds of people and a fire breaks out and theres only 1 exit; granny's booth is near the exit and in chaos of moment 100s of people rush out and granny gets stuck and now no one can move only way to get granny out is to break her arm...what do you do? you break her arm and save everyone cause act u says its okay if youre saving people can justify breaking her arm to avoid hundreds from perishing in a fire principle of utility would say you are morally required to break her arm ex: ticking bomb should we torture a terrorist to prevent an attack? the principle of utility can justify torturing terrorists to prevent grave harm to many

CI step 3: is your maxim conceivable in a world governed by this law? can you formulate your maxim there? in short: can the action be performed by you if universalized

can you imagine the world and now perform your action and act on your maxim in a world in which everyone is acting on your maxim in the case of lying promise the answer is no - making a promise requires the persons acceptance of a promise - no acceptance doesnt count as making the promise if everyone broke a promise whenever it was convenient no one would trust promises of others in such a world there could be no practice of promising nothing could count as making a promise if NO, then your maxim suffers from a contradiction in conception and its your moral duty not to act on this maxim if YES, then move to step 4

how does one reliably know what their duty is? by reasoning well reason alone provides the motivation to do ones own duty

cant get to this point by reasoning incorrectly possessing reason, we are each capable of reasoning well so we are all capable of acting morally this means every human being is capable of being moral if you possess a will/reasoning excludes those with mental incapacities and children because they simply dont have reasoning

example of forward looking

capital punishment: death penalty govt sanctioning of putting a criminal to death due to serious crimes committed reasons for capital punishment: deterrant to would be criminals protects general prison population by putting violent criminals on death row closure for victim's families revenge/justice: getting what the person deserves could cause criminal to take ownership of what theyve done &/ find peace makes rest of society safer forward looking: 1, 2, 3, 5 (find peace), & 6

argument

chain of thought in which reasons (premises) are offered in support of a particular (claim) conclusion

general process of moral education and the goal

children are taught, given rules and have role models the goal: evaluate values, virtues and reflect and resolve inconsistencies to arrive at a deeper more unified understanding of virtue

moral education

children are told what to do, given rules and role models to follow at the same time, parents, teachers and society try to teach us why we should do these things and not others ex: because sharing is generous and being cruel is unjust ideally as we are habituated to acting in accordance with virtues we are taught to think for ourselves about why we should act in accordance with these virtues

claim vs counterclaim for pe

claim: the real reason (goal) why we do anything is to benefit ourselves (ie selfishly) ie. feeling good counter claim: the real goal: helping other person by product is feeling good feel good because the other person benefits - other person has to benefit for you to feel good

consequentialism

collection of views; a family of views according to which the moral rightness of any action or policy depends soley on the goodness of the overall state of affairs it brings about looks to the future to decide what we do now usually maximizing or optimific: moral rightness depends on which consequences are the best optimific: it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks best possible ratio of goodness to badness maximizing: having the best results or consequences typically comparative: the rightness of an action depends on the goodness of its consequences as compared to possible outcomes of available alternatives both are related; they focus on the best consequences and compare likely alternative outcomes forward looking: to the likely outcomes of the available options - to determine our moral obligation now

points of disagreement from Suttee example

compelling someone to commit suicide (morally wrong) obligated to care for wellbeing of offspring/children non moral facts heaven? and if so how to enter? what is a person? is there life after death?

moral relativism #2: we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own

condemn believe in for important reasons Vaughn: "if a culture approves of the actions that it performs then those actions are morally right regardless of what other cultures have to say about the matter" (p. 29, left side) moral infallibility - each society makes up their own rules and they cant be wrong about them because what they say goes the only legitimate criticism we can make is the change of inconsistency ex.) enslaving curly haired people but allowing them to own property and have "freedom" going against their professed teaching and inconsistency but this is not to condemn a cultures values or practices as being wrong

hypothetical imperative

conditional maxim -principle of rational action doesnt apply to everyone not not all the time because people change and grow

act utilitarianism and consequentialism

consequentialism utilitarianism act utilitarianism ethical egoism

Deontology - consequentialism

consequentialism - family of views according to which the moral rightness of any action, motive, or policy depends solely on the goodness of the overall state of consequences it brings about (family of views where the moral rightness of an action depends on goodness (alone) of state of consequences action brings about) utilitarianism act & rule u EE

a family of ethical theories that includes utilitarianism.

consequentialism is...

utilitarianism

consequentialist view

ultimate goal of moral education is to be able to

critically evaluate the values the virtues reflect resolve inconsistencies in what weve been taught to arrive at a deeper more unified understanding of each virtue understand reasons on which a person who possesses the virtue acts and be responsive to similar reasons for acting when we encounter them and be able to articulate this justification for acting to others

condemn

declare something to be reprehensible, (objectively) wrong, or evil based on evidence and without reservation

2nd point of disanalogy: according to virtue ethics, desire to be virtuous equals the desire to live a flourishing human life. as long as we continue to want to live a human life we cannt stop wanting to aspire to virtue

desire to be virtuous = desire to live an excellent human life/be the best human being you can be

altruism

desire to benefit others for their own sake without any alterior motive doesnt involve self sacrifice - not wanting to gain anything from it

what counts as goodness?

determines what we are to aim at and the standard by which to measure possible outcomes for utilitarianism the wellbeing of sentient creatures (humans, animals - capable of experiencing well being and pain/suffering) is the only intrinsic good; faring poorly is the only intrinsic bad intrinsic (good in and of itself) vs instrumental (good it has is in ability to procure something else; ex: money) for ethical egoism, wellbeing of the agent is the only intrinsic good; agents faring poorly is the only intrinsic bad

4 undesirable consequences of IMR

dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought) for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress IMR reduces our moral responses that conflict with another persons moral behavior or values to either

first part of principle of huamnity

does not rule out using people as means to our ends. Clearly this would be an absurd demand, since we apparently do this all the time in morally appropriate ways. it is hard to imagine any life that is recognizably human without the use of others in pursuit of our goals. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the chairs we sit on and the computers we type at are gotten only by way of talents and abilities that have been developed through the exercise of the wills of many people. rules out is engaging in this pervasive use of humanity in such a way that we treat it as a mere means to our ends

yes - it accords better with but not perfectly with intuitions/everyday actions it also maximizes wellbeing in the long run even if it violates rules in isolated cases maximizes wellbeing in this case

does rule utilitarianism do a better job at capturing our intuition that some actions are just plain wrong? does rule utilitarianism accord perfectly with those intuitions? why or why not?

unsatisfactory reasons to be moral

doesnt or cant explain why atheists are motivated to behave morally makes atheists irrational when they behave morally (bc they are acting for no reason) our motive should be attuned to the quality of the act: do it because it is the right thing to do (or dont do it because it is the wrong thing to do) we want to think of people when committing actions and not a divine being judging us - do something because its the right thing to do

divine command theory motivation is unsatisfactory

doesnt or cant explain why atheists are motivated to behave morally makes atheists irrational when they behave morally (because they are acting for no reason) our motive should be attuned to the quality of the act: do it because it is the right thing to do (or dont do it because it is the wrong thing to do) we want to think of people when committing actions and not a divine being judging us - do something because its the right thing to do

reason alone provides the motivation to do ones own duty

doing what is right because it is right - reason provides you with motivation recognize duty and this recognition moves you to act (its your duty) you do it because its your dity even if it also serves a desire ex: parents providing for their children duty is providing for your child through love, support, schooling, food, etc motivation would be love of child many parents also recognize its their duty to care for child

how do we know that a rule like dont commit murdre cannot be dreived from ethical egoism's principle of self interest

dont commit murder - EE doesnt offer an explanation of why murder is wrong the reason not to kill isnt that you are facing consequences but what happens to the perpretrator explanation centers on the murderer not the victim in a direct objection to EE

objection to the response of the takes one to know one objection

e: true but virtue ethics claims to offer an account of how people gain moral wisdom to become virtuous explanation is deeply problematic -- follow the role models but this goes back to how to find role models? have to be far along evouhg in virtuous journey to be able to properly identify virtuous role models

argrument from moral disagreement: therefore what is morally right or morally wrong can only be settled within a given culture

each culture is correct

impartiality

each person counts for one, you dont give yourself (or your family) special extra weight - no bias towards any one person (even you count as one and no more) in situations have to look at who is involved in the action (including strangers)

individual moral relativism

each person decides for themselves whats right/wrong no legit grounds for saying someones morals are wrong (no grounds to condemn action - declare morals objectively wrong)

aristotle's doctrine of the mean

each virtue is an intermediate state between 2 vices one of excess and the other of deficiency whenever a virtuous person performs a virtuous act they can be described as aiming at an act that is in a sense intermediate between 2 extremes: excess and deficiency

where things stan with EE

ee: the only moral principle is self interest - each person should do what is in their own best interest exclusively plausibly a duty to do what is in your own best interest is one among other moral principles

end in the negative sense

end in the negative sense lays down a law for me as well, and so guides action, but in a different way. We do not try to produce our self-preservation. Rather, the end of self-preservation prevents us from engaging in certain kinds of activities, for instance, picking fights with mobsters, and so on. That is, as an end, it is something I do not act against in pursuing my positive ends, rather than something I produce. Humanity is in the first instance an end in this negative sense: It is something that limits what I may do in pursuit of my other ends, similar to the way that my end of self-preservation limits what I may do in pursuit of other ends. Insofar as it limits my actions, it is a source of perfect duties. Now many of our ends are subjective in that they are not ends that every rational being must have. Humanity is an objective end, because it is an end that every rational being must have. Hence, my own humanity as well as the humanity of others limit what I am morally permitted to do when I pursue my other, non-mandatory, ends.

thinkers associated with utilitarianism

eremy bentham (1748-1832) father of utilitarianism hedonistic john stuart mill (1806-1873) was bentham's godson

.

ethical egoism is a type of moral universalism

the goal of moral education

eventually we are able to... critically evaluate the values the virtues reflect resolve inconsistencies in what weve been taught, to arrive at a deeper, more unified understanding of a virtue ex: a courageous act could be facing your fear or could be to walk away depending on the persons moral sophistication and the situation they are in understand the reasons on which a virtuous person acts and to be responsive to similar reasons for acting when we encounter them articulate this justification for acting to others this requires emotional maturity, life experiences and developed practical reasoning -- only well developed adults can be virtuous, morally developed people

how do we object to the argument from tolerance

every society should be tolernat even of those intolerant ones so some societies should support in tolerance being tolerant of other cultures is a universal moral principle (every culture SHOULD BE morally tolerant) CMR says that there are no universal moral principles so they CANT say this

kants conception of a will

everyone has a will but not everyone has a good will

doctrine of the mean

everything in moderation each virtue is an intermediate state between 2 vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency whenever a virtuous person performs a virtuous act (they are acting in characteR) they can be described as aiming at an act that is in a sense intermediate between 2 extremes when you possess a virtue you are disposed to choose an act between the extremes of deficiency and excess ex: courage, temperance, generousity

psychological egoism

everything is done selfishly even if it helps someone else

reason for thinking pe is true

everything we do seems to be aimed at some benefit to ourselves even those actions that appear to be altruistic and self sacrificing in those cases we get satisfaction from helping we feel good about ourselves we gain happiness or pleasure so in the end we are only capable of doing things in order to benefit ourselves

moral relativism #4: "...social reformers of every sort would always be wrong" (pg. 28, right side)

ex.) antigenocide reformers, abolitionists, suffragettes if our society decided to adopt the standard and practice of ex.) murdering certain people in our society, to resist this would be immoral but our natural reaction is that it would be immoral not to resist

moral relativism #3: there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures

ex.) giving women same rights as men is changing their minds Vaughn: "for moral relativists there is no objective standard by which to compare the ways of the past with the ways of the present" (p. 29, right side) cultural relativism can only say that these are cases of a society changing its mind as opposed to becoming enlightened there is no truth, no progress or moving to a truth because there was no truth

component 4 of virtue: identity: possessing a virtue is part of your self identity, who you see yourself as. if you dont yet have the virtue, possessing it is part of the person you aspire to be, an ideal you hope to live up to

ex: a compassionate person - if you take out an appendix you are the same person it doesnt affect you -- if you take out a virtue you posess you will become a different person and maybe not for the better

component 2 of virtue: dispositional: you have a tendency to act in a way that fits the virtue and be motivated by certain reasons

ex: a compassionate person is strongly inclined to act with compassion; to think about others needs and be motivated to help others thinks about the person they are dealing with and if theyre being treated fairly - if their needs are being considered

component 1 of virtue: affective: youre prone to having certain emotional responses to certain things

ex: a compassionate person will feel disgust/anger towards cruelty

component 3 of virtue: intellectual: possessing a virtue affects how you reason, what you pay attention to in a given situation and what reasons you consider worth acting on

ex: a compassionate person will pay attention to how other people feel, be alert to what needs they have, and think other peoples interests are worht respecting

point 4 of whats wrong with EE: it can forbid us from doing things that seem clearly morally good

ex: actions involving self sacrifice, being kind to others, keeping promises, when none of these benefits us you dont have to help someone if you dont want to or dont get what you want from it (violating parole & helping someone would put you in the paper and therefore in jail) helping someone could be to your detriment bc you were out of state and violating parole shouldnt do it

point 5 of whats wrong with EE: it permits us to escape what appears to be very important moral duties

