Phil 4: Final Study Guide

Apply the principle of utility and Kant's Categorical Imperative to the issue of suicide. When if ever do these principles permit those who follow them to commit suicide? Which theory provides a better guide? Make sure to consider the various circumstances in which a person might commit suicide and defend your answer with argumentation.

Kant: Consider the maxim, "From selflove, I make it my principle to shorten my life when in the longer term it threatens more ill than it promises agreeableness. . . .One soon sees that a nature whose law it was to destroy life through the same feeling whose vocation is to impel the furtherance of life would contradict itself, and thus could not subsist as nature; hence the maxim could not possibly obtain as a universal law of nature, and consequently it entirely contradicts the supreme principle of all duty." Impossible for suicide to exist as a general rule. Mill:

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives

". . . all imperatives are formulas of the determination of action, which is necessary in accordance with the principle of a will which is good in some way. Now if the action were good merely as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is represented as good in itself, hence necessary, as the principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason, then it is categorical."

Apply the formulation of humanity version of the categorical imperative to laziness or sloth. Why, according to Kant, is laziness immoral? Are Kant's reasons compelling? Do we have an obligation to develop our talents? Defend your answer with an argument.

"Although a nature could still subsist in accordance with a universal law [which says 'indulge in gratification rather than trouble yourself with the expansion and improvement of your talents'], though then the human being (like the South Sea Islanders) would think only of letting his talents rust and applying his life to mere idleness, amusement, procreation, in a word, enjoyment; yet it is impossible for him to will that this should become a universal law of nature, or that it should be implanted as a natural instinct. For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all the faculties in him should be developed, because they are serviceable and given to him for all kinds of possible aims."

Explain the difference between subjective and objective justification

"Subjective justification" is justification in light of what the agent knew. Whereas "objective justification" is justification independent of what the agent knew (just based on the objective facts). These two can come apart when the agent is mislead about the facts of the situation."

Kant lists two reasons why acting from duty is more worthy of praise and esteem than benevolent inclination (i.e. doing the right thing because one feels like doing it). What are these two reasons?

"Virtue is always in progress and yet always starts from the beginning. - It is always in progress because, considered objectively, it is an ideal and unattainable, while yet constant approximation to it is a duty. That it always starts from the beginning as a subjective basis in human nature, which is affected by inclinations because of which virtue can never settle down in peace and quiet with its maxims adopted once and for all but, if it is not rising, is unavoidably sinking. For moral maxims, unlike technical ones, cannot be based on habit (since this belongs to the natural constitution of the will's determination); on the contrary, if the practice of virtue were to become a habit the subject would suffer loss of the freedom in adopting his maxims which distinguishes an action done from duty." (MM, 6:409)

How does Mill analyze the concept of moral obligation?

"We do not call anything wrong, unless we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinions of his fellow creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience. This seems the real turning point of the distinction between morality and simple expediency."

According to Mill, which two psychological traits distinguish human judgments of justice and injustice from the desire for revenge commonly found in non-human animals?

"[A]ccording to Mill, the desire for punishment enjoyed by human beings primarily differs from the similar desires of non-human animals in that humans are capable of greater sympathy and have more general intelligence"

Define 'indirect utilitarianism'

(1) Your actions should conform to a set of secondary moral rules. (2) In quiet moments (or moments of reflection) you should take the time to select (and revise) the set of secondary rules that guide your actions. (3) When selecting or revising the secondary rules from which you will act, you should identify those rules the adoption of which (by you or your community) would lead to the greatest aggregate happiness. (4) You should only adopt a set of rules if you judge that the adoption of those rules (by you or your community) would lead to at least as much happiness as would the adoption of any alternative set of rules.

Describe three functions that Mill assigns to a first principle of morality

1. Make the world a better place 2. Differentiate between secondary rules 3. moral progress

State all three formulations of Kant's categorical imperative

1. Principle of Universality 2. Principle of Humanity 3. Principle of Autonomy

Describe three of the six arenas in which Mill says we use the terms "just" and "unjust."

