Unit 3
Suppose we could connect most/all people to a machine that would give them hallucinations of winning the Olympics, having lasting friendships, etc. In reality, they are lying on a table with their eyes closed. What does a Utilitarian say about this scenario compared to other theories? Use *and explain Ethical Evolutionism* as your example of a response like we did in class.
*Utilitarians* say this *is max. human fulfillment* because the people connected to the machine are experiencing the most amount of pleasure that you can get. *Everyone else says no!* In the eyes of Ethical Evolutionism, the people connected to this machine have not developed their talents and are simply getting pleasure for talents of the body/soul that they did not accomplish, so since this is not pleasure that they earned through hard work it is NOT fulfilling the purpose people have since they did not develop those talents/friendships/etc.
What argument did we study in favor of the Platonist and Thomist solution to the question of "the best achievable form of happiness for humans"?
1) PHIL proves that human soul will live forever after death 2) Human mind has potential to appreciate things that are great (enjoy/understand explanations) 3) So to FULLY understand mind/will potential, the soul needs to find the afterlife inf. interesting AND something inf. good to FULLY SATISFY THE WILL 4) PHIL tells us there IS an inf. good God who IS the ultimate explanation of everything. 5) Therefore, highest human fulfillment is a type of perfect happiness: encounter w/inf. good God forever after death, know & love him on NRPH or directly know/love him on supernatural basis (SRPH)
In Aristotle's foundation of ethics, what are the first two steps that go with the question "What practical definition of goodness can be applied to human life?"
1. Definition of good = fulfilling function. evident through induction (i.e. a good eye is one that sees clearly. *So a good thing fulfills its purpose/goal/final cause* 2. Therefore, Ultimate Human Good = fulfilling the ultimate human function. evident through deduction. *Apply step 1 to humans!*
According to Aristotle, for every virtue there are ___ vices.
2
In Aristotle's foundation of ethics, what are the middle three steps that go with the question "What is the Ultimate Human Function?"
3. By looking inside ourselves (subjectively) it is eudaimonia/happiness/living well. induction. Why did you tie your shoes? *ULTIMATE answer is because I want my life to go well/be happy/have eudaimonia/etc* 4. When analyzing human nature (objectively) fulfilling the human function = living according to reason. induction. Human nature shows us we are built to do MORE than digest food and sense feelings. *To function at max. capacity and fulfill ultimate potential, we have to LIVE BY REASON* 5. Therefore, TRUE eudaimonia/happiness/living well = living according to reason.
In Aristotle's foundation of ethics, what are the last two steps that go with the question "In what ways can we live according to reason?"
6. Live according to reason can be accomplished in a MEDIOCRE or EXCELLENT way. induction. Are you doing things using all your effort or just barely sliding by?? 7. We *should live excellently* which is accomplished by ONLY MORAL VIRTUES or by MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES. moral virtues use reasoning to tame animal drives while intellectual virtues only think about abstract/academic/*non-moral concepts!*. WE NEED MORAL VIRTUES
Which component(s) of an act do NL thinkers care about?
ALL 3! They believe *all parts of an act must be good, otherwise the entire act is morally wrong*. Aka THE END DOES *NOT* JUSTIFY THE MEANS. So if you have a plate and even just a little bit of the food is poisoned in terms of moral value (in this case either act, circumstance, or motive is bad) the whole entirety of the food is bad (aka the act is not good)
What is the difference between absolutely invincible ignorance and practically invincible ignorance?
Absolutely invincible is that there was ABSOLUTELY no way to know (i.e. British invaded New Orleans in January 1815, had no way of knowing a peace treaty was signed 3 weeks ago since they had been at sea for 3 months!). Practically invincible means there was a way to obtain knowledge but it would require effort beyond what you would expect someone to do (i.e. door stoppers are banned from the UST Minneapolis campus and a reasonable person could not have known that if no signs were posted and people did not inform them)
What is the difference in Aristotelianism compared to Stoicism.
Because the Stoic does not think that intellectual virtues add anything worthwhile to human fulfillment (they're just a side hobby) where Aristotelians believe *intellectual virtues enhance human life* and sets up above animals (though they DO NOT make us moral)
Why does everyone agree that besides a supernaturally produced miracle, Perfect Happiness hasn't ever happened for anyone BEFORE death in human history?
