Midterm Exam Prep

What is Utiliarianism?

- Morality is about maximizing the amount of pleasure in the world and minimizing the amount of pain in the world - We should seek to produce as much pleasure as possible, not just our own pleasure though - maximizing utility

What is Aristotle's Chief Good Argument?

1. If all human actions are not "empty and in vain", then there must be some Chief Good at which all actions are aimed. 2. It is not the case that all human actions are empty and in vain. 3. Therefore, there is a Chief Good. Objections: no specific call to action/duty, hard to determine what the virtues are --> St. Thomas Aquinas: natural law theory i) determine the essence of a human being; (ii) derive duties from our essence · God actualizes things in conjunction with our natural inclination · Believed humans have 4 natural inclinations: § To continue living § To be in relation with others § To procreate § To gain knowledge[BJ1] *the most fundamental* [BJ1]In conjunction with the Golden Rule, these inclinations give rise to duties We are bound to respect other people's interests as well -> this derives obligation, duty

What is Warren's view on abortion?

1. It is only intrinsically wrong to kill a person. 2. ***A fetus is not a person.*** 3. Therefore, it is not intrinsically wrong to kill a fetus. 4. Therefore, abortion is permissible. Def of person: § consciousness (the what it's like property, feels like something) + some of the following: · Agency (reasons-responsiveness, the ability to deliberate between different options) · Ability to communicate · Self-motivated activity · Ability to feel pain

What is Lee and George's view on abortion?

A fetus is a person from conception. 1. It is intrinsically (prima facia) wrong to kill a person. 2. ***A fetus is a person.*** 3. Therefore, abortion is prima facia wrong. · Animalism: you're a body o Hylomorphic Dualism (Aristotle) § The view that you are a soul, body unity, not to be separated Catholic view.

What is Kantianism?

Categorical Imperative: ***He believes there is one core principle that all can be derived from*** the principle that undergirds all practical reasoning, given by reason itself, you should only act on principles that are universal (could be adopted universally) · Formula of Humanity - in acting, you should always treat them as ends in themselves (intrinsic worth) instead of as means · Formula of Universal Law - to act only on those principles that at the same time will that they can become universal laws. Test: if universalized, it would not result in contradictions: a contradiction in conception (world unimaginable -breaking promises - if everyone did this then the meaning of a promise would be inaccurate) or contradiction in the will - if it contradicts, we cannot carry it out (possible to imagine this world but we cannot will it because it would not go well) § Good Will · Having good intentions/motivations § Having a good will - motivated to do the moral thing simply because it is the moral thing to do § Good will - condition in which you deserve to be happy

What is an objection to Kantianism?

Conflicting duties: · Ex. Protect innocent life and don't lie à same situation of Nazis Moral standing: · Does not give any moral worth to animals and humans who lack rational capabilities - babies, old and sick people, etc.

What is Divine Command Theory?

The facts of morality are determined solely by the commands of God

What is a problem with Marquis' view on abortion?

We might worry about a particular implication of 1: namely, that it's not wrong to kill someone with no value in their future. Or we might just bite this bullet. Marquis avoids the rights debate altogether. He does this intentionally, as he thinks that debate results in a kind of stalemate between someone like Thomson and her conservative opponents. However, it's not clear that he's given someone who's persuaded by a view like Thomson's any reason at all to abandon their view that the rights of the mother can override the rights of the fetus.

What is the Chief Good?

happiness --> "an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, over the course of a complete life." [according to Aristotle] happiness is something you do, not a psychological state (that is pleasure) - virtues: (not exhaustive): wisdom, prudence, justice, fortitude, courage, liberality, magnificence, temperance. Doctrine of the Mean

What is Rachels' view on euthanasia?

o Active euthanasia should be permissible sometimes and it may even be preferred over passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia can be wrong when euthanasia should not be used at all or when active euthanasia is a better path. Sometimes passive euthanasia is permissible though. · Criticisms (on Conventional Doctrine - passive euthanasia is sometimes permissible while active euthanasia is always impermissible, doctor's Hippocratic oath): o Active euthanasia is often more humane [than passive euthanasia] § Ex. Someone dying of stage 4 cancer, suffering that medicine cannot fix § Ex. babies born with down syndrome who are not surgically helped so they will die on their own o Conventional Doctrine allows life and death decisions to be made on morally irrelevant grounds o The distinction between killing and letting die is morally dubious § Two cousins case · Two nephews of wealthy uncle o Younger cousin will get wealth but if he dies, older cousin will get inheritance § Plan to drown cousin while he's taking a bath · Actively drown him · OR · Child slips and drowns on his own, older cousin lets him die · Reveals that letting die can be just as bad as killing. o The most common argument for it is unsound à "letting nature take its course"

What is a problem with cultural relativism?