1. Violation of Legal Rights: We call "unjust" the deprivation of property or liberty protected by the laws of the land. Things are not clear when we judge that the law is a bad one and the property or liberty denied someone is property or liberty they ought not to have been given. (E.g. protecting an escaped slave.) 2. Bad Laws: We call unjust the enacting of laws that violate a person's moral rights: laws denying racial, ethnic or religious groups the rights to vote, speak, move freely, etc. 3. Equality: It is said to be unjust that a few should have privileges and rights denied to the many, though (Mill says) the interpretation of this claim is mired in controversy

What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori moral knowledge? Describe what Kant would consider an article of a priori moral knowledge. Describe what Kant would consider an item of a posteriori moral knowledge.

A priori: S knows P a priori if and only if S's justification for believing P (or her reason for believing P, or the evidence on which she believes it) does not concern or involve sensory experience. A posteriori: S knows P a posteriori if and only if S's justification for believing P ultimately concerns or involves sensory experience. Both are true, but to know the truth of (1b) you need to know that burning harms people, which is a piece of a posteriori knowledge

According to Mill, how can we determine which of two kinds of pleasure is more worthy of promotion?

Mill is confident that the pleasures that this test will deem higher in value (and thus "worth more" in a utilitarian calculus) will be the type-2 pleasures: the pleasures we derive from the use of our "higher" faculties, where higher faculties are those that distinguish people from other animals. Type 1 pleasures: pleasures we derive from exercising those psychological capacities we share with other animals—e.g. pleasures from eating, drinking, sexual reproduction, play, exploration, etc. Type 2 pleasures: the pleasures we derive from exercising uniquely human capacities—e.g. sentential language, conversation, mathematics, science, business, etc.

Define "supererogatory."

Actions that go beyond the call of duty

Define "direct utilitarianism."

At any given time you should: (a) identify the set of actions open to you at that time, (b) determine which of these actions will produce at least as much happiness as any other action available to you at the time, and (c) perform that action (or one of those actions) that you judge will produce at least as much happiness as would any other course of action available to you at the time.

Define 'autonomy'. What value must be weighed against autonomy to determine whether aborting a late-stage fetus is morally permissible?

Autonomy: Right to control one's owns actions and body. It might seem as though the right to life should always take precedence over the right to self-control, but Thomson argues otherwise. She argues via analogy, though the case of the Violinist (pp.48-9). There are a number of things to note about this argument. First, note that all arguments via analogy assume that like cases are to be treated alike and different cases to be treated differently. If you cannot find some point of difference or disanalogy between a pregnant woman and a woman who has been surreptitiously attached to an ailing violinist, and you cannot coherently maintain that this difference justifies detaching from the violinist but not detaching from the fetus, then there is a sense in which you would be irrational to believe that abortion is never permissible but detaching from the violinist would be.

Suppose Miguel is led by his sympathy for the people trapped in the crumbling world trade center to run in and try to rescue them. Does his act have moral value? Does he deserve credit or praise for what he has done? What would Kant say? Suppose instead that Miguel doesn't want to go in, and doesn't feel any sympathy for those trapped. (He is emotionally numb or in shock.) But he goes in anyway because he knows it is his moral duty to do his duty as a fireman. Does his act have moral value? Does he deserve credit or praise for what he has done? What would Kant say? What, if anything, distinguishes the value of the act done from sympathy from the value of the act done from duty? What, if anything, explains why some people do what they know duty demands of them while others fail to do what they know they are obligated to do?

Easier to do something you want to do versus dont wnat to do.

What questions does moral psychology address? List some positions in moral psychology and describe the answers they give to these questions

Ethical Motivation (or Moral Psychology): the study of the source of moral obligation—an evaluation of answers to the questions "Why do people act morally (when they do)?" and "Why should we be Moral?" Examples of theories of moral motivation: A) Religious—(a) normative: we should be moral because God wants us to be moral, or loves what is right; (b) psychological: people sometimes or always act morally (even when they know they are sufficiently clever or powerful to avoid earthly punishments) out of fear of God's wrath or a desire for God's love; B) Teleological— (a) normative: we should be moral because the function of people is to be moral, people are "malfunctioning" when they act immorally; C) Rational—(a) normative: we should be moral because (Hobbes) in the long run immorality is contrary to our own "selfish" interests or (Kant) immoral motives involve some sort of inconsistency or incoherence; (b) psychological: we act morally when we (Hobbes) deliberate clearly giving proper weight to our long- term self-interest, or (Kant) choose rules for action in a coherent or consistent manner

How does Kant define 'humanity'

Humanity is the ability to set goals, utilize the means to achieve these goals and organize these means and goals into a coherent whole

Define 'perfect duty' and 'imperfect duty' and provide an example of each.