Because there are always manners in which things could be at least a little better for someone during the life before death - i.e. more virtue, fewer problems, no certainty of eventual death, etc.
What basic argument for the freedom of the will is most common?
Brain chemicals are a part of the process, but we do have free will because our lifelong experience of free will is too strong to be a deception due to common sense. These decisions originate from the soul the non-physical part of us) that triggers brain chemicals --> nerves --> muscles.
Suppose you FEEL as if you freely chose to eat broccoli instead of carrots at dinner. How does a materialist determinist explain what just happened?
Brain chemicals that blindly obey the laws of physics/chemistry were the ultimate origin of that action. The chemicals forced your nerves to carry electrical impulses to your muscles which then contracted so that the fork was picked up by your hand and the broccoli was brought to your mouth. These chemicals ALSO simultaneously and secretly forced you to have the deceptive feeling that you were freely choosing to do the action when instead the brain chemicals were the ultimate origin of the action.
Name a thinker whom we learned about who lived in the 1st Century B.C. who wrote a book called On Duties and who adopted the Stoics' position on many topics (even though he was NOT a stoic).
Cicero
Several theories claim that *possessing some part of ourselves in its developed form* during life will make us as fulfilled as possible. Briefly explain the Cult of the Body, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism in terms of their lifestyle.
Cult of the Body: values metabolism and the ability to do 58 push ups in addition to beauty. Stoicism: values bravery and self-discipline of serving in the military, as a firefighter, etc. Aristotelianism: values intellectual AND moral values so they want to be a scientist to study the truths known about Earth and study the divine Lord
What's the difference between Egoistic Ethical Evolutionism and Altruistic Ethical Evolutionism?
Egoistic focuses on developing the body and soul of *yourself* and you say "heck with you" unless you help me out via the pleasure of developing my own talents. Altruistic focuses on how the body/soul can be developed in others to foster talents in them in as many people as possible!
T/F: Utilitarians claim that the end does NOT justify the means.
False!
T/F: A being with Relatively Perfect Happiness (RPH) is just barely less than 100% fulfilled.
False! By definition, RPH means 100% fulfillment since it IS a type of perfect happiness! It is relatively perfect w/respect to our *finite capacity that a person has for fulfillment*
T/F: Aristotle think the only way a person can live according to reason is by living according to reason EXCELLENTLY and the only alternative is to NOT live according to reason.
False! He is aware some people live according to reason because people can do the right thing reluctantly instead of doing it as second nature (gracefully/wholeheartedly)
T/F: All Stoics throughout history have been Natural Law thinkers.
False! Immanuel Kant is a type of stoic but NOT a NL thinker
T/F: All Utilitarians think that animals have rights, since they can feel pleasure and pain. Thus, *all* Utilitarians say that animals' pleasures and pains should be taken into account along with humans' pleasures and pains when discerning right from wrong.
False! Just because they believe animals can feel pleasure and pain does not directly correlate to having rights. SOME Utilitarians do believe animals have rights though.
T/F: SRPH is studied in both philosophy and theology.
False! ONLY in theology because PHIL only notices *the possibility that God might offer something like this* that exceeds the potential of the finite human existence to obtain happiness
T/F: If the only way to find the cure for cancer were to do painful and deadly experiments on a five-year-old girl who had very unusual genes were the key to finding the cure, all Utilitarians would absolutely refuse to kill the girl.
False! Some Utilitarians (even John Stuart Mill, Singer is much more of an advocate for this) indicate that they would, in the long run, set a high priority of violating the justice/rights of one person because it would provide the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people if cancer could be cured. However, *not all Utilitarians would say this is okay*
T/F: The "Reasoning Part of the soul" is a synonym for the will.
False! The reasoning part of the soul includes BOTH the intellect (which is *not an appetite*) and the will (which *IS an appetite*)
T/F: The ancient Stoics value social status, wealth, and power above all else.