ex: duty of an easy rescue, saving someone at little or no cost to us ex: at a restuarant and someone chokes, you could stop eating and help them but that means you are disrupting your meal EE allows you to not help and continue eating your meal dont have to do it

example of no action intrinsically wrong for act utilitarians

ex: torturing an innocent child - maybe if the child was a child of a terrorist only way to stop the bombing is to torture the child so the terrorist tells us where the bombs are located in time to stop them -- act u would say torturing this kid is a requirement act u cant recognize torturing a child as morally wrong if it is fulfilling the requirement we would torture the kid and now it was morally wrong but an act u would torture the kid and believe that it was morally right

do nothing - dont tell anyone if something is going on (may help some but would harm in case of cheating on exams, fraud, etc) talk to person - dont do it aka report to an authority (stop crimes, report crimes, join in and cheat tell the professor

example of applying rule u moral standard: suppose you know someone who is planning to cheat on the next exam. whats the morally right thing to do according to rule utilitarianism? first, what are your options/actions you can take compare rules by comparing societies - society that adopts rule 1 vs society that adopts rule 2 vs society that adopts rule 3

what is a virtue

examples: justice/fairness honesty ambition (proper) patience/good temper friendliness modesty/humility generosity loyalty temperance (in indulging ones desires) courage virtue: a complex character trait with four components

moral education: how do you think children learn and grow up to be kind, generous, caring, respectful, loyal, careful not to hurt others

experiences of sharing role models - parents societal expectations - kinds of behaviors that are permissible and encouraged religious community discipline - consequences/punishment telling - rules to follow like wash your hands learning through stories, movies, tv, technology

problem 1 of option 1 of dilemma: makes Gods commands and choices arbitrary

f Gods commands and prohibitions define morality then before God commanded honesty it was neither right nor wrong God could have selected dishonesty instead but because they are morally neutral before God makes his choice nothing counts in favor of one over the other so the choice is arbitrary - up to Gods whim (like flipping a coin to make a decision) note this response isnt open to us: God chose to command honesty is becuase it is good/practical/in our best interest/promotes harmony God commands honesty ------> honesty is morally right Why? Why? Honesty is.... good practical in our best interest promotes harmony honesty is morally right becuase it is good, practical, in our best interest, promotes harmony God is only a conduit divine command theorist cant say this because they believe that God commands it full stop

failing the test 2 ways

fail step 3: contradiction in conception - my action only works if im the only one doing it (only serves as a reason for me) im special and worth more value than any other human cause only i can perform this action - not treating other humans as an equal truth about morality - all humans are equal fail step 4: contradiction in willing - i cant rationally act on it (ex: i have a goal but i thwart my own efforts in a world where my action is universalized)

moral relativism # 1: dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way

for CMR there is nothing that is wrong or right simpliciter ex.) murder is wrong = murder is wrong for society y (murder is wrong for contemporary American society) ex.) charity is good = charity is good for society x (list all of the societies) when articulating moral principles has to be aimed at a particular culture -- always relativised _____________ is wrong for _____________ society the only possible disagreement is: whether a society is actually living up to its own professed standards cannibalism is wrong for us, but right for you cant have a dispute between cultures

consequence #1: dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards

for IMR, there is nothing that is wrong or right simpliciter: murder is wrong = murder is wrong for sabrina charity is good = charity is good for luke _____ is good/wrong = ______ is good/wrong for ______ these are perfectly compatible: capital punishment is morally permissible for george capital punishment is morally impermissible for hugo

what is the right reason for Kant

for Kant, its doing it from the motive of duty doing the right thing from the motive of duty

attraction 2 of utilitarianism: for the most part it fits with conventional moral wisdom

for the most part it fits with conventional moral wisdom we should be cautious becuase our intuitions can be mistaken they should be open to revision that can be rationally supported utilitarianism suggests revision in some cases ex: hawaiian vacy vs starving children its my money is morally permissable to use money for vacation act is saying to donate money to satisfy the principle our intuition is its up to use conflict between intuition and act u this example it makes sense to revise original opinion/intuition and change to what act u is saying when its okay: the revision leaves core moral beliefs intact while providing a reason for the revision revising to not okay to take the vacation and go to charity leaving core beliefs intact: value of an innocent human beings life/childrens lives

example of problem with justice

framing an innocent person to avoid a bloody riot 1991 - LA riots Rodney King led police officers on high speed chase through LA while he was on parole cops catch him, King starts resisting arrest but stops the violence of the cops increases and they brutally attack him - kicking, punching him, attacking with batons he begins laying down in fetal positions beating continues footage of beating from a guy who heard comotion and started to record using avhs video recorder officers and supervisor charged with assault w/ a deadly weapon and excessive use of force but acquitted

3 types of motivation

from duty for some further purpose (ex: shopkeeper) from immediate inclination (emotion, desire) (ex: sympathetic man)

attraction 3 of utilitarianism: act u provides a means of resolving conflicts

gives us a clear method for resolving difficult moral issues: do our best to figure out what would bring about the most good ex: promise to a dying man. is my duty to keep a promise greater than my duty to help someone in need family doesnt visit, has a son who is remaining family member -- man is super rich and hates financial institutions so he keep s the money in his basement give my son the money - the person promises to do so you know a person who was laid off due to disability and cant get other jobs - could house and other things 2 competing obligations: promise to dying man and a duty to help others act u: to hell with the dying man, take his money and give it to the family in need a single simple standard: principle of utility gives a clear cut answer

but for virtue ethics what counts as following the rule must be figured out on a case by case basis - it all depends on the circumstances

goes back to standing your ground can be good in one case and leaving can be good in another case wont know what to do just by following rules - have to think before you act in each case requires emotional intelligence, maturity and life experience - requires that you have that particular virtue in each instance morality is an imprecise discipline; it cant provide a decision procedure (method that allows us to reliably identify the right course of action in any situation)

maximizing

having the best results or consequences

# 1 of criteria of fully virtuous action

he agent must perfrom the action in accordance with the relevant virtue (ex: it must be a just act) but even if you perfrom a just act you are not necessarily a just person doesnt make you a just person just for performing acts - you dont actually have the virtue yet

bentham and mills brand of utilitarianism

hedonism instrumental good - good cause it gets something else (that something else is the one that is intrinsic good) ex: health - in good health, you are happier/can enjoy life more

importance of reason for your action

here we have a positive outcome but no real admiration just a sense of being lucky - Kant says this action has no moral worth (morally neutral - not morally good or bad - no moral value so the motivation determines the quality of the action and hence whether the action has any moral worth at all a certain type of reason for action makes an action a morally good one: doing the right thing for the right reason everything depends on what Kant believes the right reasons are

example of moral reasoning argument

heroin is a drug selling heroin is illegal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. therefore heroin use is immoral if premises dont support the conclusion..its not cogent

DCT is a deontological view - why?

hose actions commanded by God must be followed (are morally right) and because God commands them we must perform them (same goes for action God forbids) the fact that God commands us is what makes an action morally right/required; its not because of its consequences but because God commands it special property? being commanded by God

2 objections to virtue ethics

how do we determine who the moral exemplars are? who are the role models? pg. 266-267 in shafer-landau virtue ethics takes one to know one objection virtue ethics is at best a supplemental theory based on priority problem pg. 268-270 why we still need a theory about what makes actions right or wrong

1st objection to virtue ethics: takes one to know one objection

how do we determine who the moral exemplars are? who are the role models? pg. 266-267 in shafer-landau virtue ethics takes one to know one objection the virtuous person is a moral exemplar someone who sets the moral standard and serves as a role model we pick the role models based on how well they live up to our preexisting beliefs about right and wrong we are imperfect and have to find a role model - the right person to set the moral standard for us - hard because we arent fully virtuous but people can be virtuous even if we dont realize it lack of moral understanding on our part, could make us misidentify virtuous people and non virtous person picking the right models seems to require that we're already virtuous enough to know who is virtuous in order to pick our role models we have to be virtuous enough to find the proper role model

categorical imperative

1). without exception 2.) moral law 3.) it is a command of reason violating it amounts to a contradiction (irrationality) equating immorality with irrationality 4. it applies to all rational creatures (so is independent of your personal goals, desires, and what you care about) 5. particular applications can require knowing some facts about the world 6. principles that tell you what you must or must not do captures nicely the idea that morality applies to you no matter who you are or what you care about the categorical imperative has 3 different formulations but is 1 moral law

4 parts to principle of humanity

1. does not rule out using people as means to our ends. Clearly this would be an absurd demand, since we apparently do this all the time in morally appropriate ways. 2. it is not human beings per se but the "humanity" in human beings that we must treat as an end in itself 3. the idea of an end has three senses for Kant, two positive senses and a negative sense 4. requires "respect" for the humanity in persons.

CI universal law test steps

1. formulate your maxim clearly - state what you intend to do and why you intend to do it 2. recase it as a universal law governing all rational agents - all must act as yourself propose in the circumstances 3. is your maxim conceivable in a world governed by this law? can you formulate your maxim there? in short: can the action be performed by you if universalized 4. could you ratioinally will to act on your maxim in such a world? in short: given that i can perform the action even if universalized can i achieve the goal i have in performing the action?

3 advantages kantian ethics has over act utilitarianism

1. has no problem of injustice - never allowed to harm 1 person as means to an end 2. no problem of identifying certain actions as plain wrong irrespective of good that comes from it fails universal law test 3. morality based on genuine respect for whats special about people - capacity for reason/self direction/self governance

what are 2 possible responses a kantian ethicists could offer to try to respond to that problem? how well does each response address the problem

1. if rational creatures care about an infant then in harming this infant we are wronging the rational creatures that care about it aka the parents,family members etc infants still no intrinsic worth and if not cared for harm is okay 2. fetuses and infants have value in themselves because of potential to be rational agents fails universal law test #4 -- contradiction in will and leaves out those with no potential to be rational agents in the future

disanalogy

1. in case of virtue we develop our understanding along with developing emotions/ responses to be mature people 2. according to virtue ethics desire to be virtuous equals desire to live a flourishing human life - as long as we want to continue to live a human life we cant stop wanting to aspire to virtue

argument from psychological egoism for ethical egoism

1. morality can only require us to do what we are capable of doing (truism) 2. the only real motivation we are capable of having is to make ourselves better off (definition of psychological egoism) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. so, morality can only require us to make ourselves better off this is ethical egoism

5 points of good will, morality and rationality

1. reasoning aspect of our minds has 2 distinct jobs 2. the will - reason in its practical employment - practical reason

arguemnt from tolerance

1. the only way for societies to be tolerant of each other is for them to hold that the moral standards, values, and practices of other cultures are all equally good 2. Only cultural moral relativism takes the moral standards, values and practices of all cultures to be equally good ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. so, only cultural moral relativism ensures tolerance between all cultures

argument from moral disagreements

1. there are a great many very deep moral disagreements between cultures 2. the prospect of settling them seems very dim 3. so there seems to be no universal right answer in these cases (that covers all cultures) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. therefore what is morally right or morally wrong can only be settled within a given culture

consequence #4: IMR reduces our moral responses that conflict with another persons moral behavior or values to either

1939 Germany with Hitler have a moral response to his actions of killing people in horrific ways and forcing them into horrific situations our rage and anger comes from these actions a.) mere expression of an attitude or feeling (boos, hiss on what you did OR b.) pointing out that the standards the person holds or what she has done is inconsistent with our own personal statements ex.) Dexter believes in killing people who kill people (or are bad people, pedophiles) like serial killers so he is morally correct/right to kill them as long as he doesnt say that he is killing them because the serial killers are morally wrong hes a serial serial killer

problem of too demanding

3 dimensions action motivation deliberation

#4 of criteria of fully virtuous action

4. in order for the action to be fully virtuous, and possess it the "action must procced from a firm and unchanging character" (aristotle pg. 142) so the virtue is a fixed part of your character - already possess this virtue for your action to be fully compassionate you have to already be a compassionate person because of 4 fully virtuous actions are only performed by people who possess the relevant virtue ex: only those who possess the virtue of justice can perform fully just acts even if we dont yet possess the virtue we can still perform morally right actions (its just that they wont be fully virtuous)

what is wrong with ethical egoism

5 things 1. it doesnt offer a good explanation of why bad actions are bad 2. it reduces rules like "dont murder" "keep your promises" to rules of thumb 3. it can require some actions that seem very immoral 4. it can forbid us from doing things that seem clearly morally good 5. it permits us to escape what appears to be very important moral duties 2-5 go against deeply help common moral intuitions when that happens a moral theory can still be successful provided it explains why those intuitions are wrong and theres a solid positive argument showing why theory is true intuitions arent wrong ee is wrong

categorical imparatives

5 things without exception 1. it is the moral law 2. it is a command of reason violating it amounts to a contradiction (irrationality) equating immorality with irrationality fail to behave in accordance of law brings irrationality equating immorality with irrationality 3. it applies to all rational creatures (so is independent of your personal goals, desires, and what you care about) 4. particular applications can require knowing some facts about the world following the moral law and knowing what it amounts to requires knowledge/experience about world 5. principles that tell you what you must or must not do captures nicely the idea that morality applies to you no matter who you are or what you care about the categorical imperative has 3 different formulations but is 1 moral law

The most basic standards of right and wrong depend entirely on what standards are generally accepted in the society in which you live. Yes. The view Nagel is referring to is called cultural moral relativism, which is the view that what is morally right and wrong is so only within a culture and is determined entirely by the standards and values of that culture. Since this would be true for each culture, what is morally right or wrong can differ from culture to culture.

