Ethics

• Kantian maxim:

"A subjective principle of the will," a rule of conduct. Any rational action will reflect a maxim stating that under certain conditions, certain considerations constitute sufficient reason for acting in a certain way. Your maxim is your reason for acting. "I will participate in the food drive because that is what the moral law requires."

• First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative/Formula of Universal Law (CI

"Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (pg. 329). This is known as the First formulation of the categorical imperative or the Formula of Universal Law. This formulation of the CI suggests a procedure.

• Inclination

): In general, inclinations are subjective desires. In addition, inclinations are contingent, i.e. one can have or not have a certain inclination, particular inclinations do not necessarily flow from rational nature. There are two types of inclinations:

• Consequentialist moral theories

: Consequentialism is any moral theory that locates the moral value of actions in the consequences of those actions. Both Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are examples of this. Meanwhile, Kant's theories are not because he does not care about the consequences of your actions.

• Briefly explain Mill's greatest happiness principle

: actions are right as they tend to produce happiness. Actions are wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. An action is morally right if and only if that action produces the greatest total net happiness given the circumstances.

• Heteronomy of the will:

A heteronomous will legislated by something else. Heteronomy in this sense means following a law because of some interest or sanction. Acts out of force, emotion, fear, etc. (For example, you follow the law because you are afraid of being caught). In other words, the law is imposed on the will by something else. Must choose to act morally or not act morally.

Indirect (or mediate) inclination

A mediate inclination for X is wanting/ desiring for the sake of something else i.e. because X serves one of my ends. Kant's example, a prudently honest shopkeeper wants to keep his prices low for the sake of staying in business).

• Negative Responsibility

According to Williams, negative responsibility is that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense bring about. Negative responsibility becomes problematic when another agent is in a position to affect the morality of one's actions.

• Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative/Formula of Autonomy

Act as if you are by your maxims a law giving member in the universal kingdom of ends. Your actions are a rule for all creatures.

• Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative/Formula of Humanity (CI):

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. Treat a human like a human, not a hammer. One must recognize that rational nature is an end in itself and is never to be used as a means only. To treat someone as an end in herself is to treat her as a rational agent who is capable of setting ends for herself. To treat someone as a means only is to overlook his rational nature and use that person merely as a tool to satisfy one's own ends.

• Supererogatory act:

An action that is good to do but it is not wrong not to do. Contrast with morally required action, good to do and wrong not to do. Charity is a supererog action because it is good to do but you don't have to do it. One of two types of 'Permissible' actions. Any action which is deemed morally good by a society, but which carries or implies no obligation to act. This is distinct from other moral actions which are deemed 'Right' or 'Wrong'. An action with the former designation carries a positive obligation to action. An action with the latter designation carries a negative obligation. 'Supererogatory' actions are generally considered to have no obligatory element at all. They are also known as altruistic actions.

• Autonomy of the Will:

An autonomous will is self-legislating. Autonomy in this sense means following a law because you believe in it as a law. The will gives the law to itself. Acts in accordance with the moral law because it believes in it as a law. Autonomous will acts from reason—not out of force, emotion, etc.

• Categorical Imperative

Command categorically; a categorical imperative is something that you must do regardless of what your aims and goals are. Categorical imperatives take the general form: Do action A; Do not do Action B; Adopt Purpose P.

• Hypothetical Imperative

Command hypothetically; if you will the end, you must will the means. Something you must do in order to achieve some purpose, goal, etc. "Whoever wills the end also wills (insofar as reason has decisive influence on his actions) the indispensably necessary means to it that are within his power. Hypothetical imperatives take the general form: If you achieve Purpose P, you ought to do/ you must do Action A. For example, if you will to lose a few pounds, you must eat right and exercise. That is, if you really want to lose a few pounds, you are going to eat right and exercise; if you don't really want to lose a few pounds, then chances are you wont be diligent about eating right and exercising. *Hypothetical imperatives give you a choice, you can either do Action A or give up Purpose P.

• Briefly explain the "unwilling organ donor" objection to act utilitarianism

Imagine a dinner in which every nobel prize winner is invited. Something happens and these people need medical help. Should we kill one average person for the sake of the six nobel prize winners? This equation lacks personal security. We must get rid of these situations where there is an individual sacrifice. Here is a possible rule: do not kill healthy people in order to harvest organs. Possible rule 2: Kill (healthy) people to harvest organs when you can save more people. Rule 1 will lead to more safety and security among people (When generally followed, this will yield the greatest total net happiness).

• Briefly explain the "not enough time" objection to act utilitarianism:

Mill says that there has been ample time, namely the whole past duration of the human species. During all of that time, mankind has been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence as well as all the morality of life are dependent. People talk as if the commencement of this course of experience has been put off, and as if, at the moment when some man feels tempted to meddle with the property of life of another, he had to begin considering for the first time whether murder and theft are injurious to human happiness. You don't have time to consider/ calculate the pleasant/ painful effects of your actions prior to acting.

• How do rules of thumb differ from constitutive rules?

Rules of thumb are also known as secondary principles and they are created in order to simplify finding the optimistic action. Follow rules of thumb in order to make it easier for yourself, they can help us figure out which actions will yield happiness. In contrast, consitutive rules are rules that constitute the system of utility. (We perform our utilitarian calculations on the rules, not on the individual actions). Make up the system in which we are calculating utility on.

• Distinguish between the CI and the Golden Rule

The golden rule focuses on the reversal of preferences. The golden rule bids a person to treat others in a way that the person would like to be treated herself. But the way that one would like to be treated depends on one's subjective inclinations—and, according to Kant, subjective inclinations cannot possibly be the supreme principle of morality. The categorical imperative, by contrast, asks how a person could consistently will that she be treated. To see the difference between the golden rule and the categorical imperative we need to distinguish the psychological question of what a person wants from the normative question of what a person could rationally, consistently will. Logic and reason impose constraints on what one could consistently will. -Golden rule considers how you should be treated and Kant does not care how you are treated.

• Moral worth

The value of actions that are expressive of a good will; for Kant morally worthy actions are those performed from the motive of duty (i.e. respectful for laws of society but being self-legislating with regard to laws of human conduct).

• Good Will

The will of a person who does the right thing for the right reason. Not to be confused with "Good will towards man..." Christmastime cheer, etc.).

• Briefly explain Williams' integrity objection to utilitarianism

Williams says utilitarianism treats individual persons as mere recepticals and producers of happiness, it does not treat the projects, plans and goals to treat the persons with the right kind of moral weight. Utilitarianism does not have the capacity to treat individual persons appropriately

Act utilitarianism

an action is morally right if and only if that action yields the greatest total net happiness given the circumstances. We must adopt secondary principles in order to simplify finding the optimistic action (i.e. when scheduled for work, you should go and you should study for your exams). Think of small town who has recently experiences theft, assume it is the new drifter and according to act utilitarianism the sheriff should kill the drifter.

Direct (or immediate) inclination

an immediate inclination for X is wanting/ desiring X for its own sake. (For example, you might give money to the poor out of love for your fellow man. In this case, you desire to give money to the poor for the sake of giving money to the poor.

Rule utilitarianism

when an action is morally right if and only if that action is required by a rule that, when generally followed, yields the greatest happiness. Rule 1: doctors may kill a healthy person in order to save several people. Rule 2: Doctors are never permitted to kill one person in order to save many others. Rule 2 would lead to a happier society, rule 1 would make people insecure.