False! They value *moral virtues*
Name a famous relativist and the century they lived in.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1800s) Adolf Hitler (1900s) Benito Mussolini (1900s)
According to Aristotle, is it easy or hard to be virtuous and why?
Hard! Because you can err by too much or too little and it can be difficult to FIND and DO the relative mean. Weakness of intellect (for finding the relative mean) and weakness of will (for actually choosing to DO the relative mean) are obstacles
What evidence is there for the claim that humans should live according to reason?
Human nature is organized to do more than just vegetative and animal functions. These functions are objectively structured to serve our animal functions and animal functions serve rational functions. Therefore, the ultimate function of human nature (based on its structure) is to live more than a plant or an animal, which is the *rational part of us*!
What degree of happiness is generally agreed to be the highest that has been obtained DURING LIFE ON EARTH, regardless of supernatural intervention, among all of human history.
Imperfect happiness. because there are always things that could be at least a little better for someone like having more virtue, fewer problems for oneself/one's friends, and not having the certainty of eventual death
What is the difference between invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance?
Invincible ignorance - you had *no reasonable way* to realize what you were doing! Vincible ignorance is that *you DID have a reasonable way* to figure out what you were doing, you just CHOSE NOT TO or didn't put in enough effort
Define the "concupiscible appetite" or what Plato calls "the Desiring Part of the soul"?
It is the part of us that wants pleasure and ease. It doesn't want to exert much effort and just wants to be lazy
What was the most famous Utilitarian of modern times and when did he live?
John Stuart Mill (early 1800s) from England
Explain the difference between a moral and intellectual virtue.
Moral virtue uses reasoning to tame our animal drives (the spirited and desiring parts of our soul) while intellectual virtues use the reasoning part of the soul to think about abstract and academic ideas/concepts which are NOT morals!
Define intellectual fear
NOT an emotion, but recognizes that not doing X will lead to a *very bad result Y*. You do X NOT because you love it, but to avoid Y. Ranges from not voluntary to partially voluntary (i.e. many criminals are told to kidnap someone or else someone they love gets hurt, so they follow through with the demands to avoid the worst-case scenario even though it's not fully voluntary)
Is there a relative mean of cowardice, rashness, stinginess, prodigality, and eating your neighbors for fun? Why or why not?
No because these *are the extremes* so they do not have a relative mean
T/F: Aristotle thinks it is necessary to have moral AND intellectual virtues to be living according to reason.
No, because the intellectual virtues (math, physics, etc.) are not necessary to use the reasoning part of the soul. However, the moral virtues are necessary to tame the lower parts of the soul (desiring and spirited parts) through the reasoning part
According to Aristotle, what should we do when (for whatever reason) one vice is worse than the opposite vice?
Push ourselves in the general direction of the less bad vice (i.e. if you know you like to be stingy, buy a generous gift if you know that's your tendency) since we want to avoid the worse vice is more dangerous from your character AND trains us to not be as akin to following the worse vice by breaking the habit
What are the main two types of appetites?
Sense and rational
Name 3 famous Virtue Ethicists studied in this course.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
Sometimes one vice can be worse for your character than the opposite vice in the same topic. What two factors can produce this result?
Sometimes one vice is "worse in itself" (or "worse by its nature") than the opposite vice and other times it is "worse for you personally" than the opposite vice.
T/F: Aristotle notices that although everyone wants Happiness, not everyone agrees about what actually constitutes happiness.
T
T/F: Classical Realists think that humans have free will.
T
T/F: Materialists think that human nature is 100% physical.
T
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that paying attention to *how we should evaluate an action* (not just character traits) is required in ethics foundation.
T
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that paying attention to the *difference between morally permissible and morally wrong is required* in the foundation of ethics.
T
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that the Divine Lawgiver is owed a *personal apology* for violations of moral law.
T
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that the moral law is based on *purposes built into human nature*
T
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that there is a Divine Lawgiver (God) who will enforce the moral law during the afterlife with rewards and punishments.
T
T/F: Most determinists today are materialists.
T
T/F: NRPH is studied in both philosophy and theology.
T
T/F: Natural Relatively Perfect Happiness (NRPH) is also called "Limbo" in Catholic theology.