o Does not permit cross-cultural moral judgements § Ex. viewing Nazi Germany Other problems: - does not allow for moral progress/regress - renders moral reformers bad people (acting against moral consensus) - presupposes that we can delineate between cultures

What is an objection to Utilitarianism?

o The difficultly of determining future outcomes - consequences of actions unknown (both immediate and long-term), it is not action-guiding -- It presupposes that we have control over the outcomes of our actions - Implausible: it does not do justice to a main part of our morality and that is the importance of individuals, does not safeguard individual rights - killing annoying person

What is Marquis' view on abortion?

o· Why is it wrong to kill us? o Possible answers: § Because we are human · mere biological fact, cancer cells can be zapped § Because we are rational · There are irrational human beings § Because of the suffering it would cause · Utilitarianism view · You can kill someone painlessly § Because we are persons · Can happen at different stages § Because of the harm this would cause to the murderer · Moral corruption, not adaquete FLO - Future like ours 1. It is wrong to kill something/someone with a FLO. 2. A fetus has a FLO. à What has a future of value? · Only an individual biological organism - an individual sperm or egg cell is not a determinate individual with a future. à He commits himself to Animalism... these leads to same prior objections 3. Therefore, abortion is prima facia impermissible.

What is Cultural Relativism?

the practice of judging a culture by its own standards Ruth Benedict argues 1. There is widespread moral disagreement 2. Therefore, there is no universal morality o 1st Order moral judgments: conclusions we commonly believe, o 2nd Order moral judgements: the basis for 1st order judgments (more foundational)

What is a problem with Warren's view on abortion?

§ The transition from womb to out of womb does not instantly make personhood. § Warren allows infanticide.

What is an objection to Rachels' view on euthanasia?

· Bad/perverse incentives (consequentialist - consequences) § More people are going to take advantage of the active euthanasia when it is available who would not have done it otherwise· There is some meaningful, important distinction between killing and letting die in some cases (relevance of cousins analogy) · Perversion of doctors' caretaking role § Hippocratic Oath - oath governing physician ethics · "First, do no harm."

What is the Euthyphro Problem?

· Do the gods like it because it's holy or is it holy because they like it? 1. Either: God has reasons for his commands [the facts of morality], or he does not. 2. If God has reasons for his commands, then DCT is false. 3. If God lacks reasons, then his commands are arbitrary. -> radically contingent, based on no reason at all 4. Therefore -> Either: DCT is false or God's commands are arbitrary. Theists may worry that having reasons that God abides by may restrain him when he is considered all powerful. -> Defense: God cannot do the logically or morally impossible, which does not constrain him. -> Additional Defense: God is one with his commands. He will only command things that are all-loving. · Euthyphro: an aristocrat who has charged his own father with murder · What is it to be moral? · E: (Def 1): doing what the gods love § Objections: the gods disagree on what they love and what they hate, it also assumes that everyone believes in the gods · E: (Def 2): doing what all the gods love; avoiding what all the gods hate § This becomes relevant for monotheism, might as well be talking about God

What is O'Neill's view of global poverty?

· Exploitation prohibited · Duties of restitution · ***Duties of beneficence*** o You must help people o You must give to charity · No duty to spend all time maximizing utility · Accountable only for what we can be [reasonably] expected to know what to do o You cannot be held accountable if you do not know what's happening o Now we do have the numbers of how to be effective § Few thousand dollars can save a life · Rational beings should want to live in a world where they can pursue their own ends o Live by principles that can allow me to pursue my own interests § Develop meaningful relationships § Pursue a career · Treat people as ends in themselves, we cannot use other people · Categorical imperative - will what can be willed for everyone, must be universal law (Kantian)

What is a problem with Lee and George's view on abortion?

· Objection: Animalism/Hylomorphic dualism are not obviously correct. Person is in persistent vegetative state... organism remains alive, but mind is gone

What is a problem with Thomson's view on abortion?

· Relevance of Analogies § Rests on a comparison between two things § Special obligations: obligation that you have uniquely with someone based on your relationship with that person · Thomson's response is that she thinks people are being inconsistent with their beliefs · Lacks dialectical force (not persuasive to those who do not already agree with her)

Obligations to Future Generations (extra credit)

