Long Answers

1) Aristotle writes, "[moral] virtue or excellence is a characteristic involving choice, and... consists in observing the mean relative to us, a mean which is defined by a rational principle, such as a man of practical wisdom would use to determine it" (1106b36-1107a2). Carving this passage up, what does Aristotle mean by: (1) moral virtue being a characteristic; (2) choice (and the rest of his discussion of moral responsibility); (3) moral virtue being at a mean relative to you; (4) practical wisdom?

-Moral virtue is characteristic in that moral virtues determine your mean which determines your actions which become habits and eventually your characteristics -Moral virtue is a choice in that it must be acquired through experience and seeking the mean between extremes relative to the agent which it is their choice as to whether or not they want to seek this mean and then their choice as to whether or not they want to act in accordance with it -Moral virtue is being at mean between extremes means that in any given situation we could act as extremely as possible (excess) which is often beyond necessary, or act as little as possible (deficiency) which is not sufficient. It is the job of a moral virtuous person to determine the appropriate degree of which they should act in a given scenario. This is the mean between extremes and allows people to act exactly as they should. -Practical wisdom is the ideal of developing your sense of the mean between extremes to the extent that in any given situation you are aware of what is right and wrong and what the proper course of action is.

2) Please read the attached Ford Pinto Case. This was an actual business decision that Ford faced. As a utilitarian, and based on the information in the case, explain whether Ford should install the gas shields on the Pinto or should stay the course and release the Pinto to the public.

Intensity - The degree of pleasure received by the company for saving $88 million or by the employees who don't die in their Pinto does not come close to the degree of pain awarded to those who die in a fatal accident due to the safety risks of the car. Certainty - It is not certain that Ford will enjoy the $88 million in benefits because there is a possibility of consumers not wanting the car and them falling short on their sales predictions. It is not certain either, that the people who buy the pinto will die, more may die than projected or less may die. The amount of pleasure and pain for each party is uncertain. Propinquity - The pleasure for Ford will be immediate as they are immediatley saving the money by deciding not to add safety measures. The pain of the drivers is delayed as there is a period of time before they crash when they are solely experiencing the pleasure of a new car. Fecundity - Ford will likely experience continuous pleasure from this move as the money saved can be reinvested into new projects or production which will yield profits. Those who buy the car get the daily pleasure of owning a vehicle. Those who die in the car will not experience any further pain, but the impact on their family could be continuous and painful. Purity - Ford will experience pleasure initially from saving, but if there are many fatalities the company could take a reputation hit which would be a pain. There is likely no pleasure that could arise from someone dying except maybe something minor like an insurance payout. Extent - The pleasure of this decision would extend to all ford employees standing to benefit from the sale of this car, and all people and families who get the pleasure of owning a vehicle. The pains of those affected by the gas defect will extend to their families and communities. Both decisions have high extent. Decision: The degree or intensity of losing a loved one, multiplied by each family of each car that crashes will inevitably outweigh the sum of the minor pleasures received from profiting off the sale of a car or purchasing a new ride. Although the pleasures may extend further, the intensity of the pains would cause a utilitarian to not act as Ford did.

First, describe in detail Kant's ethical framework. Be sure to mention his notions of: duty, good will, inclinations, laws, maxims, the categorical imperative (the two formulations or tests we looked at - and how they serve as a test of our maxims), hypothetical imperatives, and respect. Next, briefly explain how Kant would weigh in on the attached article, "You Gotta Smash a Few Cars to Make an Autonomous Vehicle," by Zachary Mider. Why would Kant think this?

Kant prioritizes duty above all else. It is important to be able to decline pleasure in favor of goodwill. Kant believes that ethical guidelines must be universal, necessary, and respect both human dignity and autonomy. If the maxim in this case is whether or not Elon Musk should be consumer testing autopilot, let's examine each guideline. If universally applied, this would mean all businesses would place human lives at risk for some goal, which would result in many deaths. As of now, people get from A to B everyday without the use of autonomous cars, so I don't think we can say it is necessary. Musk isn't respecting human dignity here as he is using their lives as a means to the end of creating an autonomous car. Although his end aspires to save lives going forward, he is putting human lives at risk to get there. The only principle musk does comply with is human autonomy, as he is not restricting consumers use of autopilot and is actually counting on their errors and decision making to garner data. He is also leaving humans to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to buy the car. Overall Kant would disapprove.