T
T/F: Non-relativist ethical theories all claim that the will is not the only feature of human nature that is relevant to ethics.
T
T/F: Non-relativist ethical theories all claim that there is objective truth in ethics. In other words, there are objective moral truths.
T
T/F: Practically all philosophers agree that we FEEL as if we have free will.
T
T/F: SRPH is referred to as "heaven" in Catholic theology.
T
T/F: Some philosophers think that the feeling that we have free will is a deception/illusion/product of shallow thinking.
T
T/F: The extent to which an action is voluntary is connected with the extent to which the person deserves credit or blame for the action in question.
T
T/F: The topic of "voluntariness" can be described as the topic of "to what extent the will is involved in an action.
T
T/F: Worldliness and the Cult of the Body focus on the animal drives in human nature. They view us as high-powered animals who happen to have reasoning skills that can help us to achieve the same kinds of goals that animals want: power and property, or health, strength, and/or beauty.
T
What does Paganism say the best achievable form of happiness/fulfillment involves?
That we should direct our lives *toward angels* and by knowing and loving FINITE SPIRITUAL BEINGS we will be amazed by them
What are the 3 major aspects of an action?
The *Act* itself (What?), the *Motive(s)* fueling it (i.e. Why? Parallel goals and overlapping goals may be involved), and the *Circumstances* (Where? When?... everything else) to describe the scene
Historically, what civilization is most associated with Stoicism as a cultural ideal (even though not all members of the civilization followed it!) It is NOT the Greeks!
The ancient Romans
Explain how Aristotle's example of a captain throwing cargo overboard in a storm involves intellectual fear.
The cargo or storm does not in itself create emotional fear in their existence. Instead the captain realizes that keeping the cargo aboard may kill everyone on the ship while tossing the cargo increases the likelihood of the crew and ship enduring the storm. So to avoid loss of life AND loss of money, the captain chooses to ONLY lose the money and NOT his life.
How do you judge whether someone has fully developed his will?
The level of commitment that he/she displays toward whatever plan of life they arbitrarily choose. Hypocrisy is bad because it shows you are NOT fully committed to the life you choose. You must be SINCERE by means of FIRM COMMITMENT.
Define the "irascible appetite" which Plato calls "the Spirited Part of the soul"?
The part of us that wants power, honor, respect, and self-esteem. This part of us wants to act touch when facing pain and doesn't want to go with the flow. *Anger may arise* when we do not get these things
What do UFO Cults and Computer Cults say the best achievable form of happiness/fulfillment involves?
They believe *contact with a race of space aliens or super-intelligent technology* will help us marvel at the wonder of science and creatures beyond our understanding.
What do Platonism and Thomism say the best achievable form of happiness/fulfillment involves?
They believe knowing and loving God (since he is an *infinitely good being*) in the AFTERLIFE so we can FOREVER ENJOY HIS GREATNESS
What evidence did we cover in class for the claim that the 3 parts of the soul (i.e. their functions) are truly different functions of the soul, NOT just different activities produced by the same ability in the soul?
They cannot be the same function because sometimes they conflict with each other. For example, the desiring part of the soul makes us strive for pleasure like eating the chocolate ice cream in the fridge instead of putting in the work to get another chore done and gain the honor/respect/power/etc. So they must be different if they can simultaneously pull us in opposite directions.
What does theological determinism basically mean?
They claim that God forces all you actions to occur in such a way that you are NOT freely choosing them. For instance, they say that when you do evil, God is making you do it.
Why don't materialistic determinists think that your SOUL caused the brain chemicals to be released, so that a free choice made in your SOUL was the ULTIMATE origin of the action of eating the broccoli?
They deny that your soul is anything other than chemical-electrical activity in your brain. Since their overall philosophy denies the reality of a non-physical soul, the materialists HAVE to say that the ultimate origin of your actions is just activity in your brain forced by the laws of physics/chemistry. They *can't* say that the ultimate origin is a free choice made in some non-physical soul in you.
What do the 11 fundamentally different non-relativist theories of ethics DISAGREE with each other about?