According to Nagel, which describes the view that morality is relative at a deep, basic level?

Social reformers of every sort, like Martin Luther King Jr., would always be morally wrong. Other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized or condemned for committing monstrous deeds like genocide, if those deeds accord with that culture's moral values. Since for cultural relativism there is no objective standard by which to compare the practices of the past with those of the present, cultural relativism cannot hold that there is such a thing as moral progress in a culture even when the culture does away with a practice like slavery. Every culture is morally infallible: if a culture genuinely holds that a certain practice is morally right, then it is and there's no way for them to be mistaken about this. all of the above

According to Vaughn, which of the following is an implication of, or a consequence of, cultural moral relativism? That is, if cultural moral relativism were true, which of these would follow?

To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because the view says that there are no objective moral values. If a culture approves of intolerance, then intolerance is right for that culture, according to cultural relativism. Cultural relativism therefore cannot consistently claim that tolerance is morally right everywhere.

According to Vaughn, which of the following is true about the relationship between the value of tolerance toward cultures and cultural moral relativism

What explains why, in general, we should avoid harming other people, tell the truth, and keep our promises is that it is in our own best interest if we do so.

According to the third argument for ethical egoism that Rachels considers, ethical egoism's principle of self-interest is the one fundamental principle from which all other rules, like don't harm others, speak the truth, and keep your promises, are derived. Which of the following helps explain what it means for other rules to be "derived from the principle of self-interest"?

what makes an action morally right or wrong, theory review

DCT: right action defined as commanded by God EE: right action is one that actually serves the agents own best interest IMR: right action is what accords with the agents own beliefs and values CMR: right if the action accords with the standards and values of the agents culture

summary of theories already learned

DCT: right action defined as commanded by God EE: right action is one that actually serves the agents own best interest IMR: right action is what accords with the agents own beliefs and values CMR: right if the action accords with the standards and values of the agents culture DCT: right action defined by god ACT U: action is moraly right if it maximizes overall wellbeing RULE U: action is morally right if it adheres to rules that if generally adopted would maximize overall wellbeing

objection to claim 2 in unifying thesis: EE explains why we should follow these rules: following them serves the agents best interest

EE doesnt offer a good explanation of why horrible actions are bad: why murder is wrong, why torturing is wrong the reason not to torture, rape, or murder someone, is not because you are likely to face negative consequences (eg. jail, death penalty) EE locates the badness of these actions in what could happen to the perpetrator rather than what it does to the victim explanation of why murder is wrong centers on the murderer and not the victim (we think murder is wrong because of the victim) direct objection to ethical egoism

People who don't believe in God still think it's wrong to kill someone just for his wallet and therefore wouldn't do it. If God exists, and forbids what's wrong, that still isn't what makes it wrong. Murder is wrong in itself, and that's why God forbids it. Fear of punishment and hope of reward, and even love of God, seem not to be the right motives for morality. *God in fact does not exist.

Nagel considers the claim that the motive for not killing someone just to steal his wallet is the desire to obey God and avoid God's punishment after one dies. Which of the following is NOT an objection Nagel raises against this claim?

true

T/F: According to Socrates's, if God's command that we be truthful is what makes truthfulness right, then apart from the divine command to be truthful, truth telling is neither good nor bad. True or false: this represents God's commands as arbitrary.

true

T/F: According to ethical egoism, our only moral duty is to do what is in our own best interest.

true

T/F: According to the Divine Command Theory, "morally right" means "commanded by God" and "morally wrong" means "prohibited or forbidden by God."

true

T/F: Consider the following example. Suppose a young man visits his elderly, bedridden father. When he sees that no one else is around, he uses a pillow to smother the old man in order to collect on his life insurance. Suppose also that the action is in the son's best interests; it will cause not the least bit of unpleasant feelings in him; and the crime will remain his own terrible secret. According to ethical egoism, this heinous act is morally right.

false

T/F: Ethical egoism just is psychological egoism, that is, they are different names for the same view.

true

T/F: Nagel thinks that the ideas of wrong and right are different from what is and is not against rules made by people, like a library's rules or the government's laws.

true

T/F: Psychological egoism is the view that the motive for all our actions is self-interest.

true

T/F: Sometimes people say, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" to try to convince someone not to mistreat others. Is the following a good representation of the real argument Nagel thinks this question is trying to get at? When someone mistreats you, this hurts you (in some way) and you believe that because you are harmed this should be reason enough for her not to do it in the first place. But there's nothing special about you or your pain, so this should also count as a reason for her not to do it to anyone. But then there's nothing special about her either. She is just like you, so the reason she has not to hurt people in this way also counts as a reason for you not to hurt people in this way, so you shouldn't do it either.

true

T/F: The following are grounds on which rule consequentialism could permit a certain degree of partiality in our treatment of others: If policies that allow us to give preferential treatment to those people closest to us tend to maximize overall wellbeing in society, then rule consequentialism would advocate these rules.

true

T/F: Vaughn thinks that the premise, people's judgments about right and wrong vary from culture to culture, is most certainly true.

Suppose Culture A endorses infanticide, but Culture B does not. Such a disagreement does not demonstrate that both cultures are equally correct or that there is no objectively correct answer. After all, it is possible that infanticide is objectively right (or wrong) and that the relevant moral beliefs of Culture A or Culture B are false. People can differ in their moral judgments not just because they accept different moral principles, but also because they have divergent nonmoral beliefs. They may actually embrace the same moral principles, but their moral judgments conflict because their nonmoral beliefs lead them to apply those principles in different ways. So the diversity of moral judgments across cultures does not necessarily indicate deep disagreements over fundamental moral principles or standards. Some philosophers argue that a core set of moral values -including, for example, truth telling and prohibitions against murder -must be universal, otherwise cultures would not survive.

What reason(s) does Vaughn give for thinking that the following premise is false or doubtful? If people's judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective [and universal] moral principles.

Justice is intrinsically valuable.

Which of the following responses to the problem of injustice is NOT consistent with act utilitarianism?

virtue ethics

a different starting point most moral theories: what is the right thing to do? ID what is morally right and apply it to other situations virtue ethics: what kind of person should I be? wanna aspire to be a good person is in its own category (not consequentialist view or deontological) Aristole created this ethical theory a family of theories that traces its roots (in the west) back to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle Aristotle: 384-322 BC Socrates - Plato - Aristotle the aim of these theories: discover the conditions and character traits that contribute to human flourishing

mill: "its better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisified; better to be socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. and if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion it is because they only know their own side of the question. the other party to the comparison knows both sides"

a human being who tries to set goals, betters themselves, acquires knowledge, challenge themselves, it isnt pleasant the whole time (gonna be hard to reach goals, especially worthwhile goals,) youll be dissatisifed, but even these moments of happiness and pursuit of worthy goals are still a deeper satisification than someone who doesnt challenge themselves and sits on the couch watching reality shows

importance of reason for the action - ex: save someone by chance

a person gets locked in a walk in freezer by accident - in the course of shutting down for the day, you go in there to put stuff away and find the person no intention to save, but the outcome and consequences are good outcome is good but there is no moral element to your action - why? there was no motivation to save them here we have a positive outcome but no real admiration just a sense of being lucky - Kant says this action has no moral worth (morally neutral - not morally good or bad - no moral value)

violation of rights

a right is (at least temporarily) wholly denied someone is jailed - freedom is temporarily denied but a justifiable reason because they committed a crime some violation of rights are unjustifiable

rule utilitarianism basic moral principle

a rule is amorally good rule if and only if the consequences of its general adoption promotes wellbeing better than those of the adoption of any alternative rule the rule must be justified by its utility an action is morally right if it adheres to rules that if adopted generally would maximize overall wellbeing

divine command theory cant...

abandons DCT DCT: what makes something morally right is simply the fact that God commands it. What makes something morally wrong is simply that God forbids it divine command theory cant ask why or have a reason that comes before God commands honesty honesty is morally good --God commands honesty -- honesty is morally good this cant be here and you cant ask why if youre a divine command theorist God in his inifinite wisdom sees whats right and commands us to do it out of his love for us. but this is not the same thing as saying that his commandments make these actions morally right

points of disagreement from abortion example

abortion murder is wrong health of woman harm of innocent life nonmoral facts whats a person? does fetus feel pain?

what is the objection to the following: the reason why one should follow rules like dont commit murder is that following them serves ones own best interest?

according to EE - sometimes it is in your best interest to murder someone/treat someone badly to follow the principle of self interest you have to kill

problem of measuring wellbeing

according to act u principle of utility is the basic principle of morality how to calculate wellbeing when the principle affects people in different ways? the principle of utility has us calculate wellbeing to determine what our duty is. we are to compare the measure of wellbeing of each option open to us but wellbeing isnt strictly quantifiable it cant provide concrete advice in difficult cases

unifying thesis

according to common sense moral intuitions these are moral rules people should follow 2 claims from unifying thesis: q. all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, ethical egoisms principle of self interest, and so explains what they all have in common based on 3rd argument, Rachels pg. 71-72 2. EE explains why we should follow these rules: following them serves the agents best interest following common sense morality rules is in our best interest - breaking them is to our detriment

a. the action is in conformity with duty b. its done from motive of duty - recognition that action is morally required

according to kant what 2 things are required for an action to have moral worth

act utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices.

according to the argument from injustice

god made these commands and morally good earns you a place in heaven (potentially)

according to the divine command theory why are people motivated to behave in morally ethical ways

there is no essential connection between the morality of an action and the morality of the intentions behind it.

according to utilitarianism

universal law formulation

act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law act only according to maxim while at the same itme willing that it becomes a universal law if you are committing an action based on maxims and other people can do the same action using those same actions then you are acting morally right it would then be rational for you to want everyone to do this action as well - make a law

act utilitarianism justification

act u gives a justification a reason for the violation - it optimizes overall wellbeing but in such examples this reason doesnt seem to be sufficient enough (insufficient) so the violation appears unjust

framing a person to avoid a bloody riot ex:

act u would require us to do this say the 4 police officers fled to mexico, never to be found. frame 4 innocent police officers to avoid a bloody riot - no where near south central la when rodney king was beat make sure evidence is good and they get convicted their autonomy and freedom would be unjustifiable violated; they didnt do it prevents riots but violates freedom of officers

comparing act u to rule u

act u: assesses the rughtness or wrongness of each individual action directly by the goodness or badness of their consequences the objects of moral assessment are particular actions rule utilitarianism: considers the consequences of adopting a general rule of conduct tells us directly when a rule is a morally good rule the objects of moral assessment are general rules governing action (rules of conduct) it tells us indirectly what actions are right: when the action abides by the morally good rules

only one absolute moral rule: the principle of utility.

act utilitarians believe in

according to virtue ethics what is the general process of moral education and what is the goal

how do you think children learn and grow up to be kind, generous, caring, respectful, loyal, careful not to hurt others? experiences of sharing role models - parents societal expectations - kinds of behaviors that are permissible and encouraged religious community discipline - consequences/punishment telling - rules to follow like wash your hands learning through stories, movies, tv, technology how to acquire virtue? because a virtue is a complex character trait you cant simply be told how to be virtuous no principles you can blindly follow can only be acquried through training, practice and experience first, rule following, model following, and habit formation, then eventually, moral understanding children are told what to do, given rules and role models to follow at the same time, parents, teachers and society try to teach us why we should do these things and not others ex: because sharing is generous and being cruel is unjust ideally as we are habituated to acting in accordance with virtues we are taught to think for ourselves about why we should act in accordance with these virtues goal of moral education eventually we are able to... critically evaluate the values the virtues reflect resolve inconsistencies in what weve been taught, to arrive at a deeper, more unified understanding of a virtue ex: a courageous act could be facing your fear or could be to walk away depending on the persons moral sophistication and the situation they are in understand the reasons on which a virtuous person acts and to be responsive to similar reasons for acting when we encounter them articulate this justification for acting to others this requires emotional maturity, life experiences and developed practical reasoning -- only well developed adults can be virtuous, morally developed people

it puts your actions into moral situations for other people

how does act utilitarianism turn everyday practical matters into things that have moral significance

it can avoid act u's moral saints problem (too demanding in what asks us to do) famine relief: act u can require us to give up all of our spare time and money as long as people are in dire need rule: you should give 5% of your income to famine relief competing rules: you should give no money to famine relief you should give all the money you do not need to strictly survive to famine relief decide how to help those in need on a smaller basis

how does rule utilitariamisn avoid act u's moral saints problem

its impermissible to frame/punish an innocent person impermissible to violate peoples rights

how does rule utilitarianism avoid act u's problem of injustice

rightness of an action depends on amount of pleasure it produces and amount of pain it prevents

how is it that mills hedonistic act utilitarianism really amounts to the act utilitarianism we are studying whose fundamental principle is the principle of utility

eudaimonia

human flourishing, excellence; living a human life excellently the ultimate aim of a human life happiness, or flourishing

act u #3 vs kantian ethics #3

human life has value only because of the state of consciousness they are able to experience and produce: happiness and wellbeing only intrinsic good is value of sentient creatures its a morality based on genuine respect for people (as autonomous rational creatures) seems to be based on genuine respect for whats specicial about people - capacity for reason and self direction and self governance

end in the 2nd positive sense

humanity in myself and others is also a positive end, though not in the first positive sense above, as something to be produced by my actions. Rather, it is something to realize, cultivate or further by my actions. Becoming a philosopher, pianist or novelist might be my end in this sense. humanity in oneself is the source of a duty to develop one's talents or to "perfect" one's humanity. When one makes one's own humanity one's end, one pursues its development, much as when one makes becoming a pianist one's end, one pursues the development of piano playing. And insofar as humanity is a positive end in others, I must attempt to further their ends as well. In so doing, I further the humanity in others, by helping further the projects and ends that they have willingly adopted for themselves. It is this sense of humanity as an end-in-itself on which some of Kant's arguments for imperfect duties rely.

