Ethics Universal Exam
Ayn Rand-Ethical Egoism
"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life." "Every man builds his world in his own image." Ayn Rand Individual ethical egoism: "everyone ought to act in my own best self-interest" Personal ethical egoism: "I ought to act in my own self-interest but make no claims about what anyone else ought to do." Universal ethical egoism: "everyone should always act in his or her own best self-interest, regardless of the interests of others, unless their interest also serve his or hers. Problems with Individual and Personal Ethical Egoism Applies to one individual, not humanity in general. Cannot be applied consistently Problems with Universal Ethical Egoism: Inconsistency Difficulty giving moral advice Inconsistent with helping professions Advantages of Universal Ethical Egoism: Easier to determine self-interest Encourages individual freedom and responsibility Rational" Ethical Egoism: "self-interests of rational human beings, by virtue of their being rational, will never conflict.
Act Utilitarian
Act utilitarianism beliefs that an action becomes morally right when it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while Rule utilitarianism beliefs that the moral correctness of an action depends on the correctness of the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good.
The Dif between Act and Rule
Act utilitarianism is the belief that an action becomes morally right when it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while Rule utilitarianism is the belief that the moral correctness of an action depends on the correctness of the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good. For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge an act in terms of the consequences of that act alone
Eudemonic-Aristotle
Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical sciences. Its methodology must match its subject matter—good action—and must respect the fact that in this field many generalizations hold only for the most part. We study ethics in order to improve our lives, and therefore its principal concern is the nature of human well-being. Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Like Plato, he regards the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as complex rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato's idea that a training in the sciences and metaphysics is a necessary prerequisite for a full understanding of our good. What we need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular cases, we must acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of action is best supported by reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, as he conceives it, cannot be acquired solely by learning general rules. We must also acquire, through practice, those deliberative, emotional, and social skills that enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into practice in ways that are suitable to each occasion.
Divine Command Theory
Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. A second deontological theory is divine command theory. Divine command theory holds that God's commands are the source of ethics, that God is a moral authority and we ought always to obey his commands, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.
Eudemonia
Eudaimonism (or Eudaemonism or Eudaimonia) is a moral philosophy that defines right action as that which leads to the "well-being" of the individual, thus holding "well-being" as having essential value. The goal is to become all that you can be as a human. The goal is to become a virtuoso at being human. Wholeness, completeness, fulfillment Eudaimonia (also known as Eudaemonism) is a Greek word, which refers to a state of having a good indwelling spirit or being in a contented state of being healthy, happy and prosperous. In moral philosophy, eudaimonia is used to refer to the right actions as those that result in the well-being of an individual. In this case, well-being becomes an essential value. In a more general sense, eudaimonia can be perceived as any theory that places the personal happiness of an individual and his or her complete life at the core of ethical concern.
Aristotle-The mean between two extremes
In ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean or golden middle way or is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.[1] Aristotle - the golden mean. Moral behavior is the mean between two extremes - at one end is excess, at the other deficiency. Find a moderate position between those two extremes, and you will be acting morally. Virtue is the mean between two extremes relative to individuals. Excess----Mean----Deficiency Rashness----Bravery----Cowardice The good person is the one who habitually follows the mean. Every virtue is a mean between two extremes, each of which is a vice.
Deontological Ethics
Is the ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish from right and wrong. In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules. It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty". According to the Edexcel text book this is what it says: "Rule utilitarianism is essentially deontological, i.e. the moral value of the action is contained in obedience to the rule rather than the act itself or the outcome The first great philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German founder of critical philosophy. Kant held that nothing is good without qualification except a good will, and a good will is one that wills to act in accord with the moral law and out of respect for that law rather than out of natural inclinations. He saw the moral law as a categorical imperative—i.e., an unconditional command—and believed that its content could be established by human reason alone. Thus, the supreme categorical imperative is: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant considered that formulation of the categorical imperative to be equivalent to: "So act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means." The connection between those two formulations, however, has never been entirely clear. In any event, Kant's critics questioned his view that all duties can be derived from a purely formal principle and argued that, in his preoccupation with rational consistency, he neglected the concrete content of moral obligation.