They disagree about *which* human function is *by the very structure of human nature* (i.e. the ultimate, noblest, highest human function)
Materialists claim that they are being scientific when they emphasize the importance of brain chemicals and deny free will. How do pro-free will thinkers respond to that claim?
They say materialists are *applying their reductionist philosophy to science* and are not doing science. Pro free-will thinkers also explain the scientific facts about the brain chemicals that are released when we make a choice. IN FACT, Classical Realists claim their philosophy better accounts for scientific evidence and our self-evident experience of making free choices BETTER than materialism does!
How do defenders of free will argue against the fact that our will is just a combination of brain chemicals governed by physics and chemistry?
They think determinism is crazy because by common sense, the reason why it FEELS as if we make free choices *because we self-evidently do*. The brain chemicals are indeed part of our actions, but they are not the START/CAUSE of that chain. Instead FIRST you make a choice, then your brain chemicals take action, the nerves are excited, and after that results in us picking up the fork and eating the broccoli. So WE DO have free will.
What do modern natural law ethicists believe?
They view intellectual virtues as *not the ultimate goal of life*. Instead they are a means to the further end of learning how to love God and ideals BEFORE DEATH (via moral and intellectual virtues) will be *perfectly happy in the afterlife as we encounter God forever in the non-physical world*
Who are the most numerous Natural Law thinkers in modern times?
Thomists
T/F: An action done because of affected vincible ignorance is less voluntary in one way but more voluntary in another.
True because the person didn't know FOR SURE what they were doing (which slightly reduces voluntariness) but DID put effort in to CREATE their ignorance (which increases voluntariness in a very important way!)
T/F: One meaning of the term "reason" is the same as "intellect". Keep in mind this is different from the natural light of reason!
True!
T/F: Some Utilitarians include humans and animals in the meaning of the term "the greatest number" since animals can feel pleasure and pain. Since ethics is all about pleasure and pain and all...
True!
T/F: Determinism IS a type of reductionism.
True! Because determinists are denying one of the 4 causes (final causes (purpose) or at least the final causes selected by US) when they try to explain human life.
T/F: Only God can have Absolutely Perfect Happiness (APH).
True! Humans are not infinitely powerful in mind and will
T/F: Modern Natural Law ethicists add that ethics involve a moral *Law* (i.e. "Do this") instead of only hypothetical statements.
True! Keep in mind that Aristotle did not emphasize any of these 6 points!
T/F: Modern Natural Law thinkers typically accept the Virtue Ethics, but consider it incomplete. That is why they add the 6 points.
True! NL thinkers *add* to virtue ethics
T/F: Being a Natural Law thinkers is compatible with being a Stoic OR with being a Thomist OR with some of the other theories about the ultimate goal of human life.
True! That's why NL is not listed as one of the 11 theories to maximize human potential because it is *an approach, set of emphases, and a way of doing ethics*
T/F: Being a Virtue Ethicist is compatible with being a Platonist OR with being an Aristotelian OR with some of the other theories about the ultimate goal of human life.
True! That's why Virtue Ethics is NOT listed as one of the 11 theories because it's an APPROACH to ethics, a SET OF EMPHASES, and a WAY OF DOING ETHICS that is compatible with more than one of those theories.
T/F: Of the 6 points NL thinkers add, although some Virtue Ethicists might technically agree with points 1, 2, 5, and 6 they do NOT emphasize them very much compared to modern Natural Law thinkers like Thomists (who consider ALL 6 POINTS to be important in ethics).
True! That's why the list matters because NL thinkers are more supportive of all 6 points than the virtue ethicists
T/F: There *CAN* be more than one Motive at the same time for an action.
True! That's why we have the phrase "kill two birds with one stone"
T/F: According to Aristotle, someone who exercises moral virtues but who does not have very many intellectual virtues is living according to reason.
True! They are using the reasoning part to guide life even though they might not be as great at math, physics, or other abstract topics. *this would be false if the question said intellectual virtues but does not have moral virtues*
What is another name for Altruistic Hedonism?
Utilitarianism
How does Aristotle reach the conclusion that the ultimate human good must be the ultimate human function before he investigates what this function might be?
We notice everyday that things are GOOD when they *fulfill their function* so applying this to the case of humans means that a human is good in the ultimate sense when they fulfill the *ULTIMATE HUMAN FUNCTION*.