no because each culture decides what is morally right or morally wrong for that culture

ic cultural moral relativism is true is it possible for some cultures to be mistaken about what is morally right and what is morally wrong

to apply act utilitarianism

identify the available options and who is potentially affected by these options consider each option in turn determining its net utility choose that option which is likely to bring about the greatest balance of good over harm for the audience if applied correctly, the action chosen will be justified by act utilitarianism

pe for ee #1: morality can only require us to do what we are capable of doing (truism)

ie. we can never be morally obligated to do something that we cannot possibly do morality: how humans treat each other (and animals) and how they should behave have to be able to do as it dictates -- be moral not harming someone because as a human you should have respect for them motivation for not harming others is your respect for humans

psychological egoism

iew that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation so the description can be true or false (claim is it is true) claim: the real reason why we do anything is to benefit ourselves

act u #2 vs kantian ethics #2

if a persons death can be maximize overall wellbeing then we are morally required to do it even if they dont deserve it torturing an innocent person, torturing a terrorists child to save thousands of people no action is intrinsically wrong for au it has no problem of identifying certain actions as just plain wrong irrespective of the good that may come of it murder, torture, coercion, deceit may fail universal law test - actions will never be acceptable according to both principles of universal law and principle of humanity

no ee says any action should be in our best interest -- not that they automatically are which is what PE kinda says PE: view that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation

if ethical egoism is true would that mean psychological egoism must be true too?

no becuase morally right or wrong is an individual choice for every person

if moral universalism is true is it possible for some cultures to be mistaken about what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

yes - if all actions are selfishly based and we benefit from them then ee (acting in best interest) would be correct - benefiting is in our best interest

if psychological egoism is true would that mean that ethical egoism must be true too?

analogy with learning a practical skill

ike car repair, plumbing, carpentry theres a progression from mechanical rule or model following to greater understanding of the expert (whose responses are sensitive particularities of situations) the analogy stresses 2 important points about moral education: requires that you learn from others and by practicing and habit forming you come to think and understand for yourself (to graduate to an expert) but there are 2 points of disanalogy in the case of virtue we develop our understanding along with developing our emotions and responses becoming mature people according to virtue ethics, desire to be virtuous equals the desire to live a flourishing human life. as long as we continue to want to live a human life we cannt stop wanting to aspire to virtue

attractions of utilitarianism

impartiality fits with conventional moral wisdom resolving conflicts moral flexibiltiy defines our moral community

maxim

is like a personal policy for action, a principle for action personal policy because people perform different actions and have differernt reasoning for those actions a maxim will be particular to each individual person identified reason R is sufficient grounds for action X under the conditions C this reason is enough to do this action under these circumstances ex: R is wanting food, X is going to the store, C is when theres no food at home wanting food is sufficient enough to go to the store under the conditions of theres no food/empy fridge

moral universalist view -- universal, objective, makes a claim about the world

is the divine command theory a moral universalist view why/why not

advantages over act utilitarianism

it accords better (but not perfectly) with everyday actions avoids act u problem of injustice for most part rule u asks: will a society be better off with these rules than any competing rule? yes

advantage of rule u: avoids act u's moral saints problem

it can avoid act u's moral saints problem (too demanding in what asks us to do) famine relief: act u can require us to give up all of our spare time and money as long as people are in dire need rule: you should give 5% of your income to famine relief competing rules: you should give no money to famine relief you should give all the money you do not need to strictly survive to famine relief

consequence #3: for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress

it can only say that these are cases of an individual changing her mind as opposed to becoming enlightened but there are counterexamples all over the place people change through reflection and weighing the evidence a bigot facing hard truths about themselves and changing through moral reflection and evidence to become against bigotry

virtue ethic is a complex character trait because

it depends on the person elements are: effective, dispositional, intellectual, identity

kantian ethics vs difficutlies for act u

it has no problem of justice (Act u does) using people as a means to the end violates principle of humanity - never allowed to harm 1 person/group of people as a means to the end not something a rational creature would consent to it has no problem of identifying certain actions as just plain wrong irrespective of the good that may come of it murder, torture, coercion, deceit may fail universal law test - actions will never be acceptable according to both principles of universal law and principle of humanity its a morality based on genuine respect for people (as autonomous rational creatures) seems to be based on genuine respect for whats specicial about people - capacity for reason and self direction and self governance

three notes about ethical egoism

it is a type of moral universalism it is just that following this standard will be different for different people based on personal likes and dislikes and personal goals - in their best interest young beyonce would be following her moral duty to become a singer cause she has talent and enjoys all thats involved helping others is only morally required if it serves our best interests it is not a hedonist view: it doesnt say we should pursue what is pleasurable or what makes us happy. it tells us we are to pursue what is actually good for us

no action is intrinsically wrong for act u

it is a very deep belief that certain actions are just plain wrong, independently of any good that may be produced only thing of intrinsic value is sentient creatures intrinsic good is happiness of sentient creatures intrinsic bad is suffering/pain of sentient creatures but regular people believe that there are moral rules that are just plain wrong

JJC smarts objection #1: as a utilitarian veiw what justifies the moral rules set out by rule u is that their general adherence maximizes wellbeing

it is committed to the goal of maximizing wellbeing

2nd part of principle of humanity

it is not human beings per se but the "humanity" in human beings that we must treat as an end in itself "humanity" is that collection of features that make us distinctively human, and these include capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior and to adopt and pursue our own ends, and any other rational capacities necessarily connected with these

exapmples of common sense moral rules people should follow

it is wrong to murder someon e keep your promises be kind to others dont waste your talents/develop them

deliberation - objection

it seems to require complicated calculations that are difficult to perform in a timely manner list all our options determine the balance of wellbeing each is likely to produce, then compare

motivation - objective 1

it seems to require us to be motivated to pursue global wellbeing at all times (is it ever moral to want to pursue our own projects?) we should do our duty which in this case is global wellbeing -- be motivated every moment to do what we can by donating our money or time pits our interests against others

advantage 2:

its impermissble to frame or punish innocent people itsimpermissible to violate peoples rights

deontological theories

kantian ethics DCT

advantages kantian ethics has over act u

kantian ethics, a human life is valubale because it houses rational life we are able to reason, hence, have our own goals, make decisions, and to govern ourselves (autonomy) both principles respect the ability to reason and guide ones behavior in light of reason as an intrinsic value the universal law formulation - ensures your reason for action can be a reason for everyone to act on reason for acting has to be justifiable to everyone (Everyone would accept your reason for acting) the principle of humanity - ensures you treat each rational autonomous creatures as such in a way that they can rationally consent to allow them possibilty of rationally htinking about maxims and that the maxims would be something they would consent to consent implies that the person is aware of your intention (maybe not explicitly said) and entails that they agree to this as a rational creature

motive of duty - ex: shopkeeper

local mom and pop store owner gives correct change and doesnt overcharge but only because that way he gets and keeps more customers he does whats right but only as a means to some further end (ex: prospering business) this action is merely in conformity with duty but this action has no moral worth cause its not done in the motive of duty

pe for ee #2:

made yourself feel better for doing something you are making yourself better off

serious problems for kantian ethics

mattering in a moral sense is tied directly to rational capacity our rationality makes it immoral to infringe on our rights ie treat us in a way that limit, manipulate or violate our capacity to reason and self direct moral community - anyone who thinks rationally not in moral community - creatures who cant think rationally leaves out all creatures that lack rationality fetuses, infants, severely mentally disabled, senile folks, people in comas, animals having no rights, were free to mistreat them to us harm is morally wrong to kant yes youre harming them but its not morally wrong principle of humanity doesnt apply here because they arent rational creatures however, act u can recognize the moral duties of these people who lack rationality

what is the serious problem that kantian ethics has which was highlighted in class

mattering in a moral sense, is tied directly to rational capacity leaves out creatures that lack rationality fetuses, infants, severely mentally disabled, senile folks, coma patients, animals

problems of act utilitarianism

measuring wellbeing impartiality too demanding

there is no precise unit of happiness. there might be multiple things that directly contribute to wellbeing. there doesn't seem to be any method to compare the quantities of different benefits.

measuring wellbeing is difficult for act utilitarians because

action - objection 2

merely practical matters now become a moral matter ex: which grocery store should I go to? the local mom and pop store or the superwalmart? if you dont shop at the local store they may close and its morally your problem the superwalmart can survive without your support

decision procedure

method that allows us to reliably make the right decisions about what to do

intellect imagination creativity

mill thinks that some pleasures are more valuable and more pleasurable than others - which pleasures are these and why does he think they are more pleasurable than others

attraction 5 of utilitarianism: defines our moral community

moral community: the group of individuals whose needs and interests are morally important who matters, who has moral value to us? a being that is able to experience wellbeing and suffering is a member of the moral community - sentient creatures (animals) in telling us whose wellbeing we must consider when calculating the morality of a given action it defines who is included in the moral community

argrument from moral disagreement: so there seems to be no universal right answer in these cases (that covers all cultures)

moral disputes suffer when compared with scientific disputes

2 ways in which moral education is like learning a practical skill like carpentry

moral education - learn from others and by practicing and habit forming you come to think and understand for yourself (to graduate to an expert)

in order to pursue moral obligations we must pursue globabl wellbeing as a full time job

moral saints problem

deontology

morality of an action should be based on whether an action itself it right/wrong under series of rules rather than based on consequences of an action

offers an account of the motivation to be moral

motivated to be moral because God makes these commandments why act in a morally good way why care about being moral? becuase you have to earn your place in heaven without the fear of eternal punishment or the desire for eternal reward people have no reason to be moral (if they can get away with it) this is unsatisfactory in at least 2 ways

but regular people believe that there are moral rules that are just plain wrong

murder rape torture enslavement these actions are intrinsically wrong simply in virture of the kidn of action it is act u because it only ids value of sentient creatures as morally good it doesnt see these as intrinsically bad wouldnt act us think murder/torture is intrinsically bad? there are very very rare cases where performing these actions is your moral duty

point 3 of whats wrong with EE: it can require some actions that seem very immoral

murderer easily frames another person for their murder requires you to frame because it would be to your benefit

moral infallibility

no persons moral beliefs are wrong

objection to the argument from moral disagreements

not accurate; leaves large amount of agreement unexplained objection to #3: actually opposite of 3 may be true (moral agreement) objection to #4: now claim is unsupported - serious holes in argument

be able to know all the theories and apply them to situations/questions

not just definitions and steps

the study of ethics; the what -- moral claims examples

not proper teachings but some basic examples of things exs.) wrong to deliberately physically harm someone without justification (morally wrong) morally obligated to provide for our children wrong to coerce somebody suicide is morally impermissible lying is morally wrong stealing is morally wrong good to give to charity but not morally required

attraction 2 of utilitarianism: for the most part it fits with conventional moral wisdom//paradigms

offers a satisfying explanation why certain paradigm cases of immorality are wrong and why clear cases of moral behaviors are right paradigms of immorality slavery rape murder - morally wrong cause it harms people; goes against principle of humanity paradigms of moral behavior helping the ppor being honest being a good friend

the study of ethics - the how: moral reasoning

often takes form of evaluation of arguments argument why? because we want to know whats true and to be sure they are true - have solid grounds for the truth arguments provide those grounds ex.) argument is transformable

gods commands are arbitrary - it undermines the notion of gods perfection

one objection to the divine command theory is that it makes gods commands and prohibitions arbitrary - how does the divine command theory do that

one possible response for kantian ethics problem

one possible response: if a rational creatures cares about an infant, then in harming this infant we are wronging the rational creature that cares about it if someone punches a baby the parents will be mad 2 things wrong with this response the infant still has no intrinsic worth - its worth depends on the fact that a creature with intrinsic worth (a rational person) cares about it its okay for a person to mistreat an infant if no one cares about it ex. lost dogs, abandoned children, older adults who have no family left

responses to serious problems with kantian ethics

one possible response: if a rational creatures cares about an infant, then in harming this infant we are wronging the rational creature that cares about it second possible response: fetuses adn infants have value in themselves because of their potential to become rational agents

# 3 from tolerance: so, only cultural moral relativism ensures tolerance between all cultures

only CMR gives you A

# 2 from tolerance: Only cultural moral relativism takes the moral standards, values and practices of all cultures to be equally good

only CMR gives you B

in sum

only actions are done from a good will have moral worth (are moral) {otherwise, some actions are morally neutral or bad} bad actions not performed from good will since having a good will requires reasoning well morality applies to us because we are rational part of what it means to be rational: we have a reason for our action morality is a reason for our actions

principle of self interest

only moral duty you have is to do whats in your best interest (welfare)

