PHI2600 Exam 1

Who are the founders of utilitarianism?

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

What are the areas of philosophy?

Metaphysics- nature of reality Epistemology- nature of knowledge Logic- study of good reasoning Ethic- study of good or right conduct [MELE]

What is the Categorical Imperative?

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can conceive, at the same time you will it should become a universal law of nature." Applies to all unconditionally, doesn't depend on desires. Do X. Don't do Y.

What is the categorical imperative?

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can conceive, at the same time you will it should become a universal law of nature." Applies to all unconditionally, doesn't depend on desires. Do X. Don't do Y.

What is the Basic Formulation of the Categorical Imperative?

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

What are differences between deontological theories and consequentialist theories?

1- Deontological theories may prohibit a moral agent from performing an action even if this action leads to an overall good outcome 2- Deontological theories do not use the concept of the good to define the concept of the right; don't hold that the good in prior to the right. 3- Importance of the motive of an action, and the character of the moral agent. 4- past actions and commitments must be taken into account.

What are some differences between deontological and utilitarian theories?

1- Deontological theories may prohibit a moral agent from performing an action even if this action leads to an overall good outcome 2- Deontological theories do not use the concept of the good to define the concept of the right; don't hold that the good in prior to the right. 3- Importance of the motive of an action, and the character of the moral agent. 4- past actions and commitments must be taken into account.

what are maxims?

1- The maxim can be conceived as a universal law in/out any contradiction and 2- The maxim can be rationally wanted (willed) as a universal law in/out any contradiction BEBA

According to Davis, what are the 'core principles of consequntalism'?

1- The moral status of an action is determined by its consequences. 2- All the consequences of an action are relevant to its moral status. 3- An action is morally right if it advances everyone's interests as a group and morally wrong if it detracts from everyone's interests as a group, where the effect of the action on the group's interests is determined by an "ideal observer" who impartially benevolent and in possession of all the relevant facts about the consequences of the action. 4- An action is morally permissible if it is not morally.

What are some criticisms against Kant's theory?

1. He allows for happiness as long as the primary maxim of an action does not depend on emotions 2. Maxims must not be too general or specific but he doesn't provide any more specific information. 3. His theory applies to rational agents, beings who are not rational agents are not rational agents. 4. Conflicting Rules issue.

What are the two tests that a maxim must pass to become a universal law?

1. Maxim must be able to be *CONCEIVED* as a universal law without any contradictions 2. Maxim must be able to be rationally *WILLED* (wanted) as a universal law without any contradictions. [Conceived & Willed]

What are the differences between Bentham and Mill?

1. Quality vs Quantity 2. Calculus vs. Principles 1. Mill criticizes Bentham's Utilitarianism theory by proposing that we establish a collection of rules that develop principles of what will produce the greatest happiness instead of calculating. Mill states that it is impossible to quantify or assign numerical values to our pleasure and pains. 2. Mill argues that intellectual pleasures are higher in quality than sensual pleasures, even though lower in quantity.

Summary of Davis's writing about Consequentalism?