The ______ theory claims that having something subhuman (beneath us) will make us as happy as possible. What did this lifestyle look like?
Worldliness. The lifestyle involves having a fancy car, mansion, and a great job.
According to Aristotle, is a moral virtue a "habit"?
Yes! He means it's a state of character, an ongoing condition*, or recurring way of acting (NOT a one-time feeling or mere unactualized ability). Remember that excellence is an ongoing condition that is used to describe when an object in everyday life is *continuously* able to perform its function in an above-average way
T/F: Do animals (according to the vast majority of philosophers) have sense appetites?
Yes! These appetites are partly bodily in nature
T/F: Even in the case of an activity whose definition does NOT always imply too much or too little, so the right amount of that activity FOR YOU PERSONALLY might still be *ZERO* for much or even all of your life!
Yes! Think about killing example where even if the answer is 0, that doesn't mean you haven't killed anyone since the situation hasn't called for it (i.e. you're not a soldier) and you might not want to take part in it anyways. Also see the power line repair example
What do we call a condition of character that consistently aims a person at too much or too little of something?
a vice (no matter if it's too much or too little)
Match the theories with their beliefs. Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, NL Ethics. a. how to evaluate an action (NOT just character traits) b. difference between morally permissible and excellent c. both a and b d. neither a and b
a. NOBODY b. NOBODY c. Utilitarianism (same as Altruistic Hedonism... pleasure for as many people as possible even using torture if necessary), Kantian Stoics, and NL Ethics d. Virtue Ethics (evaluate actions)
Match the following thinkers with the theories they stood for: John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, St. Thomas AQU, Plato, Socrates, ancient Stoics. a. Utilitarianism b. Kantian Stoicism c. Virtue Ethics d. Altruistic Hedonism e. Natural Law Ethics
a. Utilitarianism = JSM b. Kantian Stoicism = Kant c. Virtue Ethics = Socrates, Plato, Aristotle d. Altruistic Hedonism *is the same as Utilitarianism!* e. NL Ethics = St. Thomas AQU and the Ancient Stoics
MC: Suppose I suspect there is a law against the stock transaction I'm about to perform. If a legal webpage is open next to me on the page of "insider trading" and I begin to read the relevant page that might condemn the type of trade I want to perform, so I close the book. When I am arrested, I can say "I didn't know for sure that what I did was wrong". What kind of ignorance is this? a. affected vincible ignorance b. crass vincible ignorance c. practical vincible ignorance d. lazy vincible ignorance e. absolute vincible ignorance
a. affected vincible ignorance because you PUT IN EFFORT to STOP yourself from learning/hearing/knowing the truth
MC: An action done because of invincible ignorance is a. involuntary b. less voluntary than one done with full knowledge, but still voluntary c. fully voluntary
a. involuntary because the person should NOT be blamed for something that they should not reasonably be expected to know
MC: An action done by antecedent passion is a. less voluntary than one done without passion, and possibly even involuntary b. fully voluntary
a. less voluntary than one done without passion because the *emotion arises without being planned*
MC: An action done because of intellectual fear is a. less voluntary, and possibly even involuntary b. fully voluntary
a. less voluntary, and possibly even involuntary because they did not choose the difficult circumstances and you might/might not be blameworthy for how you responded to the circumstances reasonably or not
MC: Historically, what attitude did the ANCIENT stoics and Aristotle adopt toward the emotions? a. tame the emotions b. suppress the emotions
a. tame the emotions because each emotion has a proper time, place, and degree of magnitude. Aristotle thinks the emotions in themselves are NOT bad, but need to be governed so they stay beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.
