Philosophy 215 Midterm

What is the "slogan" for utilitarianism, and how does this illustrate the two key insights of utilitarianism, as discussed in the Hinman reading? (Utilitarianism)

- "The greatest good for the greatest number" - The morality of an action is to be determined solely through an assessment of its consequences, where we consider the consequences on everyone impacted by action. - Our intentions or reasons for acting have no effect on the morality of the action.

As given in the reading, present and explain the four-part definition of moral virtue. Make sure that you spend time carefully explaining each of the four parts. (Virtue Ethics) Part 3: to seek the mean in all things relative to us

- A virtue involves finding the mean between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. - Courage is that middle ground between cowardice and foolhardiness. - In virtues that contain several elements, there might be several associated vices, depending on which of the elements are in excess and which are deficient. - Courage has at least two components: fear and confidence. We can lean toward either factor: we may have too much or two little fear/confidence.

Using the story of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," explain the objection that act utilitarianism opens the door to abuses of justice. (Utilitarianism)

- Act Utilitarianism: an action is right or wrong according to whether that action leads to the greatest sum of good consequences - This can lead to abuse of justice because when the one child suffers for the greater good of the rest, it could be seen as justified under act utilitarianism, even if we know that we should not consciously torture a child just so that others would have the perfect life. Even if it causes universal happiness, one should not be harmed for the sole purpose of gaining this.

Explain what it means to act for the sake of duty and how this relates to an act's moral worth. How is the shopkeeper's example to illustrate this? (Deontology)

- Deontology: Assesses the worth of actions or classes of actions on the basis of their conformity to some principle(s) of duty. Deontology finds value in the action itself and the motive from which the action is done. - If someone acts for the sake of duty, it should be done out of a concern for what is morally right. This means that an act's moral worth can be assessed based on the action itself, and whether it was a duty, as well as the intentions behind it. If the intention of an action is to follow a duty, it could be seen as moral. - Actions only have moral worth if they are performed out of duty.

As given in the reading, present and explain the four-part definition of moral virtue. Make sure that you spend time carefully explaining each of the four parts. (Virtue Ethics) Part 4: where the mean is defined through reason as the prudent man would define it

- Determine the mean through reason and observing the prudent person. - We need both principles and people for moral life. - Rather than choosing one or the other, Aristotle chooses both, seeing them as complementary.

Explain the objection to ethical relativism that disagreement is not sufficient to demonstrate relativism. What extra premise would be needed to make a complete argument? (ethical relativism)

- Diversity Thesis and Dependency Thesis must both be present to prove relativism. - The Diversity thesis is the disagreement point. - Dependency thesis is what qualifies the statement as true. - Diversity thesis - there is no set of universally agreed upon moral standards applying to all cultures and people everywhere. - Dependency thesis - what it is moral for an individual to do depends on the norms of her culture.

How does virtue ethics differ as an ethical approach from either utilitarianism or deontology? (Virtue Ethics)

- Instead of answering the question "What ought I to do?," virtue ethics answers the question "What kind of person should I be?" - Virtue ethics focuses on character rather than on actions. - The aim is to cultivate a virtuous character rather than trying to follow specific rules of action. To do the right action, one must have good character. It is not just about blindly following rules, but about becoming a certain sort of person, a virtuous person. - Meanwhile, utilitarianism revolves around anticipating consequences of actions and using those consequences to determine what one will do in a situation. - Deontology focuses on what is considered universally acceptable and one's motivations determining their actions.

Explain the objection that Kant's emphasis on reason neglects the important role of emotions in our decision making. (Deontology)

- Kant claims that emotions are fickle, we didn't choose them, and they lack the reliability to determine the right thing to do. - They threaten the autonomy of the moral agent. - Some emotions can be quite motivating for doing the right thing, and some emotions (like compassion) can be quite reliable when it comes to doing the right thing. - Therefore, decisions should not necessarily be made using moral alienation. Kant claims that we are only morally responsible for that over which we have voluntary control. We are not responsible for things outside of our good will, our motive to rationally act according to duty. But we do hold people morally responsible for more than just their motive; how their actions turn out is important to how we morally judge a person's action. - This means that someone may experience moral luck and their actions may not truly demonstrate their motivations, meaning they cannot truly be praised for a good decision.

Explain the difference between a temperate person and the continent person.(Virtue Ethics)

- Temperate Person: One who does what is right because she wants to. Temperate people have rightly ordered appetites/desires. - Continent Person: One who does what is right but doesn't really want to. Continent or intemperate people do not have right ordered appetites/desires and so often need rules to govern and control their actions.