Advantages: (1.) consequentialism satisfies our expectation that morality is about the general interest rather than our own narrow self-interests. (2.) Consequentialism contends that moral deliberation is just like the decision making process we have engaged in without much controversy most of our lives. Disadvantages or criticisms: (1.) Problems of Application (A.) Consequntialist method doesn't allow us to be sufficiently confident to act when a choice is required. (i.) you care a great deal more about what happens to you than you do about what happens to others. (ii.) there is a great deal you don't know about the other's situation which you would need to know if you were going to make a confident assessment. (iii.) the consequentialist method of evaluating actions depends upon calculating relative values in just the way that looks impossible, the incommensurability of goods. (2.) Problems with Distressing Outcomes: (A.) The problem of unjust distributions (i.) Slavery (ii.) The governor's decision to condemn innocent man found guilty of brutal child murder. (B.) The problem of Special Relations (i.) Saving your grandma vs. Saving 4 strangers. (C.) The problem of dirty hands (iii.) When despicable things must be done in order to secure a better total outcome, it makes no difference to the ideal observer whether you are the one to do them or not. It ought to matter to us, whether it is our hands which do the dirty work. (3.) Additional Problems (A.) The problem of Increasing Schizophrenia (i.) The more morally mature you are, the more acute tension will become when faced with a situation where your intuitional recommendation does not serve the general interest. This double-mindedness that constitutes the problem of schizophrenia. (B.) The unavoidable arbitrariness of the consequentialist Method (i.) The Unavoidable Arbitrariness of the Consequentialist Method: One of consequentialism's most attractive features (considering everyone's interest) often causes ambiguity that even an ideal observer would find impossible to avoid arbitrariness in "adding up" individual interests to get the "interests of all" (C.) Arrow's Theorem (i.) There is no non-arbitrary guarantee method for generating an aggregate preference ordering from individual preference orderings that satisfy minimal requirements of fairness and logical coherence. Ideal observers would be forced either to impose an arbitrary and logically suspect ordering on the group, or to insist that every possibility is equally preferable for the group. Thus each is morally permissible and none of the alternatives would be either morally right or wrong. Some additional info: Hare's version in particular shows how a significant role for or intuitions can alleviate some of the difficulties in applying the system to actual choices. -------------------------------------------------------- One of the most obvious advantages of consequentialism is that is that it satisfies our expectation that morality is about the general interest rather than our own narrow self-interests. Consequentialism contends that moral deliberation is just like the decision making process we use about whether we should buy a cheap watch or an expensive radio. Compared to the other complicated and confusing methods, Consequantialism has an equally great advantages. It proposes to short-circuit many moral debates by exploiting the connection between what is morally right and what is in everyone's interest. The consequentialist says, "Determine what is in the general interest, and do it". This makes moral reasoning just like a kind of reasoning that we have engaged in without much controversy most of our lives. The standard decision-making procedure in the business world is the method of "cost-benefit analysis" and it is like consequentalist moral deliberation {Example of closing a factory}. There are two particularly large difficulties facing you. (1.) The first is that you care a great deal more about what happens to you than you do about what happens to others. You are naturally inclined to stress the benefits that you would receive and to overlook the hardships that you would inflict on others. (2.) Second, there is a great deal you don't know about the other's situation which you would need to know if you were going to make a confident assessment. This is why Hare finds it necessary to utilize an "ideal observer" in his account of the nature of moral right and wrong. The ideal observer makes it possible to fulfill our expectation that claims like this about the rightness of an action. *The Core Principles of Consequnialism* (1.) The moral status of an action is determined by it's consequences. (2.) All the consequences of an action are relevant to it's moral status. (3.) An action is morally right if it advances everyone's interest as a group and morally wrong if it detracts from everyone's interests as a group, where the effect of the action on the group's interest is determined by an "ideal observer" who is impartially benevolent and in possession of all the relevant facts about the consequences of the action. (4.) An action is morally permissible if it is not morally wrong. The most common criticisms of consequentialism can be divided into two groups. (1.) The problems that attend any attempt to use the method to solved actual moral problems. (2.) The method appears to reach--or at least which the method does not seem able to prevent. Problems of Application: Unfortunately, the kinds of things we typically look for in deciding whether a consequence is good or bad are often incomensurable: we don't have a way to compare apples and oranges on the same scale without being arbitrary. And since the consequentialist method of evaluating actions depends upon calculating relative values in just the way that looks impossible, the incommensurability of goods is a significant problem. Hare's version of consequantialism makes some changes to the standard account, which greatly reduce the problems of application. He is able to soften these difficulties by incorporating a substantial role for intuitions in his account, which provides another means for deciding what to do when time does not allow the kind of extensive calculation that the method typically requires. At the bottom, all the problems of application concern whether to consequntialist method will ever allow us to be sufficiently confident to act when a choice is required. The problems with Distressing Outcomes: The most serious of the traditional attacks on consequantialism concern the variety of surprising courses of action which the method either appears to recommend or at least appears not to prevent. These are the problems of distributive justice. The problem of Unjust Distributions: The problem of unjust distributions is when consequantalism says it's morally permissible to oppress a minority to produce an outcome that best serves the group's interest {Slavery}. Another example given is of a governor who must decide to commute the sentence (make innocent) of a condemned person who is charged with a brutal murder of a child. The governor is confident the accused is not guilty. He worries commuting the sentence will make him appear soft on crime which may encourage violence of this kind. Even the ideal observer could conclude the total consequences of allowing the execution to proceed would be more in the general interest than preventing it would be. It would at least be morally permissible. Hare contends that the ideal observer has reasons generally to prefer more equal distributions. The Problems of Special Relations: Arises from the seemingly harmless consequentalist assumption that everyone counts equally when tallying up the various consequences of an action. Since the ideal observer plays no favorites, it must disregard any prejudicial claims in determining what one ought to do. {An example is in determining who to save if there are people trapped in a burning house. If you were given the choice to save four people in one room or just your grandmother in another room.} The consequentialist standard refuses you to take into any special concern for your grandmother. The Problem of Dirty Hands: Since the ideal observer is finally concerned only with recommending the outcome that serves the general interest, it does not matterr who fills which roles in the final outcome. When despicable things must be done in order to secure a better total outcome, it makes no difference to the ideal observer whether you are the one to do them or not. It ought to matter to us, whether it is our hands which do the dirty work. The consequentialist method militates against that concern. The Problem of Increasing Schizophrenia: Suppose you are mature morally in every way. This maturity would be evident in two areas. (1) First, you would grow increasingly able to evaluate situations just as the ideal observer would. And with this maturity ought to come increasing confidence that your "critical" evaluations of what you ought to do coincide with the truth of the matter. You will find your affections more engaged in your choices. You may be confronted by a situation in which the general reliable intuitions should be overridden by critical reflection. An example is when the intuitional recommendation does not serve the general interest. You will be torn in such cases. This double-mindedness constitutes the problem of schizophrenia. The Unavoidable Arbitrariness of the Consequentialist Method: One of consequentialism's most attractive features (considering everyone's interest) often causes ambiguity that even an ideal observer would find impossible to avoid arbitrariness in "adding up" individual interests to get the "interests of all"