# 1 from tolerance: he only way for societies to be tolerant of each other is for them to hold that the moral standards, values, and practices of other cultures are all equally good

only way to get to A is through B objection: if premise 1 were true then the society that valued intolerance would be as good as the ones that value tolerance in fact, adopting CMR is not a way to ensure societies are tolerant of one another

attraction 1 of utilitarianism: impartiality

opposite of impartiality is to be partial act utilitarianism builds impartialty - no special consideration over people equality is built into the utilitarian calculus: everyone counts for one and no more we have a moral obligation to strangers just as much as to our own family anf friends ex: hawaiian vacation for family or save 10 kids from starving for a couple of years? act utilitariansim says to give the money to the starving kids

look at chart picture thing

option 4 of principle of utility example is the best option because it maximizes well being

example of principle of utility : your friend who has a family needs $200 for the family car; you were going to buy a birthday present for your sister with that money. whats the morally right thing to do?

options: give friend $, no money for present buy present for sister split money between friend and sister give friend money and present later after birthday keep all the money for yourself

act u # 1 vs kantian ethics #1

people can be used as mere means to an end to maximize overall wellbeing framing an innocent person to avoid a bloody riot problem of injustice (problem with justice) it has no problem of justice (Act u does) using people as a means to the end violates principle of humanity - never allowed to harm 1 person/group of people as a means to the end not something a rational creature would consent to

difficulties for act u

people can be used as mere means to an end to maximize overall wellbeing framing an innocent person to avoid a bloody riot problem of injustice (problem with justice) if a persons death can be maximize overall wellbeing then we are morally required to do it even if they dont deserve it torturing an innocent person, torturing a terrorists child to save thousands of people no action is intrinsically wrong for au human life has value only because of the state of consciousness they are able to experience and produce: happiness and wellbeing only intrinsic good is value of sentient creatures

a maxim

personal policy of action

hedonism

pleasure/happiness is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad

higher pleasures are more desirable

pleasures of: intellect the imaginiation creativity are the ones that are more desirable the kinds of activities that promote human flourishing an action is morally required if and only if it does more to improve overall wellbeing than any other action you could have done in the circumstances

intellectual

possessing a virtue affects how you reason what you pay attention to in a given situation, what reasons you consider worth acting on

intellectual

possessing a virtue affects how you reason, what you pay attention to in a given situation and what reasons you consider worth acting on

identity

possessing a virtue is part of your self identity who you see yourslef as - if you dont yet have the virtue. possessing it is part of the person you aspire to be an ideal you hope to live up to

identity

possessing a virtue is part of your self identity, who you see yourself as. if you dont yet have the virtue possessing it is part of the person you aspire to be, an ideal you hope to live up to

consequentialism problems

problem: measuring wellbeing according to act u principle of utility is the basic principle of morality how to calculate wellbeing when the principle affects people in different ways? the principle of utility has us calculate wellbeing to determine what our duty is. we are to compare the measure of wellbeing of each option open to us but wellbeing isnt strictly quantifiable it cant provide concrete advice in difficult cases problem: impartiality "the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of whats right in conduct isnt the agents own happiness only but that of all concerned. as between his own happiness and that of others utilitarianisn requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator" (mill, pg. 96) the problem: sometimes the right thing to do requires partiality give them special treatment: family & friends ex: your son needs treatment for gum disease vs the 10 children whose lives you could save half a world away your son: * 10 kids would get the medicine they need to survive suffers physical pain feels emotionally hurt might resent you problem: too demanding 3 dimensions action objection 1: as long as some people lack basic needs (food, shelter, sanitary living conditions) we are morally obligated to give our excess money and free time to help even if we are financially unable to we are morally obligated to help people as long as people lack basic needs (no money, give your time) we must forgo luxuries for ourselves and our family what counts as a luxury? vacations, gifts, braces, computers, college education called moral saints problem: in order to pursue moral obligations we must pursue global wellbeing as a full time job objection 2: merely practical matters now become a moral matter ex: which grocery store should I go to? the local mom and pop store or the superwalmart? if you dont shop at the local store they may close and its morally your problem the superwalmart can survive without your support motivation objection 1: it seems to require us to be motivated to pursue global wellbeing at all times (is it ever moral to want to pursue our own projects?) we should do our duty which in this case is global wellbeing -- be motivated every moment to do what we can by donating our money or time pits our interests against others objection 2: while being motivated to pursue everyone's well being is admirable, sometimes its of the wrong motive ex: parent-child relationship - motive of love vs motive of maximizing wellbeing whatever we do, family or strangers we should do the right thing cause we want to maximize everyones wellbeing -- only moral motivation -- love isnt one of these response to objection: the principle of utility says nothing about how we should be motivated - it merely explains what our duty is and why act utilitarian can recognize these motivations satisfying the motive by caring for them and doing it out of love and concern if ____ motivation satisfies and maximizes wellbeing then act u says you have to use that motivation ex: TAHANI deliberation objection: it seems to require complicated calculations that are difficult to perform in a timely manner list all our options determine the balance of wellbeing each is likely to produce, then compare response to objection: wellbeing will decrease if we never come to a decision or delay too long, so sometimes spontaneity and quick actions are optimific we can also rely on conventional moral wisdom in a pinch time is of the essence, emergency situations (harmful situations) action that maximizes wellbeing is the action that you just do and not think about one thought too many objection - the ideal moral agent cooly calculates which option maximizes wellbeing and doesnt necessarily act out of love, generosity, symoathy, or compassion, but because of what the ulitly calculus dictates "what would the principle of utility have me do?" acts only out of what the result is combines motivation and deliberation mnemonic device for title: response to objection: the principle of utility is a standard of moral rightness not a decision procedure a standard of rightness tells us the conditions under which actions are morally right ex: principle of utility decision procedure: method that allows us to reliably make the right decisions about what to do act u isnt actually telling us which option to pick just that the right option maximizes overall wellbeing -- if this is real stance, then its an empty promise problem: no action is intrinsically wrong for act u it is a very deep belief that certain actions are just plain wrong, independently of any good that may be produced only thing of intrinsic value is sentient creatures intrinsic good is happiness of sentient creatures intrinsic bad is suffering/pain of sentient creatures but regular people believe that there are moral rules that are just plain wrong murder rape torture enslavement these actions are intrinsically wrong simply in virture of the kidn of action it is act u because it only ids value of sentient creatures as morally good it doesnt see these as intrinsically bad wouldnt act us think murder/torture is intrinsically bad? there are very very rare cases where performing these actions is your moral duty ex: torturing an innocent child - maybe if the child was a child of a terrorist only way to stop the bombing is to torture the child so the terrorist tells us where the bombs are located in time to stop them -- act u would say torturing this kid is a requirement act u cant recognize torturing a child as morally wrong if it is fulfilling the requirement we would torture the kid and now it was morally wrong but an act u would torture the kid and believe that it was morally right problem: justice the problem act u has with justice vocab: justice - respects the rights of each person injustice - the unjustificable violation or infringement of an individuals rights a right - an entitlement to act or to have another individual act in a certain way it is an entitlement not to be violated or infringed upon unjustifiably has to be vague to allow all the rights we as people have - some are how i behave (right to develop talents) some are how others treat you (right to not be mentally abused) violation of rights - a right is (at least temporarily) wholly denied someone is jailed - freedom is temporarily denied but a justifiable reason because they committed a crime infringement of rights - the ability to exercise a right is diminished criminal is now on parole - has to follow certain rules to keep good status has freedom back but it is diminshed - has its limits the problem: sometimes we must violate a persons rights in order to maximize wellbeing ex: framing an innocent person to avoid a bloody riot 1991 - LA riots Rodney King led police officers on high speed chase through LA while he was on parole cops catch him, King starts resisting arrest but stops the violence of the cops increases and they brutally attack him - kicking, punching him, attacking with batons footage of beating from a guy who heard comotion and started to record using avhs video recorder officers and supervisor charged with assault w/ a deadly weapon and excessive use of force but acquitted south central la vs police relationship terrible - race relations in general bad acquittal of police officers was injustice south central la erupted in a bloody riot - 55 people died 1 billion dollars in damage beating up innocent people ex: say the 4 police officers fled to mexico, never to be found. frame 4 innocent police officers to avoid a bloody riot their autonomy and freedom would be unjustifiable violated; they didnt do it important: act u gives a justification a reason for the violation - it optimizes overall wellbeing but in such examples this reason doesnt seem to be sufficient so the violation appears unjust

psychological egoism and ethical egoism are independment

psychological egoism is false you can hold that we are capable of altruism (= a rejection of psych egoism) but deny that we should be altruistic, ie. instead hold that we are morally obligated to look out for number one (Ethical Egoism)

example of rights ojbection to rule u: is it morally permissible for a society to have a purge from the perspective of rule utilitarianism?

purge: 1 day a year for 12 hours all crime is legal the govt does nothing to stop it depends on many factors: economically, politically, socially, morally, is it organized? etc look at how society would be better or worse if rights according to rule u were intrinsic there would be no conversation about this the answer to this question would be no

goodness

putting all of these together: a typical formulation an action (motive, policy) is morally right if and only if it does more to produce (forward looking, consequences) the amount of goodness (optimific) when compared (comparative) to the available alternativies (maximizing) an action or policy is morally right if and only if it produces the most good when compared to the available alternatives consequentialist views can differ over what is intrinsically valuable what counts as goodness? determines what we are to aim at and the standard by which to measure possible outcomes for utilitarianism the wellbeing of sentient creatures (humans, animals - capable of experiencing well being and pain/suffering) is the only intrinsic good; faring poorly is the only intrinsic bad intrinsic (good in and of itself) vs instrumental (good it has is in ability to procure something else; ex: money) for ethical egoism, wellbeing of the agent is the only intrinsic good; agents faring poorly is the only intrinsic bad consequentialist view

CI step 4: could you ratioinally will to act on your maxim in such a world? in short: given that i can perform the action even if universalized can i achieve the goal i have in performing the action?

rational willing if NO then your maxim suffers from a contradiction in willing and its your moral duty not to act on this maxim if YES then it is morally permissible to act on action your action can be universalized; treats others as equals and so to that extent is morally permissible ex: everyone lies on FAFSA, passes step 3 but fails step 4 because no one will get financial aid

a will

reason in practical employment

argument from moral disagreements

rejects moral universal - right/wrong is so fro individuals independently of culture

a good will

reliably know your duty and have a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake (reason well/using your mind)

4th part of principle of humanity

requires "respect" for the humanity in persons Proper regard for something with absolute value or worth requires respect for it. But this can invite misunderstandings. We are to respect human beings simply because they are persons and this requires a certain sort of regard. We are not called on to respect them insofar as they have met some standard of evaluation appropriate to persons. And, crucially for Kant, persons cannot lose their humanity by their misdeeds - even the most vicious persons, Kant thought, deserve basic respect as persons with humanity.

justice

respects the rights of each person

response to takes one to know one objection

response: every moral theory has this problem of how to gain moral wisdom how does one become a moral person/morally educated

moral universalism

right or wrong is for everyone individually of society who they are claims: universal, objectively true facts

examples of rights

right to life right to physical integrity (the right to not be harmed) right to autonomy (freedom, self rule) right to mental and emotional health right not to be deceived, cheated, stolen from right to not be defamed right to informed consent (medically speaking - cant treat unless they have your informed consent) right to try to own and to own property right to educationand further your skills

hedonistic act utilitarianism

rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent

2 objections to rule u

rights objection JJC smarts objection

rule utilitarianism objections

rights objection to rule u rule u does a better job of respecting peoples rights compared to act u but theres still something unsatisfying about rule u on rule u, rights are only instrumental not intrinsic (not recognized as rights as invaluble of themselves) its only because a society that respects rights is better than one that allows for their violation theres a difference in justification respecting rights because doing so optimizes wellbeing real reason to respect rights is because a society that respects rights has its wellbeing maximized respecting rights because a right is simply something not to be violated theyre valuable in and of themselves, intrinsically is it morally permissible for a society to have a purge from the perspective of rule utilitarianism? depends on many factors: economically, politically, socially, morally, is it organized? etc look at how society would be better or worse if rights according to rule u were intrinsic there would be no conversation about this the answer to this question would be no JJC Smarts objection rule u -- following certain rules helps meet goal of maximizing wellbeing as a utilitarian veiw what justifies the moral rules set out by rule u is that their general adherence maximizes wellbeing it is committed to the goal of maximizing wellbeing but sometimes wellbeing can be maximized by breaking the moral rules set out by rule u the maximization of overall wellbeing justifies breaking the rule sometimes you have to break the rules to maximize wellbeing like dying mans promise example - give money to ungrateful son or to family in dire need its incoherent to have a goal to maximize wellbeing but oppose an act that achieves this goal those instances in which you follow the rule even though breaking it would achieve your goal is simple rule mongering way to achieve goal is to break rule in certain circumstances - rule u says to follow the rule anyway even though it doesnt maximize wellbeing in this case---- problem like saying smoking is bad and i wont do it, as you are smoking a cigarette

an action is morally right just because it is required by an optimific social rule.

