Philosophy Test 2 (300)
Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Also, explain Kant's distinction between persons and things. Finally, based on the distinction between persons and things, explain Kant's 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative.
According to Kant a hypothetical imperative is a command in conditional ways because it is qualified by a relevant desire or goal. The example used in class is that of med school. If you want to go to med school then take a bio class. However, categorical imperatives are different. For Kant these require good will and good will to Kant is an unqualified good. A categorical imperative for Kant is acting in such a way that we can expect all others to act. Additionally, you cannot make yourself an exception. Kant's distinction between persons and things is that a person is that a persons worth is infinite and a things worth is finite. Therefore Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative is that we should never treat another person as just a means because that is taking advantage of them and does not recognize their human dignity. He states we can never use people just simply as a means. This is to clarify that we can use people but we can not use them just as a means.
Explain Jeremy Bentham's principle of utility/ John Stuart Mills greatest happiness principle.
Benthams principle of utility is to maximize the genral welfare for collectiv happiness with overall balanace of pleasure over pain. In other words we are supposed to maximize the utility/ happiness. Agrees with euthenasia therefore. If xray operator gets cancer an will die in one year he asks brothers to just kill him rather than have him suffer. John Stuart Mills greatest happiness principle is to provide the hightest quality pleasure to the most amount of people.
Explain how Mill attempts to prove the principle of utility and in doing so, explain the fallacy of composition and explain how mill commits this fallacy.
Mill tries to attempt the principle of utility in three main steps. FIrst, each persons happiness is good for that person, two, each person shall seek his/ her happiness, third, thus each person shall seek everyones happiness. The fallacy of composition is when someone infers that something is true for the whole because it is true for part of the whole. An example of this fallacy would be to say atoms are invisible to the naked eye, humans are made of atoms, therefore humans are invisible to the naked eye. Mill commits this fallacy because he says that because one persons search for goodness is the same type of goodness that everyone else is seraching for. He believes that everyones good is the same and therefore we are all searching for the same thing.
What is John Stuart Mills informed preference test? and what does mill say about Socrates in relation to this? How does mills version of utilitarianism differ from that of Bentham?
Mils informed preference test states that if given the choice a human will opt for the higher utility. He compares this to Socrates by saying that it is better to be Socrates satisfied than a fool satisfied. The reason for this is that Socrates satisfied is a higher utility than a fool satisfied. Consequentially utility is not quantitative it is qualitative. This differs from Bentham because Bentham is all about the quantitative aspect of utility saying that it is best to provide pleasure to the most amount of people. Where as Mill suggests it is better to provide the highest utility to the greatest amount of people.
Explain Peter Singer's main argument for why we should give most of our earining to the point of marginal utility to help the less fortunate. Be sure to include Singers's principle of preventing bad occurences (the greater moral evil principle) as the beginning of the argument.
Peter Singers greater moral evil principle is that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of greater moral importance we ought to morally do it. From this point Singer provides us with his main argument that we ought to provide support to those less fortunate then us (i.e. those dying of lack of shelter, food, medical care) until we reach a point of marginal utility. He states that interests such as cars, CD's, concerts, etc. are not of great moral importance and therefore we should spend our money on organizations to help the less fortunate rather than on these pleasures. He goes on to state that any money we spend on these sub moral pleasures is in effect killing those who are less fortunate than ourselves. and that our obligation to the poor lasts until we have reached a point of marginal utility. Marginal utility is the point at which if I gave any more I would become worse of than the people I was giving money too.
What odes Immanuel Kant say is the only completely good thing? and why is it the only completely good thing? That is what makes it an unqualified good? Explain being sure to make reference to what Kant calls qualities of temperament and talents of the mind.
The only completely good thing is a good will. Kant says this because it is the only thing that is an unqualified absolute good. Furthermore, there are some things in this world that are good but they are qualified goods. Meaning they rely on something else in the world in order to be good. Kant provides examples of this being qualities of temperament and talents of the mind. Some examples of quality of temperament are courage, resolution, and perseverance. Some examples of talents of mind would be intelligence, wittiness, and judgement. However, these things are conditional/ qualified goods because they can be used in a bad way. Without a good will these could contribute to bad or evil. Therefore good will is the only completely good thing. It is unqualified meaning no matter the situation a good will is a good thing because it leads to morality.
Explain what Singer means by saying that all animals are equal. Be sure to define what singer means by speciesism, specify and explain Singers criterion for moral status, and explain singers principle of equality (the principle of equal consideration of interests).
When Singer says that all animals are equal he is referring to the idea that all animals should have moral consideration because they can experience pleasure and pain. Therefore when deciding how to treat an animal we should have moral consideration. Speciesism is discrimination against or exploitation of various animal species by humans based upon the assumption of human kinds superiority. Singer believes that anything that can experience pleasure or pain is worthy of moral consideration and this therefore applies to animals. Consequentially, we should have a moral consideration towards animals. This gets into Singers statement that all animals are equal. He says this because he believes that all animals are worthy of moral consideration. He is not saying that we should treat all animals the same way. He rather provides us with the principle of equality. He states that the comparable interests of all sentient beings should be given equal weight in our moral deliberations. For example I will not hit a horses rear as hard as I would a humans because the horse has "more booty than we do".
