Phil final

d. What are the main attractions of this account of personal identity?

It's attractive partly because it's so simple and easy, but also because (1) it helps us understand why human beings are so special; and (2) because it provides us with some reason to believe in an afterlife—when my body dies, I might continue to exist as an immaterial soul.

e. How is respect for the law related to the notion of the Good Will?

"The Good Will respects the moral law." -the only thing that is good in themselves. The good will treats its principles as if they were actual laws, that is, commands that everyone ought to follow regardless of their desires, wants, or interests. Laws are commands from 'above,' as it were, and the good will respects the moral law. Kant thinks that, if we cannot universalize our maxims or imagine a world where everyone followed the rule we're following as if it were their own, then the maxim is immoral.

a. When we talk about personal identity, what is the difference between membership in a kind, identity at a time, and identity over time?

(1) Kind-Identity: What kind of thing or entity am I? (2) Synchronic-Identity: What makes me a particular individual who is distinct from others at a particular point in time? (3) Diachronic-Identity: What makes me the same individual at different points over time?

b. What is the difference between qualitative sameness and numerical identity? Give examples to illustrate these different senses of identity.

- "Qualitative sameness" is a matter of sharing similar qualities. For instance, two black pens might be qualitatively identical if they have the same size, shape, make, color, weight, etc. The two pens might be perfect replicas of one another. But this doesn't mean they are "numerically identical." - Numerical identity means that they are one and the same thing. The black pen is numerically identical only to itself, but it is not numerically identical to any other black pen.

d. What is Ethical Egoism? How is ethical egoism related to Psychological Egoism?

- Ethical Egoism: It is always right to do what benefits you the most - Psychological Egoism: people can only act in their self-interest - Psychological Egoism provides justification for EE - Conclusion: if morality can only require us to act as we are motivated to act then morality requires e.e According to ethical egoism: (1) we ought to do whatever promotes our long-term wellbeing, i.e., whatever is best for us or whatever best serves out self-interest; (2) what makes an action right or wrong is a function of how it effects my own interests—it is right if it promotes my interests, and it is wrong if it thwarts my interests; and (3) the authority of ethical egoism comes from the psychological necessity of pursuing our self-interest. This is the thesis of psychological egoism (PE). According to PE, humans can only ever pursue their own interests. The ethical egoist accepts this. He thinks that we're just psychologically wired in a selfish way. The connection between PE and EE, then, is a justificatory one: PE provides a justificatory basis for EE.

e. According to Utilitarianism, would it be possible for the same kind of action to be necessarily immoral, that is, al under all circumstances? Explain why or why not.

- Not every feature of an action has consequences for the good - Many actions might not have really long term effects (their effects wane over time) - Maximize expected utility rather than actual one (by taking into account how probably we expect future outcomes) - There are no kinds of action that are in principle absolutely wrong - The only action that is necessarily and absolutely wrong is the action that does not maximize utility - Example: maximization of happiness might require harming an innocent - Killing one person who's organs can help several live Yes, killing people is considered immoral, but it can be morally correct if the outcome outweighs the action of killing. - As long as that death of one person benefits a majority, it can be seen as morally correct. - Conclusion there are no absolute moral right

e. What philosophical arguments have been offered to support the undesirability of immortality? Discuss in detail.

- Thomas Nagel thinks that from our first-personal point of view—the engaged view of self-consciousness—it feels to us as if the goods that life offers are potentially endless. So, Nagel seems to think that immortality from our first-personal or internal perspective is a good thing. - Bernard Williams boredom argument = argues that, given the kinds of creatures that we are, we will eventually become bored from living. You'll eventually get sick of it, even if you're granted the best conditions anyone could possibly have - Samuel Scheffler reversal argument = Immortality would condemn us to a life of meaninglessness. the things we value would lose their value if we were immortal. The possibility of death is something that grounds meaning in our lives

e. What are the problems with Ethical Egoism?

1. First, it's not clear that morality can't require us to act in ways that we might not be entirely possible to us. For instance, psychopaths cannot act compassionately towards others, but we might still think that they ought to act compassionately. We might not hold them responsible if they fail to do so, but that doesn't mean the moral demand fails to apply to them. 2. Second, it seems like psychological egoism, the claim that is used to justify EE, is questionable. It is true, perhaps, that all of our actions are based (in some sense) on our desires. But desires are not always or necessarily selfish. That is, not all desires aim at the satisfaction or wellbeing of the agent who has the desire.

a. What are the basic tenets of utilitarianism?

According to Utilitarianism, the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest overall balance of happiness over suffering for the greatest number. That's the principle of utility; it's the central or core tenet of utilitarianism (along with the claim that good = happiness.). - What is right or good is the action that brings about the most happiness for the most amount of people - Morality concerns only the consequences of the action - What matters in the consequence is the ultimate good/utility - Utility is the various options (pleasure, happiness,, welfare, etc)

f. Do you find these arguments convincing? If yes, Why? If not, why not?