· Rights o To have a right is to have a claim against someone · To have basic moral standing is to have the most basic kind of right o Not to be harmed pointlessly · So if future people have basic moral standing, we are obligated not to harm them needlessly (otherwise, it would be a rights violation) · Puzzle: The Non-Identity Problem o The identities of future people will be set by what we do today o Imagine two policies: § One makes life horrible for future people § One makes life much better for future people § Changing policy will cause different people to exist · Therefore, choosing the policy that helps better the life does not harm the rights of the people who would have been harmed o I cannot respect someone's rights who won't exist § We are not talking about determinant people, who will exist is contingent on what we do now· These claims can't all be true: 1. An act can be wrong only if it harms an actual person. 2. The world gets no worse for someone with a net-positive life coming into being. 3. Some existence-inducing acts are wrong even if they aren't bad for any particular person. § Ex. government act, causes more people to come into being · à Parfit's view: we should aim to make the future go best o Cases (to throw out first claim) § Two policies · Lots of beings with great lives · Small amount of people with rough lives (net-positive life though) · Other people won't exist if one policy is chosen over the other · It would be bad for a dictator to choose a policy that a smaller amount of people exist with bad lives instead of a large amount of people with positive lives. It would not actually wrong any of those future people though. § Two possible children · Time 1: have child with happy life · Time 2: have child with terrible life (net positive still) o It would not be wrong either child to conceive at time 2 because the time 1 child would not exist. It does seem that conceiving at time 2 would be the wrong choice though. · Introducing parent feelings would turn a different scenario, ignore that o Acts about future outcomes cannot be dependent on how we affect actual people because different people will exist based on our decisions/policies. § Accept claim 2 and 3, but not 1 o Q: Should we seek to maximize § Average welfare? - implausible § Total welfare? · The Repugnant Conclusion: Given a sufficiently large population, a future that's very bleak for each individual, is nevertheless the best future (trillions of people with lives just over the threshold of worth living - be agnostic about view on value). o Increasing future value § Averaging View à increase average value · World A is better, it would be wrong to bring about World B o Issues: You are more likely to exist in World B à it's better to exist in World B than not exist at all, value attaches to mere existence. Perhaps there is value to have different degrees of value in a world. World A is probably unlikely. The smaller population is still really happy. § Total Value View à maximizing value · Repugnant Conclusion o Huemer: In defense of repugnance § He thinks people go wrong in having cognitive biases of World Z · Egoistic Bias o When we are thinking about these futures, we are identifying which world we would want to live in. Instead, we should ask ourselves if we want to live at all à which world Z would give us a greater likelihood to live · Scope Insensitivity o We have bad intuitions about large quantities, ex. billion vs. trillion, this causes us to radically underestimate the value in World Z · Bad at compounding tiny quantities o A small number of things can add up to a large amount when combined · Is our world World Z? o How different is our world actually? In reality, our lives are pretty bad many times (goals are not achieved, we don't follow our ideal life path, etc), there is a lot of pain and suffering in our lives. If we tallied positive vs. negative value in our lives, it may not be that much above the line of a life barely worth living. o Parfit believes RC is a huge puzzle, Huemer believes RC is reasonable. o Relevancy - future people matter, we should increase value for the future à We are not doing what we should be doing to increase the value of the future. § Long-termism: We should be highly concerned about how the future goes. · Consider all considerable moral beings in the future - that's a lot of beings. · Existential Risk: If we've agreed that there is more value in the future than the present, we should be focused on the future. Low probability but catastrophic events. We do not have great answers to these risks. We must be worried about what could cut-off this value: o Nuclear warfare (risk is 1% each year by experts) o Pandemics (almost certainty that this will occur at some point) - bad enough to destroy civilization o World power conflict o Artificial Intelligence (with misaligned values but greater knowledge than humans) · Strong case for caring about the future and making it valuable. You are committed to longer-termism. o We radically under attend to people in the future. Both Singer and Huemer emphasize that space and time do not have relevancy as obligations to other people. § Limits: resources - should we allocate resources for present or future people? § More people in the future § It's easier to help people in the present

What is Thomson's view on abortion?

· Thomson grants the personhood of the fetus. 1. The right to life does not entail the right to use another's body § Justification: Thomson's Cases · Violinist o Objection: Only applicable to instance of rape. · Expanding Child o You are stuck in the house with a child who is going to expand to a point till they will kill you. o Connection to instance of mother's life at stake for the pregnancy (self-defense). · People seeds o You get screens to prevent people seeds from floating in. There is a defective one. Do you have the right to vacuum up your carpet? § Connection to defective contraception. · Burglar o You were careless about leaving a window open, does a burglar have a right to your possessions? § Thomson believes there are no cases in which abortion is not permissible, however there can be bad reasons for getting an abortion. She also believes no one has the right to secure the death of the child if it miraculously lives.

What is Singer's view of global poverty?

· We should give and keep giving up to the point of diminishing marginal utility (up to the point where your giving would no longer be producing net benefit) 1. Unnecessary [pointless] suffering and death are bad. à obvious, underlies many core moral beliefs 2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, then you ought to do so. (unless this would come at the cost of something of equal moral significance.) à Shallow Pond Analogy 3. As a matter of fact, it is often possible to prevent unnecessary suffering and death without sacrificing something of equal moral significance. à facts concerning global wealth distribution, we can make effective donations towards those in absolute poverty (sacrifice luxury goods) - effective poverty-relief organizations 4. Therefore, you should do what is in your power to prevent unnecessary suffering and death.