rule consequentialism is the view that

JJC Smart's objection to rule u

rule u -- following certain rules helps meet goal of maximizing wellbeing as a utilitarian veiw what justifies the moral rules set out by rule u is that their general adherence maximizes wellbeing but sometimes wellbeing can be maximized by breaking the moral rules set out by rule u its incoherent to have a goal to maximize wellbeing but oppose an act that achieves this goal

rights objection to rule u

rule u does a better job of respecting peoples rights compared to act u but theres still something unsatisfying about rule u on rule u, rights are only instrumental not intrinsic (not recognized as rights as invaluble of themselves) its only because a society that respects rights is better than one that allows for their violation theres a difference in justification respecting rights because doing so optimizes wellbeing real reason to respect rights is because a society that respects rights has its wellbeing maximized respecting rights because a right is simply something not to be violated theyre valuable in and of themselves, intrinsically

imperative

rule you should follow each one of these examples is a principle for acting - a maxim ex: goal (college), interests (basketball, travel) each one of these is a rational principle - rational maxim - for acting ex of irrational maxim - goal of doing well in college but you didnt buy books, go to class, or take any exams goal of doing well but actively undermine goal - makes so little sense you arent thought of having that goal they all boil down to: if i have goal/desire/interest A it is rational to take (and want to take) the necessary means to achieving /satisfying A in fact if I have goal/desire/interest A and I dont take the necessary measn to achieve/satisfy A and further I dont want to pursue those means this would be irrational

point 2 of whats wrong with EE: it reduces rules like "dont murder" "keep your promises" to rules of thumb

rules of thumb: rules you follow in general but not always dont have to follow rules if not in your best interest

option 1 of euthyphros dilemma: an action is morally right because God commands it

says the reason we should be honest is simply that God commands it entails that honesty is neither good nor bad on its own independently of Gods command - Gods command is what makes it so 2 problems: makes Gods commands and choices arbitrary which undermines the notion of Gods perfection makes the idea od Gods goodness meaningless

second possible response for kantian ethics problem

second possible response: fetuses adn infants have value in themselves because of their potential to become rational agents support: the maxim "harm anything that has the potential to become a rational agent" does not seem universalizable (so hows its our duty not to act on it) includes infants, fetuses, people in comas who wake up would it pass universal law test? probably not - then its your duty not to harm anything that has the potential to become a rational agent why? probably fails step 4 contradiciton in will (Fails 4th step): you will a world in which the only thing of intrinsic value - human rationality - dies out (you cant rationally will the destruction of something of intrinsic value) but crucially this response leaves out: the severly mentally disabled, senile folks, many people in comas and animals this response isnt good enough morally becuase we feel like we have moral duties to safeguards everyones wellbeing especially those listed above

autonomous

self-governing; independent acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires.

Individual Moral Relativism 2

since there are no universal objective moral rules, no persons idea of right or wrong is more right than anothers individual moral relativism implies moral infallibility of individuals: no persons moral beliefs and values are wrong anything and everything is morally justified if it is someones beleif no matter how bad or illegal or a crime against humanity

some actions are intrinsically wrong

some actions are just wrong and will never be right - no such thing as right ex: murder is always wrong no matter what some actions are always intrinsically wrong while aristotle believes morality cannot be reduced to blind application of rules, there are some rules he thinks aer inviolable the emotions and actions listed below are always wrong regardless of the circumstances not every action nor every passion admits of a mean.... aristotle pg. 145 spite shamelessness, envy, adultery, theft, murder, they are themselves bad it is not possible then ever to be right with regard to them

allure of cultural moral relativism

some are tempted to be cultural moral relativists because they think its the only view that promotes tolerance of all cultures the thought is: if CMR were true, all cultures would be morally equal so it would force all cultures to be tolerant of one another if CMR were true, it would force all cultures to be tolerant of one another this rests on confusion CMR says there are no universally applicable moral standards if society Y supports intolerance, the CMR proponent cannot say that society Y is mistaken CMR cant consistently advocate tolerance - it depends on the culture

mill: the quality of the pleasure is crucial "of 2 pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference.that is the more desirable pleasure. from this verdict of the only competent judges..there can be no appeal. on a question which is the best worth having of 2 pleasures.. the judgement of these who are qualified by knowledge of both or if they differ that of the majority among them must be admitted as final"

some kinds of pleasures are more desirable than others higher pleasures which pleasures are more desirable? ook to judges who have experience of both kinds of pleasures - intellect and base pleasures those who experience both prefer the higher pleasures higher pleasures are more desirable

la riots pt 2

south central la vs police relationship terrible - race relations in general bad acquittal of police officers was injustice south central la erupted in a bloody riot - 55 people died 1 billion dollars in damage beating up innocent people

procedure for applying rule utilitarianisms moral standard

specify the action you are considering describe the candidate rule - the rule this action presupposes imagine what society would be like if just about everyone followed it (if our world followed this one rule) will such a society be better off with this rule than with any competing rule ------------------------------------------------------------ must make comparison (compare wellbeing produced by both societies) if yes, it counts as a morally good rule and so an action that conforms to it is the morally right action

CI step 1: formulate your maxim clearly - state what you intend to do and why you intend to do it

state what you intend to do and why you intend to do it articulate action and reason for the action test case: the lying promise ex: need money and ask an acquantance for the money - they ask please pay me back, you say yes but have no actual intention of not paying them back making a lying promise the maxim - break a promise whenever it is convenient to do so

rule utilitarianism advantages

still a consequentialist view - the actions and moral rules are no intrinsically right on wrong - consequences of a whole society cant identy actions as intrinsically right or wrong only wrong cause a society that engages in those actions isnt a good society it accords better (but not perfectly) with everyday actions these policies maximise wellebing in long run even if violating rules in isolated cases would maximize wellbeing in those instances avoids act u problem of injustice for most part its impermissble to frame or punish innocent people itsimpermissible to violate peoples rights rule u asks: will a society be better off with these rules than any competing rule? yes it can avoid act u's moral saints problem (too demanding in what asks us to do) famine relief: act u can require us to give up all of our spare time and money as long as people are in dire need rule: you should give 5% of your income to famine relief competing rules: you should give no money to famine relief you should give all the money you do not need to strictly survive to famine relief

rule u is consequentialist view

still a consequentialist view - the actions and moral rules are no intrinsically right on wrong - consequences of a whole society cant identy actions as intrinsically right or wrong only wrong cause a society that engages in those actions isnt a good society

ex of generousity in doctrine of the mean

stingy ------------------------------- generosity ------------------------- extravagant be observant of natural responses - how you feel around other people if you feel uncomfortable then you arent generous you are on the stingy side next situation try to overstep so you can work your way to the middle - retraining yourself to become generous overtime you still may be stingy but for the most part you are working your way to generousity ex: bent wire - to straighten it out you move it the other way in hopes that it straightens the wire

intro to divine command theory

suppose we made 2 lists what God prohibits: murder, rape, stealing, lying.....etc what is morally wrong: murder, rape, stealing, lying.....etc there is a view that holds this: both on these lists cause its on Gods list first his prohibitions determines whats morally wrong

standard of rightness

tells us the conditions under which actions are morally right ex: principle of utility

dispositional

tendency to act in a way that fits the virtue and be motivated by certain reasons

test case of CI step 4: could you ratioinally will to act on your maxim in such a world? in short: given that i can perform the action even if universalized can i achieve the goal i have in performing the action?

test case: not developing ones talents step 1: the maxim - refuse to developany of your talents and capacities step 2: universalize it, what results - no one develops their talents step 3: we can conceive of talentless ability less world step 4: can you rationally will it? No, why? because youd have the goal that you have no talents/abilities to achieve your goals whatever goal you had youd not want to take the means to achieving your goal (defition of irrational willing) so all your goals are such that you never want to achieve them fails 4, its a contradiction of the will

some reasons for acting are conditional

that is they depend on certain goals or interests we have or certain desires we want to satisfy ex goal: doing well in college, then you will study and do all the assignments and take exams ex interest: if you like to play basketball then youll find time and people to play with ex interest: if you like to travel then you look for opportunities to travel and save up money Kant calls these kinds of principles hypothetical imperatives hypothetical imperatives are conditional maxims

2 notes about moral universalism

that there are moral standards that are universally applicable (apply to every single human being) ex.) wrong to murder - good candidate for moral universal principle (applies to everyone) there are moral standards that are objectively true (true, independent of what humans believe) subjectively true - true for individual people

no because what makes something right is the fact that god commands it the action becomes morally right after god tells us to do it

the 2nd option in euthyphro's dilemma states that an action is commanded by god because it is morally right - is this statement consistent with the divine command theory -- can you assert this claim and still be a divine command theorist yes/no - why

infringement of rights

the ability to exercise a right is diminished criminal is now on parole - has to follow certain rules to keep good status has freedom back but it is diminshed - has its limits

#3 of criteria of fully virtuous action

the act must be done for its own sake: you are motivated because its virtuous (ex: you do it because it is just) you do the compassionate act becuase it is compassionate - motivated to act compassionately and help someone moves you to do something

an action has moral worth when

the action is in conformity with duty it is done from the motive of duty -- from a recognition that the action is morally required the shopkeeper and the sympathetic man examples only satisfy #1 actions that have moral wirth show the person has a good will

individual moral relativism 1

the belief that ethical standards change according to individual preference takes what is said about a whole culture and shrinks it down to the individual person each person determines for him/herself what is right or wrong so you determine what is right or wrong for you an action is right simply because you approve of it an action is wrong simply because you disapprove of it same goes for each person there is no such thing as a moral principle or action that is universally objectively true rejects moral relativism

ex of courage in doctrine of the mean

the courageous person, judges that some dangers are worth facing, others not, and experiences fear to a degree that is apporpriate to the circumstances cowardice ------------------courage ---------------------rash runs from everything (perfect) thinks every danger is worth facing experiences excessive fear experiences little or no fear underconfident extremely overconfident

end in the positive sense

the first positive sense is a thing we will to produce or bring about in the world. losing weight is my end, then losing weight is something I aim to bring about end in this sense guides my actions in that once I will to produce something, I then deliberate about and aim to pursue means of producing it if I am rational. Humanity is not an "end" in this sense, though even in this case, the end "lays down a law" for me. Once I have adopted an end in this sense, it dictates that I do something: I should act in ways that will bring about the end or instead choose to abandon my goal.

3rd part of principle of humanity

the idea of an end has three senses for Kant, two positive senses and a negative sense end in the first positive sense is a thing we will to produce or bring about in the world. end in the negative sense lays down a law for me as well, and so guides action, but in a different way.

one thought too many objection

the ideal moral agent cooly calculates which option maximizes wellbeing and doesnt necessarily act out of love, generosity, symoathy, or compassion, but because of what the ulitly calculus dictates "what would the principle of utility have me do?" acts only out of what the result is combines motivation and deliberation

JJC Smarts objection #2: but sometimes wellbeing can be maximized by breaking the moral rules set out by rule u

the maximization of overall wellbeing justifies breaking the rule sometimes you have to break the rules to maximize wellbeing like dying mans promise example - give money to ungrateful son or to family in dire need

when an ethical theory conflicts with a deeply held moral intuition that most of us have what must that moral theory do in order to still be successful

the moral theory can still be successful given that it explains why those intuitions are wrong and that theres a solid positive argument showing why the theory is true

morally good rules

the morally good rules end up being the familiar ones dont murder dont cheat dont torture people

euthyphro's dilemma: is an action right because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right?

the point of the question: if we accept a theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma: only 2 options are open to us both of which spell big trouble for the divine command theorist option 1: an action is morally right because God commands it OR option 2: an action is commanded by God because it is morally right option 1: an action is morally right because God commands it says the reason we should be honest is simply that God commands it entails that honesty is neither good nor bad on its own independently of Gods command - Gods command is what makes it so 2 problems: makes Gods commands and choices arbitrary which undermines the notion of Gods perfection makes the idea od Gods goodness meaningless problem 1: makes Gods commands and choices arbitrary problem 2: makes the idea of Gods goodness meaningless: God is supremely good Gods commands are morally good (BC God is good) But 'x is morally good' is defined as 'x is commanded by God (x is Gods commands = 'Gods commands are morally good' = Gods commands are commanded by God) -------------------------------------------------------------------(by DCT) by 2, 1 means 'Gods commands are commanded by God' empty claim - truism takes a substantive claim and shows theres no substance to being good so, keep 1, reject 2 (so you have to reject the whole theory) option 2: an action is commanded by God because it is morally right what explains Gods choice: God in his infinite wisdom understands what is morally right and commands us to do that and sees what is wrong and forbids us from doing it in his infinite wisdom commands us to do good/honesty and firbids us to murder, etc because he realizes that theyre morally bad but then it isnt God that makes an action right or wrong they would already be morally right or wrong God is just recognizing this and commanding us to do them/not do them abandons DCT DCT: what makes something morally right is simply the fact that God commands it. What makes something morally wrong is simply that God forbids it divine command theory cant ask why or have a reason that comes before God commands honesty honesty is morally good --God commands honesty -- honesty is morally good this cant be here and you cant ask why if youre a divine command theorist God in his inifinite wisdom sees whats right and commands us to do it out of his love for us. but this is not the same thing as saying that his commandments make these actions morally right

cultural relativism

the practice of judging a culture by its own standards the view that what is morally wrong or morally right is so only within a given culture rejection of moral universalism an action can be judged as morally permissible or prohibited only against the moral standards of the culture to which the person belongs persons actions can only be morally judged relative to the culture they came from cant judge from other cultural standards the practices of the society can be judged only from a point of view that is internal to it morality comes from specific cultures whats right in one culture may be wrong in another culture what makes something morally right or wrong? culture no such thing as a moral principle or action that is universally objectively true why hold this view?