Bullshit this

b. Is Kant's ethics a deontological or a consequentialist theory? Explain why.

Deontological, lt focuses on the rightness of an action rather than its actual consequences

c. Is the philosophical discipline of Ethics primarily a descriptive or a normative discipline? Explain

Ethics is the discipline that deals with these normative questions: what is really right and wrong? how should we live our lives? how ought we treat one another? Normative because ethics is the philosophical study of correct moral terms, what is right and wrong. These moral terms determine how we should live our lives and treat one another.

c. According to Kant, how do we determine if an action is immoral? Give at least one concrete and detailed example of how the test for immorality would work (it is fine to use one of the examples discussed in lecture).

If an individual is not acting in a sense of duty(edit: i'm pretty sure not acting out of pure duty would not be considered as immoral by kant...rather it would be amoral, i.e neither moral nor immoral. An example is a person taking care of his/her mother out of love and care and not out of a sense of duty. That action wouldn't be immoral...but it also wouldn't be moral. It would be neutral). If it fails the CI test, as in if everyone took the particular action as a maxim, then it would render that thing itself impossible. Ex: If we lived in a world where everyone broke promises they made. In this world, the very concept of promising would be impossible. Thus, it is immoral to break promises.

d. If we are mortal (in the sense that we have no afterlife) is our death something bad? If so, what makes it so? If not, why not? Discuss in detail.

It is not bad for the individual that dies because they don't know they are dead. if death means the non-existence of the individual, then someone's death cannot be bad for that person. She's no longer there to care about her death; she's no longer there to experience anything at all. If the value of life is instrumental, then it's only premature death, not death itself, that is necessarily bad.

f. According to you, which is the most attractive feature of Utilitarianism? Explain why.

It's universalistic—it includes everyone's happiness in its calculations. It focuses on the happiness of the majority instead of the individual. It makes it "fair" for everyone.

a. What are the basic claims of Kant's ethical theory? Explain the difference between a deontological and a consequential theory.

Kant's moral theory is a paradigm of deontology. For Kant, the rightness of an action is never a matter of its actual consequences. It's always, rather, a matter of the principle or maxim on which the action is based. The "principle" or "maxim" is something like a rule that prescribes a certain course of action. Kant thinks that all actions express some principle that the agent has adopted, and all moral actions share one particular principle in common: Kant calls the supreme principle of morality the "categorical imperative."1 That's the principle that resides at the core of all morally good and right actions. It's an "imperative" because it's a command, and it's categorical because it's unconditional.

d. Give a concrete example of how Utilitarianism would determine whether a certain action is morally required.

Knowing that hitler killed millions of jewish people, and a situation would arise were you can go back and time and kill him before he proceeds to d so. Although it can be seen as wrong for killing someone, Utilitarianism claims that for the good for the most, in this case the jewish people being able to live, that killing hitler is morally right because of the consequences.

What is the difference between a descriptive vs. a normative study of moral norms?

Normative: How ppl should (ought) behave; morality/ethics as the correct moral norms. a normative study of moral norms prescribe or evaluate which beliefs, norms, and practices are the right (or wrong) ones. Descriptive: How people do behave; the actual beliefs & practices about right/wrong actions, good/bad ppl. a descriptive study of moral norms describes what people or cultures may believe is right or wrong.

What is the distinction between normative and descriptive claims? Give an example of both kinds of claim.

Normative: what should be the case, Normative claims make value judgments. The claim that we "ought" to perform some action or that we "should" adopt some practice because they're morally correct (or "right") is a normative claim. Descriptive: what is the case, Descriptive claims do not make value judgments. Normative: "If you wanted to pass that test you should have studied harder." Descriptive: "I had toast and eggs for breakfast this morning."

d. What role does the notion of 'respect' play in Kant's moral theory? (Make sure to discuss both the idea of Respect for Humanity and Respect for the Law).

Principle of Humanity (PH): I must always act in such a way that I treat the humanity (in myself and others) as an end in itself and never as a mere means. Value of humanity Treat everyone as an end in themselves (as absolute value) and never merely as means Kant argues that each of us values oneself but not as me but as someone with humanity with rational nature What leads me to value myself should then lead me to value others as well This is true of all of us hence we are all committed to the value of humanity as an absolute value To value humanity is to valre our capacity for autonomous rational choice hence immorality is the failure to respect humanity Respect for the moral Law: doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, good will

f. What is the difference between Ethical Egoism and subjectivism?

Subjectivism is the view that what's right is whatever I think or take to be right. This is different from ethical egoism. Ethical egoism says that what's right is whatever promotes your well-being or your selfish interests. Subjectivism doesn't say anything about the content of morality. It doesn't say that you have to promote your own interests. It just says that morality depends on you—whatever you decide or believe is right really is right just in virtue of you believing it.

e. What are the main problems? Explain in detail.