If D is a perfect duty then everyone bears D to all people at all times. If D is an imperfect duty then some people bear D toward some people at sometimes, but D is not a duty we all have to all people at all times.

What, according to Kant, are the two functions of "empirical ethics"?

Kant says there are two things for which we need the empirical part of ethics: (a) applying laws to instances, and (b) overcoming inclinations.

State the principle we've been calling "Perfect Benevolence."

Perfect Benevolence: (1) All people at all times are obligated to assist other people in pursuing their legitimate ends and projects when such assistance would not hinder anyone in the pursuit of his or her legitimate ends. (2) All people have a right to such assistance at all times.

Kant thinks that only actions done from duty have true moral worth. State the "actual account" of what makes it the case that an act is done from duty.

S's act A has moral worth (i.e. deserves praise and esteem) if and only if S recognizes that A is her duty and S does A in the absence of any inclination to A (and, perhaps, in the presence of an inclination to refrain from A).

Kant thinks that only actions done from duty have true moral worth. State the "counterfactual account" of what makes it the case that an act is done from duty

S's act A has moral worth if and only S recognizes that A is her duty and either S has no inclination to A or S does have an inclination to A, but S would have performed A even if she had no such inclination.

According to Mill, what population should we consider when we're trying to evaluate which of several available actions will maximize happiness?

Should not consider anyone more than anyone else. Neutral.

To argue that happiness is the only thing people want for its own sake, Mill argues that having money is part of a miser's happiness and displaying virtue is part of a monk's. Is Mill right about this? Is this compatible with his claim that happiness is pleasure? Is happiness just the satisfaction of your desires? Is happiness nothing more than getting what you want, even when getting what you want doesn't bring you pleasure? Can someone be mistaken about what would bring her happiness? Can someone think she is happy when she really isn't?

Unless the misers and monks who meet this description are self-deceived about their lives of wealth and virtue (and the relative scarcity of type-1 and type-2 pleasures they're experiencing when leading these lives), Mill has to avoid drawing claim (4) as a conclusion. (He must acknowledge that we have final ends other than pleasure.) And to avoid (4), Mill must either abandon his claim (2) or his claim (3) described above. Mill must either say: (a) that the miser wants something other than happiness for its own sake: possessing money. Or Mill must say: (b) that happiness cannot be equated with pleasure: that the miser's happiness consists in his merely having money even when it is fairly obvious that this is not bringing him pleasure. Perhaps (a) is the more plausible conclusion to draw. After all, we wouldn't normally characterize the miser or monk we've described as happy. But the text suggests that Mill chooses (b) without admitting that he is therein abandoning the equation of happiness with pleasure: "What for example, shall we say of the love of money? There is nothing originally more desirable about money than about any heap of glittering pebbles. Its worth is solely that of the things which it will buy; the desires for other things than itself, which it is a means for gratifying. Yet the love of money is not only one of the strongest moving forces of human life, but money is, in many cases, desired in and for itself; the desire to possess it is often stronger than the desire to use it, and goes on increasing when all the desires which point to ends beyond it, to be compassed by it, are falling off. It may then, be said truly that money is desired not for the sake of an end, but as part of the end. . . What was once desired as an instrument for the attainment of happiness has come to be desired for its own sake. In being desired for its own sake it is, however, desired as part of happiness."

Define 'meta-ethics' and list three meta-ethical views

the study of moral epistemology and moral metaphysics. (a) Moral epistemology is the study of moral knowledge and the justification of our moral beliefs—an evaluation of answers to the questions: Do we have any moral knowledge? Are any of our moral beliefs rationally held? (b) Moral metaphysics is the study of the nature of moral phenomena — an evaluation of answers to the questions: Are there facts about what is wrong and what is right? If there are such facts, what makes something wrong or right? How did certain things come to be good and other things come to be bad? What is the relation between moral facts Examples of meta-ethical positions: Expressivism, Nihilism, Projectivism,