maximize overall wellbeing.

the principl of utility can be summarized as

response to one thought too many objection

the principle of utility is a standard of moral rightness not a decision procedure act u isnt actually telling us which option to pick just that the right option maximizes overall wellbeing -- if this is real stance, then its an empty promise

response to motivation objection 2: while being motivated to pursue everyone's well being is admirable, sometimes its of the wrong motive

the principle of utility says nothing about how we should be motivated - it merely explains what our duty is and why act utilitarian can recognize these motivations satisfying the motive by caring for them and doing it out of love and concern if ____ motivation satisfies and maximizes wellbeing then act u says you have to use that motivation

problem: justice

the problem act u has with justice justice injustice a right violation of rights the problem: sometimes we must violate a persons rights in order to maximize wellbeing ex: framing an innocent person to avoid a bloody riot 1991 - LA riots

comparative

the rightness of an action depends on the goodness of its consequences as compared to possible outcomes of available alternatives both are maximizing and comparative related; they focus on the best consequences and compare likely alternative outcomes

ex of temperance in doctrine of the mean

the temperate person, controls his or her desires, knows what desires to satisfy, to what degree and when to do so insensible -------------------------- temperance --------------------- self indulgent lacks desires (perfect) indulges every desire whenever possible

review of cultural moral relativism

the truth about morality cultures determine what is right or wrong nothing else does action is right simply because ones culture approves of it action is wrong simply because ones culture disapproves of it no such thing as moral principle or action that is universally objectively true rejects moral universalism there is no abosolute right or wrong there is just what is for a particluar individual society since there are no universal objective moral rules all cultures are morally equal: no cultures moral principles are more right than any others

virtue, human excellence and the good life

the ultimate aim in human life must be something thats distinctive about is - uniquely human (rules out mere pleasures and satisfaction of desires) whatever goal of ultimate human life is it has to do with our ability to reason whats distinctive? our ability to reason but reasoning well is better than reasoning poorly so virtuos involve excellent use of our reasoning powers possessing virtues = living an excellent human life known as eudaimonia

injustice

the unjustificable violation or infringement of an individuals rights

moral universalism

the view that there are at least some moral standards that are universally applicable be tolerant of other cultures to avoid intolerance: a practice may be wrong but its not our place to interfere (we may do greater harm by interfering) universalism does say: we know what the universal principles are we are justified in coercing others to act in accordance with them

ethical egoism

the view that there is only one moral principle: each person should pursue what is in their own best interest (welfare) exclusively the only moral duty you have is to do what is actually in their best interest an action is morally right only if it actually serves the best interests of the person performing it performs a good action (college in the long run) it is to their benefit performs a bad action that goes against their welfare (taking drugs if you are perfectly healthy) it is to their detriment

to be virtuous requires moral understanding and maturity

the virtuous person sets the standard an act is morally right just because it is the one that a virtuous person acting in character would do in that situation the virtuous person is a moral exemplar - someone who sets the standard of morality and servies as a role model for the rest of us a person doing what theyre doing virtuously sets the standard and that person becomes a role model

CI step 3: is your maxim conceivable in a world governed by this law? can you formulate your maxim there? in short: can the action be performed by you if universalized IF NO

then your maxim suffers from a contradiction in conception and its your moral duty not to act on this maxim you cant even perform your action in a world in which everyone is acting on your maxim cant imagine your maxim working as a universal law its your moral duty not to act on the maxim - cant make a lying promise

CI step 4: could you ratioinally will to act on your maxim in such a world? in short: given that i can perform the action even if universalized can i achieve the goal i have in performing the action? IF NO

then your maxim suffers from a contradiction in willing and its your moral duty not to act on this maxim you could not rationally aim to take that action for that reason often because in performing the act you cant achieve the goal you had in the first place

reasoning aspect of our minds has 2 distinct jobs

theoretical reasoning - asks what is true? try to understand, figure out truth about something regarding facts practical reasoning - aks what should I do? your reason when reasoning what to do Kant calls your will practical reasoning (what should I do?)

act utilitarianism

there is one ultimate moral standard: the principle of utility

criteria of fully virtuous action

these conditions must be met 1. the agent must perfrom the action in accordance with the relevant virtue (ex: it must be a just act) this is because there are three other conditions that must be met 2. the act must be done knowingly and willingly (ex: you must know that its just) 3. the act must be done for its own sake: you are motivated because its virtuous (ex: you do it because it is just) 4. in order for the action to be fully virtuous, and possess it the "action must procced from a firm and unchanging character" (aristotle pg. 142) ex: only those who possess the virtue of justice can perform fully just acts even if we dont yet possess the virtue we can still perform morally right actions (its just that they wont be fully virtuous)

# 2 from argrument from moral disagreement: the prospect of settling them seems very dim

these disputes seem no longer close to being settled seen as not making progress

advantage 1: t accords better (but not perfectly) with everyday actions

these policies maximise wellebing in long run even if violating rules in isolated cases would maximize wellbeing in those instances

CI step 2: recase it as a universal law governing all rational agents - all must act as yourself propose in the circumstances

think of a world where everyone follows the same maxim and whenever the time arises they break a promise whenever its convient to do so called universalizing the maxim what would world be like if they broke promises when convenient - promises would die out and people wouldnt accept them anymore

act utilitarianism brands

thinkers associated with utilitarianism jeremy bentham (1748-1832) father of utilitarianism hedonistic john stuart mill (1806-1873) was bentham's godson brand of utilitarianism was hedonism hedonism - pleasure/happiness is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad instrumental good - good cause it gets something else (that something else is the one that is intrinsic good) ex: health - in good health, you are happier/can enjoy life more how to measure the value of pleasure? bentham's criteria: intensity and duration hapopiness and pleasure over pain and suffering 2 dimensions: intensity and duration (more intense and lasts longer) ex: happy pills better than a good book mill: "its better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisified; better to be socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. and if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion it is because they only know their own side of the question. the other party to the comparison knows both sides" a human being who tries to set goals, betters themselves, acquires knowledge, challenge themselves, it isnt pleasant the whole time (gonna be hard to reach goals, especially worthwhile goals,) youll be dissatisifed, but even these moments of happiness and pursuit of worthy goals are still a deeper satisification than someone who doesnt challenge themselves and sits on the couch watching reality shows mill adds: the quality of the pleasure is crucial some kinds of pleasures are more desirable than others - higher pleasures, "of 2 pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference.that is the more desirable pleasure. from this verdict of the only competent judges..there can be no appeal. on a question which is the best worth having of 2 pleasures.. the judgement of these who are qualified by knowledge of both or if they differ that of the majority among them must be admitted as final" which pleasures are more desirable? look to judges who have experience of both kinds of pleasures - intellect and base pleasures those who experience both prefer the higher pleasures higher pleasures are more desirable pleasures of: intellect the imaginiation creativity are the ones that are more desirable the kinds of activities that promote human flourishing an action is morally required if and only if it does more to improve overall wellbeing than any other action you could have done in the circumstances

argument from tolerance handout

this argument is amined at convinving those who already think tolerance is a good thing to become cultural moral relativists. if you dont value tolerance this arugment wont move you every society should be tolernat even of those intolerant ones so some societies should support in tolerance if either 1 or 2 is ture, then 3 would be false "be tolerant of other cultures" its a universal moral principle every culture should (morally should) be tolerant of other cultures CMR says there are no universal moral principles they CANT say this

motive of duty - ex: sympathetic man

this guy helps people by taking them to the doctor, volunteering at soup kitchens, does everything for free - he acts out of the natural inclination for sympathy - emotionally moved to help. if this is the only motive, then it has no moral worth suppose he suffers extreme tragedy, everything is taken from him (specifcally his wife & kids in an accident) - his heart is hardened and he curses life. he no longer cares about anything - he wont be moved to help doing the right thing but not for the right reason **moral worth is insulated from the winds of misfortune, inclinations and emotions arent (theyre responsive to our circumstances)**

virtues

those excellences of character that contrivute to living a human life well (excellent use of our reason) otherwise we'd be mere animals so human flourishing is living a life that exhibits possession of the virtues virtues enable you to live your best life as a human whether you are aspiring to possess the virtues or not

JJC Smarts objection #3: its incoherent to have a goal to maximize wellbeing but oppose an act that achieves this goal

those instances in which you follow the rule even though breaking it would achieve your goal is simple rule mongering way to achieve goal is to break rule in certain circumstances - rule u says to follow the rule anyway even though it doesnt maximize wellbeing in this case---- problem like saying smoking is bad and i wont do it, as you are smoking a cigarette

1st point of disanalogy: in the case of virtue we develop our understanding along with developing our emotions and responses becoming mature people

to be a plumber all you need is the skill you can be as emotionally mature/immature as you want to be

the idea behind universal law formulation tests

to be moral my maxim should be universalizable: others can do similar things using my maxim its justifiable for everyone the ULF is a test: make sure I treat everyone as my equal if my maxim fails my action works if im the only one doing it - i treat others as having less value than me

consequence #2: we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought)

to condemn - declare to be reprehensible (objectively) wrong or evil based on evidence and without reservation Pol Pot - Khmer Rouge, Cambodia 1975-1979 communism 1.5 mill out of 7-8 million people died under his rule believed in a classless society actions are judged only against their own standards so they cant be wrong on IMR Pol Pot, Hitler, mass shooters CANT be Wrong becuase their beliefs are morally correct under IMR the only legitimate criticism we can make of another persons moral behavior is the charge of inconsistency with their professed values -- if it applies

rational willing

to have a goal (an end) you must want to take and initiate taking (will) the necessary and available means to achieve your goal failing to do this is irrational want to take necessary means to achieve goal - do whats necessary in order to achieve it

forward looking

to the likely outcomes of the available options - to determine our moral obligation now

whats wrong with pe

ts wrong is psychological egosim PE asserts that the motive for all our actions is self interest ie. the motive is always selfish PE says in doing for others our real goal is to feel good but in many cases, its the other way around: our goal is to do for others, and our feeling good is secondary - a by product

euthyphros dilemma

two horns: 1. does god command action BECAUSE it is morally right OR 2. is action right BECAUSE god commands it #2 is definition of divine command theory

moral relativism

undesirable consequences of cultural moral relativism be committed to consequences that are so undesirable and end up with nonmorality morality - show CMR is wrong cultural moral relativism implies infallibility of cultures: no cultures practices and values are wrong infallibillity ex.) those that believe in cannibalism are correct; those that dont believe in cannibalism are correct

3 different formulations of categorical imparatives

universal law formulation principle of humanity (the formula of the end in itself - O'Neil) principle of the kind of ends like 2 roads coming together to create 1 moral law (#1 and #2)

virtue: loyal

vices deficiency: back stabber (disloyal) vices of excess: makes alliances too easily (disloyal)

virtue: courageous

vices deficiency: cowardice vices of excess: rash

virtue: friendly

vices deficiency: grumpy, mean vices of excess: obsequious

virtue: modest, humble

vices deficiency: lacking confidence, painfully shy vices of excess: conceited, shameless self promoter

virtue: proper ambition

vices deficiency: lazy. zero ambition vices of excess: overly ambitious

virtue: honest

vices deficiency: secretive, liar vices of excess: loquacious, indiscreet

virtue: generous

vices deficiency: stingy vices of excess: prodigal, extravagant, wasteful

virtue: patient, good temper

vices deficiency: total lack of interest, indifferent vices of excess: easily aggravated, wants things done their way

virtue: just, fair

vices deficiency: unjust (does nothing to correct injustice) vices of excess: unjust (actively does unjust things), unfair

response to deliberation obejction: it seems to require complicated calculations that are difficult to perform in a timely manner

wellbeing will decrease if we never come to a decision or delay too long, so sometimes spontaneity and quick actions are optimific we can also rely on conventional moral wisdom in a pinch time is of the essence, emergency situations (harmful situations) action that maximizes wellbeing is the action that you just do and not think about (by not thinking of action and just doing it still performing principle of utility) ex: mass shootings, doing an action to save lives - dont have time to sit and think you just gotta do it

4 features: focus on consequences - optimific maximizing - best possible outcome comparative - action depends on goodness of consequences forward looking - likely outcome of available options

what 4 features do consequentialists share

ee: view that there is only one moral principle: each person should pursue what is in their own best interest (welfare) exclusively known as principle of self interest PE: view that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation PE is our actions are always selfsihly based on matter what and EE is each person should act based in their best interest

what are some key differences between ethical egoism and psychological egoism

impartiality conventional moral wisdom resolving conflicts moral flexibility defines moral community

what are the 5 attractions of act utilitarianism covered in class

study of ethics

what belongs on the list and why? (list of fundamental rules that are wrong) murder abuse - physical, mental, emotional torture what makes something right/wrong or permissible/impermissible are we allowed to break such rules? are there more basic fundamental principles that explain the rules what is their status? what is their source? (divine belief, culture, personal beliefs, etc)

attacks # 1, turns on non moral facts cant explain moral agreements between cultures suggests cultural moral relativism is false

what broader implication does this objection to moral diagreements have?