What is the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Higher quality pleasures are desired over & preferred by all (or almost all) in compared to lower quality pleasures. Higher quality pleasures most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings posses in one form or other which is proportion to their higher faculties and which is so essential a part of happiness of those in whom it is strong, which nothing else can be an object of desire to them.

What is a maxim?

A situation, your action as a result of the situation, the motive behind why you took the action. {It's rainy, so I won't go to class today because I don't want to get wet} A maxim is thought to be part of an agent's thought process for every rational action, indicating in its standard form: (1) the action, or type of action (2) the conditions under which it is to be done (3) the end or purpose to be achieved by the action, or the motive. The maxim of an action is often referred to as the agent's intention.

Explain the Autonomy Principle

Act only so that the will through it's maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally law given. Example {Kingdom of ends}

What is the Humanity Principle about?

Act so you teat humanity whether in your own self or that of another, as an end & never only as a means.

What is heteronomy?

Acting on a law that arises outside of our rational selves. BEBA

According to Mill, what is the theory of morality that he advocates?

Actions are good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level. Mill says that the Epicurean theory of life (that life has no higher end than pleasure) supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. Mill proposes that human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites; and do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. Mill feels the intellectual pleasures as much more desirable & valuable than sensual pleasures.

What is rule-utilitarianism?

An action is right if it conforms to an ideal set of rules. The ideal set of rules id decided by asking which rules would maximize utility if everyone accepted them. BEBA

What is the principle of utility?

An action is right if it produces the greatest amount of happiness/pleasure for all those affected by the consequences of action.

What is act-utilitarianism?

An action is right in a *particular situation* if it produces the greatest amount of utility for all those affected. Disadvantage - Might not have to take into account common sense moral principles. BEBA

What is the "ultimate end" according to the "Greatest Hapiness Principle"?

An existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality.

What are, according to Davis, 'the problem of special relations,'?

Arises from the seemingly harmless consequentalist assumption that everyone counts equally when tallying up the various consequences of an action. Since the ideal observer plays no favorites, it must disregard any prejudicial claims in determining what one ought to do. {An example is in determining who to save if there are people trapped in a burning house. If you were given the choice to save four people in one room or just your grandmother in another room.} The consequentialist standard refuses you to take into any special concern for your grandmother.

What are, according to Davis, the 'problem of application,' ?

At the bottom, all the problems of application concern whether to consequntialist method will ever allow us to be sufficiently confident to act when a choice is required. -------------------------------------------------------- There are two particularly large difficulties facing you. (1.) The first is that you are a great deal more about what happens to you than you do about what happens to others. You are naturally inclined to stress the benefits that you would receive and to overlook the hardships that you would inflict on others. (2.) Second, there is a great deal you don't know about the other's situation which you would need to know if you were going to make a confident assessment. Unfortunately, the kinds of things we typically look for in deciding whether a consequence is good or bad are often incomensurable: we don't have a way to compare apples and oranges on the same scale without being arbitrary. And since the consequentialist method of evaluating actions depends upon calculating relative values in just the way that looks impossible, the incommensurability of goods is a significant problem.