MC: Utilitarians would typically say that the goal of life is: a. having both pleasure AND the absence of pain for as many people as possible b. merely taking pleasure IN the absence of pain (enjoying the fact that although you have NO real pleasure, you aren't feeling pain either) for as many people as possible
a. they have pleasure AND the absence of pain, pleasure is not a requirement IN pain itself
MC: A person who DID have a reasonable way to know the truth but decided not to look as hard as a reasonable person to find the truth is in a condition of: a. vincible ignorance b. invincible ignorance
a. vincible ignorance
Define utilitarian calculus.
an attempt to calculate and compare how much NET pleasure and how much net pain will result for the world (long-term) from a proposed course of action ("doing X") as compared with alternative courses of action ("doing Y")
MC: Suppose I do not try to find out the truth about what I'm doing, even though a reasonable person would. I also do not put in any effort to avoid finding out the truth. In that case I am in a condition of a. affected vincible ignorance b. crass vincible ignorance c. practical vincible ignorance d. lazy vincible ignorance e. absolute vincible ignorance
b. crass vincible ignorance because you don't put in effort to get or avoid the truth and you act as if you just don't care
MC: An action done by consequent passion is a. less voluntary than one done without passion, and possibly even involuntary b. fully voluntary
b. fully voluntary because *you riled yourself up* and planned for the emotion arise so that you LOSE CONTROL of yourself
MC: Which of these is NOT one of the 5 factors that can affect the voluntariness of an action? a. passion b. historical accident c. physical force d. habit e. ignorance
b. historical accident
MC: A person who DID TECHNICALLY have a way to know the truth of what he is in fact doing, but who couldn't *reasonably* be expected to find out the truth, is in a condition of: a. vincible ignorance b. invincible ignorance
b. invincible ignorance
MC: An action done because of lazy or crass vincible ignorance is a. involuntary b. less voluntary than one done with full knowledge, but still voluntary c. fully voluntary
b. less voluntary than fully voluntary but still voluntary because there was a reasonable way to attain the knowledge in question you just chose to put in minimal/no effort to get it
MC: Free-will thinkers typically claim that ___________ of our actions originate from free will. a. all b. some c. none
b. some. Determinists claim that NONE of our actions originate from free will. Much different then free-will thinkers. However most thinkers believe that brain chemicals ARE the ultimate source of our actions when we are drunk, on drugs, are dreaming, are mentally ill, or have hormonal problems
MC: Virtue Ethicists focus almost exclusively on: a. character traits (instead of actions) b. the difference between "excellent" and "permissible" c. the difference between "permissible" and "wrong"
b. the difference between "excellent" and "permissible"
MC: Where does Aristotle think our ATTENTION should be focused in ethics: on ascertaining the minimum that we are ethically required to do, or on excellence?
being excellent! It's better for your character
MC: According to relativism, what criterion should be used to select a view of yourself and what you should be aiming your life at? a. objective truth (reasoning part) to govern your animal drives b. objective truth that a life lived according to moral AND intellectual virtue is more fulfilling than a life only lived according to moral virtues c. arbitrary choice, because there is no objective truth about human nature besides that we make arbitrary choices
c. arbitrary choice, because there is no objective truth about human nature besides that we make arbitrary choices
MC: Determinists think that _______ of our actions originate from free will. a. all b. some c. none
c. none of our actions originate from free will
What are the two types of sense appetites?
concupiscible (desiring part of the soul) and irascible (spirited part of the soul)
MC: Suppose I try to find out the truth, but do not try as hard as a reasonable person would. In that case, I am in a condition of a. affected vincible ignorance b. crass vincible ignorance c. practical vincible ignorance d. lazy vincible ignorance e. absolute vincible ignorance
d. lazy vincible ignorance because you put in some effort but not as much as a reasonable person would
Define Natural Relatively Perfect Happiness.
describes the person's NATURAL capacity to appreciate things (relative to them) that *must be 100% fulfilled by definition*
What is the goal of Ethical Evolutionism?
develop body AND soul before death by admiring the progress of tech/civilization and how much society has progressed through our talents (i.e. microchip fab, computer speeds, communication systems, etc.)
What is the difference between Egoistic Hedonism and Utilitarianism?
egoistic hedonism focus on how "I feel good" and don't care about how others feel. Conversely, utilitarianism what to help as many people as possible feel pleasure (which implies that their pain is minimized)
Virtue is an alternate translation of the Greek word ARETE, which can also be translated into English as ___________.
excellence
T/F: Aristotle thinks that in ethics we should focus on the difference between being just barely morally good enough to avoid being bad and being bad.
false! It's the difference between barely good vs. bad AND excellent!