The obvious problem is that there's no evidence for the existence of the soul. You can't point to it. Some people may say that there is an indirect way to see our soul which is through thoughts. However, we don't have any way of knowing whether the effects are due to one and the same soul persisting over time or to many different souls that come and go over time. It's possible that my thoughts are caused by millions of souls working together. It's possible that I get a 'new' soul every five minutes. There's no way for us to determine that we have the same soul over time.

c. What do these two theories say about the possibility of immortality?

The soul-theorist will say that immortality is a product of the nature of the soul: the soul is simple, non-natural, and eternal. There's nothing that could dissolve it other than (perhaps) God alone. The psychological-continuity-theorist can argue that immortality is possible. lets say you upload all your memories from your brain onto a machine or computer that lives forever.

i. What problems, if any, are still present with Cultural Moral Relativism?

There is still arbitrariness, partiality, infallibility, and lack of genuine criticism although centered around cultures rather than individuals 1) Assume that there's a large degree of variation between the moral of different cultures. 2) MCR presuppose that culture is a homogenous and fixed entity; that everyone belongs to one and only one culture.

c. Is Utilitarianism a deontological or a consequentialist theory? Explain why.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory because it focuses on the outcome, the end result, and whether or not consequences are weighed out from the good that occurs. For utilitarians the rightness of wrongness of an action always depends on something external to it, namely, its consequences. Therefore, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.

g. According to you, which is the most serious problem with Utilitarianism? Explain in detail what the problem is and whether Utilitarianism might be able to respond to this problem.

Utilitarianism seems to clash with some of our moral intuitions and judgments. For instance, utilitarianism seems to allow us to violate people's rights if doing so will bring about the greatest amount of happiness. Utilitarianism, in other words, doesn't seem to respect our rights. however, utilitarians can respond by insisting that respecting the rights of others does, in fact, lead to greater happiness overall. In general utilitarianism would say that we should respect people's rights because that would lead to the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number.

h. Does Cultural Moral Relativism solve any of the problems of Subjectivism? If so, which ones and how?

Yes because according to CMR, individuals really can be wrong about what's morally right or wrong regardless of what these individuals think. If your moral beliefs contradict the moral beliefs of your culture, then your moral beliefs are false. This means that you can have moral disagreements and moral progress.

b. Explain the difference between a deontological and a consequential theory.

consequentialist theories claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action depend on its consequences alone. deontological theories claim that some actions are right or wrong in themselves, e.g., because of the structure or nature of the action or something like that, rather than because of any consequence the action might bring about. Deontological theories are moral theories that give rightness priority over goodness. Deontological theories are duty- based. The major difference between deontology and consequentialism is that, according to deontology, rightness or wrongness of an action depends on certain structural features of the action itself and not on their consequences.

f. What is the main alternative to the soul-theory of personal identity? How does this alternative account handle the problem of change? Explain in detail.

continuity = the person's identity is preserved over time as long as the change they undergo is gradual and (relatively) small rather than immediate and (relatively) major. 2 ways of handling change: bodily continuity and psychological continuity -- - bodily = you're the same person over time if there's continuity of the same body. Same body, same person. - psychological continuity of our core memories, desires, intentions, and beliefs seems to be essential for our numerical identity over time.

g. What are the main attractions of this alternative account?

continuity tells us how we can be the same person over time without appealing to an abstract idea like the soul Although bodily continuity is not that compelling, psychological continuity seems promising. it explains why body swapping makes sense; and (2) it accounts for the importance we often grant to our mental lives.

b. What counts as death according to the account of identity in terms of psychological continuity? Give an example that illustrates how these theories differ in their account of death.

death = loss of our special psychological and biological properties and capacities. e.g., your consciousness, intelligence, rationality, sentience According to this view, we need to distinguish our "special" properties, or S-properties from our "banal" (or generic) ones, or B-properties. ex: If one suffers some type of brain trauma and loses all memories before the time they suffered the trauma then they would be they are dead, because what they are composed of(memories) would be gone

a. What counts as the death of an individual according to the soul-theory of identity?

death = the loss of our soul;According to the soul-view, physical death doesn't necessarily imply individual death—the soul is the individual, and the soul can survive bodily disintegration. This is because, as we've seen, the soul is an immaterial and unchanging substance.

g. What is Cultural Moral relativism

similar to Subjectivism, but instead of being centered around the individual, it is centered around culture or society. According to CMR, (1) whatever a culture or society thinks is morally right really is, for that reason, morally right; (2) we ought to do whatever our culture tells us is the morally right thing to do; and (3) the authority of our moral norms comes from the (alleged) fact that culture is the ultimate point of reference for moral norms—there's no 'higher' authority to which we can appeal beyond or outside of culture.

c. How is the notion of the soul supposed to address the question of temporal identity over time?

we're the same person throughout time because we have the same soul. The essential property is the soul. Everything else is inessential. It's true that my appearances changes and that I acquire new memories and beliefs and so on, but throughout this process I am always one and the same soul. That's what makes me numerically identical to my earlier self and it's what will ensure my numerical identity with my future self.