Should the calculus be applied to all moral judgments?

Bentham says, "It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued to every moral judgement. It may, however, be always kept in view.

How does Bentham understand the concept of utility?

Bentham starts off stating that while a man may claim his empire, in reality he is subject to it all the while. He says the principle of utility recoginizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system. He says, "By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.

What is the utilitarian calculus that he advocates?

Bentham states that it behoves someone to understand the value of pleasures and the avoidances of pain. He says pleasure and pains are the instruments we have to work with. Bentham says the value of a pleasure or a pain is determined by these seven circumstances: 1) Intensity 2) Duration 3) Certainty 4) Propinquity or Remoteness 5) Fecundity (followed by same sensations) 6) Purity (not followed by opposite sensations) 7) Extent (number of people it extends to)

What is the difference between the categorical and the hypothetical imperative?

Categorical imperatives applies to all unconditionally. Doesn't depend on desires. Do X for the sake of doing X alone. Hypothetical imperatives depends on *prudential considerations* (desires, emotions, goals). If you wan to do X you must do y. Example {I want to go to medical school, so I must take the MCAT.

What are some characteristics of good philosophical answers?

Clarity Consistency Coherence Comprehensiveness Compatible. [C5]

What is descriptive ethics?

Collecting and interpreting data in what people in groups, societies, tend to do and believe (What do people think is right?). double check

What are good characteristics of utilitarianism theory?

Could be any one of these based on what you believe: Consequntalist - evaluate decisions by looking at consequences Maximizing - greatest pleasure for all Impartialistic - Everyone's interest count's equally Ethical Hedonist - Pleasure/happiness & pain/sadness is only intrinsically good/bad Welfairistic - Utility of everyone needs to be taking into account.

What are the objections of utilitarianism theory?

Could be any one of these based on what you believe: Consequntalist - evaluate decisions by looking at consequences Maximizing - greatest pleasure for all Impartialistic - Everyone's interest count's equally Ethical Hedonist - Pleasure/happiness & pain/sadness is only intrinsically good/bad Welfairistic - Utility of everyone needs to be taking into account.

What are hypothetical imperatives?

Depends on *prudential considerations*. prudential considerations - desires emotions goals If you want to do X, you must do Y

What is good reasoning?

Good reasoning is the one in charge to make us analyze every possible answer and at the same time be able to select what it is best for everyone

What is the good will? Why is it intrinsically good?

Good will is the self-conscious disposition to act from morally commendable ways. It is intrinsically good because it is good without qualification. The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will remains.

What is the difference between acting according to duty and acting from duty?

In acting from duty, and in acting in accordance with duty, the action is the same. The difference relates to the motivation of the act (the will). In acting from duty, I perform the action because it is my duty, irrespective of whether or not I am inclined to do it, or of whether or not it is in my interests. In acting in accordance with duty, while I do perform the action that duty commands, I don't do it for that reason. Rather I do it because it pleases me or is in my interests.

What's the difference between acting according to duty vs. acting from duty?

In acting from duty, and in acting in accordance with duty, the action is the same. The difference relates to the motivation of the act (the will). In acting from duty, I perform the action because it is my duty, irrespective of whether or not I am inclined to do it, or of whether or not it is in my interests. In acting in accordance with duty, while I do perform the action that duty commands, I don't do it for that reason. Rather I do it because it pleases me or is in my interests.

What is hedonic calculus?

Method of calculating the amount of pleasure an action produces. 1. Intensity 2. Duration 3. Certainty 4. Propinquinty 5. Productivity 6. Purity 7. Extent

What is autonomy?

Means self governing and independent. Kant's Autonomy principle states, "Act only so that the will through it's maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally law given. Our value comes from obeying & formulating laws.

Explain the example of the prosperous person who does not want to help others.

Kant says it is morally wrong for a prosperous person to not help others. It is our duty to be charitable. We may be able to conceive a world where we aren't charitable, but we would not WILL for it to be so.

Explain the example of the person who considers of not developing his talents.

Kant says it is morally wrong for someone who doesn't develop their talents because it is their duty. We may be able to conceive a world where everyone doesn't develop their talents, but we would not WILL for it to be so.

What is the Deontological theory of Kant?

Kant's Deontological theory was the "Categorical Imperative" which states "Act only according to that maxim by which you can conceive, at the same time you will it should become a universal law of nature."

Who decides that the higher qualities pleasures are more preferable than the lower ones?

Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher" faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often suffers more in life, he would never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.

Mill states that, "a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's concept of happiness." Explain what he means.

Mill says that human pleasures are much superior animalistic ones: once people are made aware of their higher faculties, they will never be happy to leave them uncultivated; thus happiness is a sign that we are exercising our higher faculties. Some pleasure are intrinsically more valuable than others. When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it. Mill states that, "Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites; and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.

What are deontological ethical theories?

Moral conduct is that which follows specific list of duties. Deontological Ethics is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions (motives) themselves.

What is duty?

Moral obligation that agents have to themselves or others. Duties are actions that are morally mandatory. The necessity of an action executed from moral law.

What are, according to Davis, 'the problem of dirty hands,'?

Since the ideal observer is finally concerned only with recommending the outcome that serves the general interest, it does not matterr who fills which roles in the final outcome. When despicable things must be done in order to secure a better total outcome, it makes no difference to the ideal observer whether you are the one to do them or not. It ought to matter to us, whether it is our hands which do the dirty work. The consequentialist method militates against that concern.

What is Ethics?

Study of good/right conduct

What is meta-ethics?

Study of origin & meaning of ethical concepts. Evaluates the should or logical consistency of ethical systems, theories, etc. Fact collecting without passing judgement. Where our ethical principles come from and what they mean. (What does "right" even mean?)

What is Philosophy?

Study of very basic beliefs, concepts, & assumptions. [BAC]

What is the example of suicide supposed to show?

That we aren't suppose to treat humanity only as a means. We should treat all of humanity as an end. This breaks the categorical imperative because we would not WILL for this to become a universal law.

What is the example of borrowing money supposed to show?

The example of borrowing money with no intent to repay show's the importance of keeping a promise. Borrowing money without the intent to repay breaks the categorical imperative because we would not WILL for this to become a universal law.

What are consequential ethical theories?

The moral worthiness of an action depends on it's consequences. Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, & Rule Utilitarianism. Bentham & Mill.

What are, according to Davis, the 'problem of increasing schizophrenia.'?

The more morally mature you are, the more acute tension will become when faced with a situation where your intuitional recommendation does not serve the general interest. This double-mindedness that constitutes the problem of schizophrenia. -------------------------------------------------------- Suppose you are mature morally in every way. This maturity would be evident in two areas. (1) First, you would grow increasingly able to evaluate situations just as the ideal observer would. And with this maturity ought to come increasing confidence that your "critical" evaluations of what you ought to do coincide with the truth of the matter. You will find your affections more engaged in your choices. You may be confronted by a situation in which the general reliable intuitions should be overridden by critical reflection. An example is when the intuitional recommendation does not serve the general interest. You will be torn in such cases which constitutes the problem of schizophrenia.

What are, according to Davis, 'the problem of unjust distribution,' ?

The problem of unjust distributions is when consequantalism says it's morally permissible to oppress a minority to produce an outcome that best serves the group's interest {Slavery}. Another example given is of a governor who must decide to commute the sentence (make innocent) of a condemned person who is charged with a brutal murder of a child. The governor is confident the accused is not guilty. He worries commuting the sentence will make him appear soft on crime which may encourage violence of this kind. Even the ideal observer could conclude the total consequences of allowing the execution to proceed would be more in the general interest than preventing it would be. It would at least be morally permissible. Hare contends that the ideal observer has reasons generally to prefer more equal distributions.

What is cognitive ethics?

There are moral truths. Moral Statements can be true or false. (Relativistic and Objective theories are both cognitive ethics.

What are non-cognitive ethical theories?

There are no moral truths. Moral statements are neither true or false.

What is the concept of good?

X is intrinsically valuable pleasure or happiness

What is normative ethics?

Way things ought (should) to be; generate the norms, principle of right/good action. Arrive at moral standards that determine right from wrong conduct(How should people act?) ways things ought to be; generate norms; principle of rights

What is instrumental or extrinsic value?

When X is valuable as a means to a further end.

What is intrinsic value?

When X is valuable for it's own sake

What is the concept of right?

When extrinsically valuable. An action, is right when A has the higher utility than any alternative action. Principle of Utility -An action is right if it produces the greatest amount of happiness/pleasure for all those affected by the consequences of the action.

Why is morality, according to Kant, based on reason and not on the consequences of our actions?

When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome. What we can control, however, is the will behind the action.

What is good will?

self-conscious disposition to act from morally commendable ways BEBA