Explain the test of respect, the idea of autonomy, and the two ways we can take away a person's autonomy. (Deontology)

- Test of Respect: Treating someone with respect means that we can never treat a person merely as a means. Treating someone with respect also demands that we do not take away her conditions of moral agency or autonomy. - Autonomy: Autonomy is the ability to make up one's own mind on the basis of the relevant information.

Discuss the Jim and the Indians example from the reading, and what problem it poses against utilitarianism. (Utilitarianism)

- The reading discusses the issue of "personal responsibility" (p.16) and the issue of "fundamental projects" (p.17). For personal responsibility: One worry is that Jim cannot give special weight to the fact that it is him pulling the trigger. Another worry is that utilitarianism holds that Jim is just as equally responsible for what he does directly as he is for the deeds performed by others, and this seems to be a bizarre way to think about "moral responsibility." For fundamental projects: Our very identity is defined by central projects and commitments. If Jim were instead Mother Theresa, to ask her to do this would violate her very identity of who she is. A problem with this example is that utilitarianism wants "the greatest good for the greatest number." In this case, Jim would be forced to kill one Indian for the sake of saving the rest and himself. However, none are deserving of death and depending on who he chooses to die could lead to more despair than happiness. If that person is a provider, their death could also lead to the struggling of other Indians, causing more harm rather than the direct good of letting the others live. The death of one individual could lead to worse consequences than the death of all.

What is the Principle of Utility? And what are two different ways of understanding utility (intrinsic goodness)? (Utilitarianism)

- The right action is what maximizes the good or minimizes the bad - Hedonists: the right action is whichever maximizes pleasure or minimizes pain - Preference Satisfactionists: the right action is whichever maximizes the satisfaction of preferences

How do virtues and vices relate to human flourishing? (Virtue Ethics)

- This involves developing virtues and eliminating vices. - Virtues are strengths of character that promote human flourishing, while vices are weaknesses of character that impede human flourishing. - Flourishing involves being a person who reasons well and lives well with her community.

Explain the objection to ethical relativism that disagreement is not sufficient to demonstrate relativism. What extra premise would be needed to make a complete argument? (ethical relativism)

- Through the different cultures throughout the world, it can be noted that there is no one standard of morality that is accepted by all. - The nature of morality is often subjected to disagreement. - There is no universal moral standard, all morality is relative to one's cultural conventions.

Explain the test of universalizability and how it differs from the Golden Rule. (Deontology)

- Universalizability: an action cannot privilege my own interests - The test of universalizability is to think about what actions any rational person would willingly agree to if setting aside their own personal prejudices and interests, and instead, focusing on what would be required if we were to treat everyone with dignity and to respect each person's autonomy. Meanwhile, the Golden Rule says to treat others the way you want to be treated, which serves personal interests unlike universalizability.

As given in the reading, present and explain the four-part definition of moral virtue. Make sure that you spend time carefully explaining each of the four parts. (Virtue Ethics) Part 2: involving both feeling and action

- Virtue, for Aristotle, is not simply a matter of acting in a certain way; it is also a matter of feeling certain ways. - Virtue includes emotion as well as action. - The compassionate person not only acts in certain ways that help alleviate the suffering of others but also has certain kinds of feelings toward their suffering.

As given in the reading, present and explain the four-part definition of moral virtue. Make sure that you spend time carefully explaining each of the four parts. (Virtue Ethics) Part 1: A habit or disposition of the soul

- We are not born with virtues. - They are not natural or inborn; rather they are acquired, often through practice. - Moral education for Aristotle thus focuses on the development of a person's fundamental character, what Aristotle calls "soul."

Explain the objection to ethical relativism based on the worry that it would hold that are social revolutionaries are immoral. (ethical relativism)

- While ethical relativism states that morals can differ between cultures and countries, by definition, social revolutionaries are always considered immoral. However, social conformists are considered moral. - In a comparison between MLK and Hitler, MLK was morally superior. However, through his opposition to segregation, he would be considered to have run against his culture's values and would be labeled as immoral (despite his good work). - In a comparison between Harriet Tubman and Hitler, Harriet Tubman was morally superior. However, her helping slaves escape through the underground railroad went against the cultures values at the time, labeling her immoral. Meanwhile, despite Hitler's abhorrent work, he technically operated within his culture's values and would have been considered very moral.