All examples of goodness have this in common according to Aristotle "In everyday life common sense connects the term/notion of good with the notion of __________"
fulfilling a function/goal/end/purpurpose
Since goodness means fulfilling function, what does Aristotle conclude the ULTIMATE HUMAN good must be?
fulfilling the ULTIMATE HUMAN FUNCTION. Involves nothing but a applying humans (a specific case) to the meaning of "good"
According to Aristotle: since we all subjectively experience eudaimonia as the ultimate goal in life and objectively living according to reason is identical to this goal, it follows that TRUE happiness/living well/eudaimonia must be _____________.
living according to reason. This is justified by that we can subjectively identify (a) the ultimate goal of life as (b) happiness/living well. We also demonstrated that objectively the (a) ultimate goal of human life is identical with (c) living according to reason. So therefore, *(b) true happiness/living well = (c) living according to reason!*
What is "imperfect happiness"?
mostly fulfilled (~75% and up) but NOT 100%. Aka some things could be better but the person's capacity to appreciate things is mostly fulfilled
What is "unhappiness"?
mostly unfulfilled (x < 25%)
What TWO abilities are included in the reasoning part of the soul?
reason/intellect and will
Plato identified 3 "parts of the soul" that are abilities relevant to appetites. The desiring part, the spirited part, and the _________ part of the soul.
reasoning part
Aristotle claims that induction shows a pattern in the types of actions that people aim at when they are using the reasoning part to govern the spiriting/desiring parts of the soul. The pattern is that the actions typically end up in the ________ mean.
relative
Explain the concept of relative mean.
relative means that what counts as the middle amount is determined *based on one's circumstances* because too much eating for you might be not enough for me! mean is used to describe the middle of 2 extremes which generally falls between too much and not enough. This should be applied to morals when it comes to courage, temperance, generosity, and justice so you are not too vulnerable but you are not too stingy, aim for just right!
Define Supernatural Relatively Perfect Happiness. (SRPH)
relative to SUPERNATURAL ELEVATED capacity to appreciate things, that person is 100% fulfilled
What is the name of the theory that claims there is no objective truth in ethics?
relativism
Which theory of ethics claims that *all the other theories* besides itself are just arbitrarily chosen viewpoints, equal in value, because there is NO objective moral truth?
relativism! They believe the theory you choose *can NOT be objectively good and true for everyone* so there is no way to prove that of the following 11 theories some might be better/worse than others
What are the two most basic principles of Utilitarianism?
strive for the *max number of people* to *enjoy the greatest good (pleasure)*
What does it mean for one vice to be "worse relative to you personally" than the opposite vice?
that extreme personally tempts you more
What does it mean for one vice to be "worse in itself/by its very nature" than the opposite vice?
that extreme resembles the virtue less than the opposite vice
Which component(s) of an act do Utilitarians care about?
the Circumstances
Which component(s) of an act do Kantian Stoics care about?
the Motive (they think *Duty is the only good motive*
Define appetite
the ability to want/desire something (aka the attitude we have about something)
Who were the very first Natural Law thinkers?
the ancient stoics (but note that they did not believe in "enforcement during the afterlife" or the "personal apology" parts of the 6 points
According to relativism, which part of human nature should be developed the most (since it is the only part truly relevant to ethics)?
the will
What is another name for the "rational appetite"?
the will. aka the ability that we choose in a way that can involve abstract ideas
What is the goal of life according to Hedonism (in general)?
to develop the body AND the soul before death
What OBJECTIVE "function" or built-in purpose (besides subjective desire for our lives to be happy and go well) can we find in human nature according to Aristotle. Aka what ultimate purpose does human nature appear to be designed for, whether we like it or not?
to live *according to reason*
What is meant by "physical force" as a modifier of voluntariness?
when someone/something else physically forces you body to move. SOMETIMES resistance to an attacker is morally required (i.e. were you unwillingly put under influence of drugs and forced to do things or did you make an effort to stop this from happening? Depends on the amount of free will/consent given)
What is a "Mediocre Life"?
when you are somewhat fulfilled (~50%)