Jeremy Bentham-Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeremy-Bentham This link has a bunch about him! "The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." "Every law is an infraction of liberty." Jeremy Bentham
John Steuert Mill
John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory and political economy. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Stuart-Mill
Virtue Ethics--Emanuel Kant
Kant thought that a good action was the result of someone feeling they ought to act a certain way. What Kant went deeper into, was what prompted us to act as if we ought to. A lightbulb went on in Kant's mind. When we act as if we ought to; for example, demonstrating polite manners at the dinner table; we might not be happy doing so. So why do it? Action - for Kant, the goodness of an action was not determined by the consequences or result of the action. Kant is not a consequentialist theorist (Utilitarianism is consequentialist for example.) Kant decided the intention behind an action is the measure of whether an action is good or bad. Good will - Kant determined that in order to intend a good action a rational agent (person) must possess the good will to do the action. This is a measure of whether you are dealing with a morally "good" individual. Moral duty - Kant went on to say that possessing good will is one thing, but the reason we go on to do a "good" action is the result of a sense of obligation. We "ought" to. Kant's quotes: "You have to deserve happiness." "Those with bad wills are not good people." "If a Rational Disinterested Spectator looked down at the world - the good will would shine like a jewel." Kant's Philosophy That God was capable of perfection, and humans were not, so we should not alter or use people as means to an end. God will lead all to perfect happiness if we base universal maxims on what God would desire. Basically, the "rational, disinterested spectator" could now be God, if God is not an interventionist God and gave everyone complete free will. This is at odds with Natural Law which leaves space for divine revelation of God's will as it suggests certain humans are connected to God - applicable today if we regard roles such as priests, pastors, royalty and ministers as being able to divinely direct us.
Nonconsequentialist
Nonconsequentialism is a type of normative ethical theory that denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or of the rules to which those acts conform. A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences. Nonconsequentialism is a type of normative ethical theory that denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or of the rules to which those acts conform. It does not deny that consequences can be a factor in determining the rightness of an act. It does insist that even when the consequences of two acts or act-types are the same, one might be wrong and the other right. Hence, nonconsequentialism denies the truth of both act and rule consequentialism, which are understood as holding that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes the balance of good consequences over bad ones as determined by an impartial calculation of goods and bads.
Psychological Egoism
Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism is the empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every voluntary action is a desire for one's own welfare. On this view, even though all actions are regarded as self-interested actions, the egoist readily points out that people usually try to conceal the determining motives for their actions because such concealment is usually in their self-interest. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. As such, it can only be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. In science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it. Psychological egoism makes no claim as to how one should act. That all persons seek their self-interest on this theory is a purported fact, and this belief is viewed by the psychological egoist as nonmoral and verifiable.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance".
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. The Utilitarian Approach assesses an action in terms of its consequences or outcomes; i.e., the net benefits and costs to all stakeholders on an individual level. It strives to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number while creating the least amount of harm or preventing the greatest amount of suffering.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism). Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Virtue ethics centers in the heart and personality of the agent, in their character. It emphasizes being, being a certain kind of person who will no doubt manifest their being in actions or non action....The question is: what kind of person should I become? Virtue ethics seeks to produce excellent people, Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa. . .
Psychological Egoism-Thomas Hobbs
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/emp%20chapter%205.htm https://www.gktoday.in/academy/article/thomas-hobbes-psychological-egoism/
Ethical Egoism
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/glossary/ethical-egoism/ Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Is ethical egoism good? b. Ethical Egoism. Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. Ethical egoism is the view that one ought to do what is in one's own self-interest, if necessary to the exclusion of what is (or seems to be) in other people's interests. This can be contrasted with both altruism and psychological egoism. A philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc., because those virtues serve one's self-interest is egoistic; one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not egoistic. Ethical egoism tends to be a rare stance among philosophers. Many contend that the view is implausible on its face, and that those who advocate it seriously usually do so at the expense of redefining "self-interest" to include the interests of others. An ethical egoist might counter with the assertion that furthering the ends of others is sometimes the best means of furthering one's own ends. Among philosophers of note who might be called ethical egoists are Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and Max Stirner. Some, such as Thomas Hobbes and David Gauthier, have argued that the conflicts which arise when people each pursue their own ends can be resolved the best for each individual only if they all voluntarily forgo some of their aims — that is, egoism within a society is often best pursued by being (partly) altruistic. Another clear problem is that ethical egoism offers no means of resolving conflicts of interest. If ethical egoism were more widely followed, sooner or later, someone's interests would conflict with another's interests. In such a circumstance, it would be impossible for both to pursue their own interests simultaneously, but how does one decide whose interests take priority? Ethical egoism does not provide an answer. Ethical egoism was introduced by the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, written in 1874. Sidgwick compared egoism to the philosophy of utilitarianism, writing that whereas utilitarianism sought to maximize overall pleasure, egoism focused only on maximizing individual pleasure. Overall, ethical egoism is a widely-rejected ethical theory with few contemporary advocates. Developing ethical egoism into a coherent, functional ethical theory would require massive revision to the original principle.