Subjective facts (ethical relativism)

- questions that ask for personal opinion or preferences - determined by individual attitudes, beliefs, desires

objective facts (ethical relativism)

- right or wrong answer, objectively agreed upon - can be either actually answered in the present or potentially answered in the future - completely independently from human attitudes, desires, perceptions

Relative facts (ethical relativism)

- there are answers that are better than others, but not objectively right or wrong - these answers are just opinion/subjective - these answers can differ based on geographic/demographics (where you live/socioeconomic status) - determined by social attitudes, beliefs, desires

What is the three-step decision procedure, according to utilitarianism? Make sure to carefully explain each step. (Utilitarianism)

1. Determine the consequences of the various courses of action open to us. - Find the options open to you and look at all the various consequences that would result from each option. 2. Specify the hedons and dolors associated with each alternative. - For each option, assign hedons and dolors to all of the various consequences. 3. Perform that course of action that results in the greatest total amount of pleasure (hedons minus dolors). The action with the most good (or the least bad) is the morally right thing to do.

What are the four questions that Midgley poses regarding moral isolationism?And how do they each lead her to the conclusion that such a position makes no sense at all? (ethical relativism)

1. Does the isolating barrier work both ways? 2. Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? 3. What is involved in judging? 4. If we can't judge other cultures, can we really judge our own?

What are the four questions that Midgley poses regarding moral isolationism?And how do they each lead her to the conclusion that such a position makes no sense at all? (ethical relativism)

1. Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Outsiders have the capability of delivering good indictments, but it takes time. Sometimes intelligent outsiders even have an advantage over local citizens. But if the rule is applied to us, it should also be applied to others. 2. Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? It would be impossible to praise other cultures effectively if they are unable to be criticized as well. If we did not have some understanding of other cultures, any praise we give would rest on no definite grounds, making it worthless. 3. What is involved in judging? Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on matters of any other culture, since we don't understand them. However, we don't understand a lot in our own culture either, which would imply we can't judge our own culture either. So, who can judge in that case? 4. If we can't judge other cultures, can we really judge our own? If we deprive ourselves of opinions of other societies, we have nothing to compare our own too. Without anthropology helping us to understand other cultures and ways of thinking, we would have no way to judge our own society, since we have no additional knowledge to base our opinions on.

Explain why we cannot will lying as a universal law as discussed in the reading. (Deontology)

Anyone who tells a lie is saying that it is permissible to deceive another person for personal gain of some kind. If it were willed at universal law, it would imply that lying and doing so to benefit oneself is alright. It would undermine the possibility of gaining an advantage from our own lying. No one would believe what anyone else said or promised because they would know that it could easily be a lie. Universal law is meant to establish ideals that everyone knows are okay to follow. So, to enable lying would mean that no one knows who is truthful and has good motives.

Explain the objection that virtue ethics cannot help us answer difficult moral dilemmas. (Virtue Ethics)

One objection is that virtue ethics cannot assist in answering questions about the morality of actions, only the morality of character. One response is that we could ask the question, "what would the moral exemplar do?." Another response is that virtue ethics needs to be supplemented with either utilitarianism or deontology to provide us with some rules to handle difficult ethical dilemmas. Another issue arises if one's personal virtues conflict with each other in a given situation. A response is that virtues can be ranked. (Ex. Kill kidnapper; goes against virtues of everyone has the right to life but you also value your own life more)

What is the Principle of Utility? And what are two different ways of understanding utility (intrinsic goodness)? (Utilitarianism)

Principle of Unity: an action is right if it is the action of those available that maximizes utility.

Explain what it means to act for the sake of duty and how this relates to an act's moral worth. How is the shopkeeper's example to illustrate this? (Utilitarianism)

The shopkeeper example, Kant states that a shopkeeper who runs a fair business may appear moral to outsiders, but he may not have truly moral motivations. The shopkeeper may keep his prices fair and not rip-off his customers because he has a competing business across town that can take his customers away from him. It is done for selfish purposes, not in service of "good-will." The shopkeeper does not act out of duty and does not have good intentions despite the good consequences that come from his action of competing with the other business. Actions should be done for the sake of duty only. Otherwise, actions do not hold moral worth, just as the shopkeeper's decision to charge the same price for goods is not moral due to the reasoning behind it.

Explain the test of respect, the idea of autonomy, and the two ways we can take away a person's autonomy. (Deontology)

We have taken away a person's conditions of autonomy if we: - do not allow a person access to information relevant to her decision - we do not allow her to act on the basis of such information