you recognize the act is required of you and the recognition motivates you to do it

what does performing an action from the motive of duty mean

problem 2 of option 1: an action is commanded by God because it is morally right

what explains Gods choice: God in his infinite wisdom understands what is morally right and commands us to do that and sees what is wrong and forbids us from doing it in his infinite wisdom commands us to do good/honesty and firbids us to murder, etc because he realizes that theyre morally bad but then it isnt God that makes an action right or wrong they would already be morally right or wrong God is just recognizing this and commanding us to do them/not do them abandons DCT DCT: what makes something morally right is simply the fact that God commands it. What makes something morally wrong is simply that God forbids it

A method for making moral decisions

what is a decision procuedure in ethics

family of views that hold that: certain actions (or rules) must or must not be done (or followed) their moral rightness or wrongness doesnt depend entirely on the value of the consequences brough about - rather an action or rule has certain properties that make it right or wrong right/wrongness doesnt depend entirely on the consequences of the action - instead an action has certain properties that make it right/wrong

what is a deontological theory?

general rules of governing action or rules of conduct such as: dont murder, cheat, torture

what is a morally good rule according to rule utilitarianism

It is thought to solve the problem of injustice.

what is a primary motivation for rule consequentialism

moral universalism

what is right or wrong is so for everyone, independently of who they are, what they believe, or what society comes from if there are moral rules they are absolute and objectively true (independent of what humans believe, think, cultures, etc) facts 2 important things about stance: universally applicable and objectively true

review of moral universalism

what is right or wrong is so for everyone, independently of who they are, what they believe, or what society they come from cultural moral relativism goes against this belief moral standards universally applicable moral standards are objectively true

if you have a good will you will usually perform actions of worth

what is the connection between having a good will and performing an action that has moral worth?

wellbeing isnt strictly quantifiable so its hard to calculate wellbeing

what is the problem that measuring wellbeing poses for act utilitarianism and why is the view susceptible to it

wellbeing will decrease if we never come to a decision so sometimes spontaneity and quick actions are optimific

what is the response to the objection that act utilitarianism seems to require complicated calculations that are difficult to perform in a timely manner

questions whether it is moral to pursue ones own projects also pits out interests against others interests we should do our duty which in this case is global wellbeing -- be motivated every moment to do what we can by donating our money or time pits our interests against others

what is the response to the objection that act utilitarianism seems to require us to be motivated to pursue global wellbeing at all times

morally right cause god commanded it

what makes an action morally right according to the divine command theory

morally wrong cause god forbids it

what makes an action morally wrong according to the divine command theory

cultural moral relativism

whats morally right/wrong is so in a culture cant judge from cultural standards

somestimes right action requires us to be partial

whats problem of impartiality

without fear of moral punishment/desire for eternal reward theres no reason to be moral

whats wrong with this account of moral motivation

if it adheres to rules that if adopted generally would maximize overall wellbeing

when is an action morally right according to rule utilitarianism

fact about human emotion

when we act purposefully we always have some reason for performing that action the reason and the action can always be put in the form of a maxim maxim - reason + action a maxim

objection to argument from moral disagreements

when we really examine the dispute, we often find very important aspects of moral agreement in many cases the dispute turns out to be over non moral facts claims about factual information agree over moral facts; disagree over nonmoral facts

the will - reason in its practical employment - practical reason

when you come to a conclusion about what to do and that motivates you to do it people think theh will motivates you to act Kant thinks this too but when you think practically you go through steps - analytical situation, things to worry about, this is what i think i should do based on reasons what you should do is reasoning - coming to this conclusion is enough for you to do it possessing a good will - you reliably know what your duty is and have a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake everyone has a will but not everyone has a good will - Kant believes a good will should be desired by everyone person routinely performs actions of worth

CMR seems to promote the tolerance of all cultures

why might someone who thinks all cultures should be tolerant of the moral values and principles of every culture be tempted to adopt cultural moral relativism

consequentialists will focus on effects of capital punihsment

will putting people to death for certain crimes... improve the lives of more people decrease crimes increase security more than if we had no such policy?

consequentialism attractions

first attraction: impartial opposite of impartiality is to be partial act utilitarianism builds impartialty - no special consideration over people equality is built into the utilitarian calculus: everyone counts for one and no more we have a moral obligation to strangers just as much as to our own family anf friends ex: hawaiian vacation for family or save 10 kids from starving for a couple of years? act utilitariansim says to give the money to the starving kids second attraction: for the most part, it fits with conventional moral wisdom offers a satisfying explanation why certain paradigm cases of immorality are wrong and why clear cases of moral behaviors are right paradigms of immorality slavery rape murder - morally wrong cause it harms people; goes against principle of humanity paradigms of moral behavior helping the ppor being honest being a good friend for the most part it fits with conventional moral wisdom we should be cautious becuase our intuitions can be mistaken they should be open to revision that can be rationally supported utilitarianism suggests revision in some cases ex: hawaiian vacy vs starving children its my money is morally permissable to use money for vacation act is saying to donate money to satisfy the principle our intuition is its up to use conflict between intuition and act u this example it makes sense to revise original opinion/intuition and change to what act u is saying when its okay: the revision leaves core moral beliefs intact while providing a reason for the revision revising to not okay to take the vacation and go to charity leaving core beliefs intact: value of an innocent human beings life/childrens lives third attraction: act u provides a means of resolving conflicts gives us a clear method for resolving difficult moral issues: do our best to figure out what would bring about the most good ex: promise to a dying man. is my duty to keep a promise greater than my duty to help someone in need family doesnt visit, has a son who is remaining family member -- man is super rich and hates financial institutions so he keep s the money in his basement give my son the money - the person promises to do so you know a person who was laid off due to disability and cant get other jobs - could house and other things 2 competing obligations: promise to dying man and a duty to help others act u: to hell with the dying man, take his money and give it to the family in need a single simple standard: principle of utility gives a clear cut answer fourth attraction: moral flexibility can explain why many moral rules can be permissibly broken in special circumstances rule against lying rule against harming an innocent rule against torture ex: granny at the disco you have a cool grandma and is a pretty popular dj..one gig had hundreds of people and a fire breaks out and theres only 1 exit; granny's booth is near the exit and in chaos of moment 100s of people rush out and granny gets stuck and now no one can move only way to get granny out is to break her arm...what do you do? you break her arm and save everyone cause act u says its okay if youre saving people can justify breaking her arm to avoid hundreds from perishing in a fire principle of utility would say you are morally required to break her arm ex: ticking bomb should we torture a terrorist to prevent an attack? the principle of utility can justify torturing terrorists to prevent grave harm to many fifth attraction: defnes our moral community moral community: the group of individuals whose needs and interests are morally important who matters, who has moral value to us? a being that is able to experience wellbeing and suffering is a member of the moral community - sentient creatures (animals) in telling us whose wellbeing we must consider when calculating the morality of a given action it defines who is included in the moral community

problem of impartiality

"the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of whats right in conduct isnt the agents own happiness only but that of all concerned. as between his own happiness and that of others utilitarianisn requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator" (mill, pg. 96) the problem: sometimes the right thing to do requires partiality give them special treatment: family & friends ex: your son needs treatment for gum disease vs the 10 children whose lives you could save half a world away your son: * 10 kids would get the medicine they need to survive suffers physical pain feels emotionally hurt might resent you

rational

(adj.) based on reasoning; able to make use of reason; sensible, reasonable based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

4 undesirable consequences of moral relativism

1. dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way 2. we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own 3. there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures 4. "...social reformers of every sort would always be wrong" (pg. 28, right side)

ethical egoism

1 and only principle of self interest each person has a moral duty to purse their own best interest

motivation - objective 2

: while being motivated to pursue everyone's well being is admirable, sometimes its of the wrong motive ex: parent-child relationship - motive of love vs motive of maximizing wellbeing ex: TAHANI whatever we do, family or strangers we should do the right thing cause we want to maximize everyones wellbeing -- only moral motivation -- love isnt one of these

Yes, it is morally permissible to help others but only if doing so is in our own best interest in some way.

According to ethical egoism, is it ever morally permissible to help other people?

It is in some ways a strength and in others a weakness.

According to the text, how should we regard act utilitarianism's commitment to impartiality?

rule utilitarianism

JJC Smart - utilitarian view goal: maximize wellbeing method: follow rules sometimes maximizing wellbeing means breaking rules rule u would say to follow rule even when it doesnt maximize wellbeing Smart - incoherent to say i have a goal i dont wanna meet/achieve right now

examples of cultural moral relativism

Sati/Suttee: a womans husband died and when they went to cremate him, she asked to be burned to death with him and she was. found to be a saint british were horrified by this - should britian impose their views on india? now illegal but still considered are outsiders justified in standards of other cultures? ex.) abortion - pro choice vs pro life

He would think it is an incorrect view about human motivation. To experience satisfaction with himself, the rescuer would have to desire something other than his own satisfaction, like the desire to rescue the child. This is because feeling satisfied with oneself is a byproduct of achieving your goals and doing the things you care about.

Suppose a psychological egoist says that even what appear to be selfless acts are all in fact motivated by self-interest; for instance, a man rushing into a burning building to save a complete stranger's child is really doing it to feel satisfaction with himself. How would Vaughn respond to this claim?

This is not really an argument for ethical egoism. The principle that this argument supports is beneficence, that is, to do what will benefit everyone, not merely what will benefit ourselves.

What is the main objection that Rachels raises to the following argument (which is the first argument he considers)? Society will be much better off if each person simply looked out for him/herself. This is because each person knows their own goals and needs best and the interference and charity of others would often do more harm than help. Further, charity makes the receiver feel belittled and degraded and would teach them to be passive and dependent on others instead of becoming self-reliant. This shows that a policy of helping others is self-defeating because everyone will end up being worse off. So it's in everyone's best interest if we simply look out for ourselves.

Scrates's question points to a problem with the Divine Command Theory. Socrates is asking for clarification of the Divine Command Theory's main claim that morally right just means commanded by God. If we accept the theological conception of what makes an action right or wrong we are caught in a dilemma, and both options lead to trouble for this conception of morality.

What is the relationship between Socrates's question, "Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?" and the Divine Command Theory?

It holds that God, who is perfectly rational, has created the world as a rational order and created humans in God's image as rational agents. It holds that even those who don't believe in God are still able to make good moral judgments, because making a responsible moral judgment is a matter of listening to reason and being true to one's conscience, something both believers and non-believers are capable of.

Which of the following is true regarding the Natural Law Theory?

importance of reason for the action - ex: bystander

a bystander rescuing a child from a burning house - many things could go wrong; even if the child dies we still admire the action and the reason we belive theyre acting on, failure wont dimish that we see a value independently of the effects achieved a lot has to do with the motive what gives a morally good action its sepecial value is the motivation behind it just wanting to save the kid vs wanting to get money from this action

examples of rule u moral principle

a society follows rule a and is a great society - compared to a society with competing rule b and the society isnt as great as the first society rule a is greater becuase its morally good

divine command theory

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands an act is morally required just becuase it is commanded by God and is immoral just because God forbids it (act is morally required bc God commands it and an act is immoral bc God forbids it) what makes something morally right is simply the fact that God commands it what makes something morally wrong is simply that God forbids it the idea: in living in accordance with morality we are living as God intended - living a good and righteous human life is a moral universalist view its a universal view its an objective view making a claim about the world - claims and prohibitions make up morality

effective

being prone to having certain emotional responses to certain things

ethical egoism is a

consequentialist view

infallibility

incapable of being mistaken/being wrong

Immanuel Kant

influential German idealist philosopher (1724-1804) German thinker of the enlightenment sought ot make reason - rationality the foundation of morality just as reason reveals the truths of (ex: math) reason alone can inform us and lead us to right and good action people who are immoral arent reasoning correctly - their reasoning is wrong

yes

is act u a consequentialist view

no

is act u a universalist view

ethical pluralism

is act u pluralism? is kantian ethics pluralism? ethical egoism?

yes

is ethical egoism a consequentialist view

no - deontological view

is kantian ethics a universalist view?

nonconsequentialist position for capital punishment

justice requires we execute people for certain crimes, irrespective of any practical benefits. giving people what they deserve

Euthyphro Dilemma

is right conduct right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right is an action right because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right? the point of the question: if we accept a theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma: only 2 options are open to us both of which spell big trouble for the divine command theorist option 1: an action is morally right because God commands it OR option 2: an action is commanded by God because it is morally right

optimific

it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks best possible ratio of goodness to badness

maxim

personal policy for action, a principle reason + action

hedonism

pursuit of pleasure

focuses on consequences

usually maximizing or optimific: moral rightness depends on which consequences are the best

contradiction in conception

you cant even perform your action in a world in which everyone is acting on your maxim cant imagine your maxim working as a universal law its your moral duty not to act on the maxim - cant make a lying promise

dispositional

you have a tendency to act in a way that fits the virtue, and be motivated by certain reasons

from the motive of duty

you recognize the act is required of you and that recognition motivates you to do it recognizing the right action thats required (because its the right thing to do) and this recognition motivates you to do it (this is why you do it)

kants conception of a good will

you reliably know what duty is and have a steady commitment to doing your duty for own sake

possessing a good will - you reliably know what your duty is and have a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake

you reliably know what your duty is and have a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake two things 1. how does one reliably know what their duty is? by reasoning well reason alone provides the motivation to do ones own duty 2. doing what is right because it is right - reason provides you with motivation

affective

youre prone to having certain emotional responses to certain things