Ethics Midterm

Bad Conscience

1. a. An awareness of morality in regard to one's behavior; a sense of right and wrong that urges one to act morally: Let your conscience be your guide. b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience. c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience. 2. The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration. 3. Obsolete Consciousness or awareness of something.

What is Euthyphro's first answer to Socrates' question about the nature of piety? Why does Socrates find this answer to be inadequate?

1. Euthyphro offers as his first definition of piety what he is doing now, that is, prosecuting his father for manslaughter (5d). 2. Piety is what is pleasing to the gods. 3. What all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious. Socrates rejects this because it is not a definition; it is only an example or instance of piety. It does not provide the fundamental characteristic which makes pious things pious. (Universal Definition)

Moral Community

A moral community is a group of people drawn together by a common interest in living according to a particular moral philosophy.

Act v. Rule Utilitarians

Act Utilitarianism- Person's act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time. Rule Utilitarianism- Action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance."

Actual v. Expected results

Act utilitarianism claims that all results count. Actions are right dependent on their actual results. When we fail to maximize good results, we act wrongly, even if we had the best intentions. Suppose that Alice finds a runaway teenager who asks for money to get home. Alice wants to help and reasonably believes that buying a bus ticket home for this runaway will help, so she buys a bus ticket and puts the runaway on the bus. Unfortunately, the bus is involved in a freak accident, and the runaway is killed. If actual consequences are what determine moral wrongness, then it was morally wrong for Alice to buy the bus ticket for this runaway. Opponents claim that this result is absurd enough to refute classic utilitarianism.

Altruism

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness.

Divine Command Theory

An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.

Utilitarianism

An ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). Since the link between actions and their happy or unhappy outcomes depends on the circumstances, no moral principle is absolute or necessary in itself under utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements: happiness and consequentialism. Utilitarian happiness is the biggest happiness which (supposedly) every human being looks for. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is good. Therefore, the name of the doctrine is utilitarianism, based on the principle of utility. Utility is found in every thing which contributes to the happiness of every rational being. The criterion of good and evil is balanced between individual's happiness and the happiness of the community, "each counting in an equal way" (Bentham, Introduction in the principles of morality and legislation). Consequentialism in utilitarianism is in the fact that an action must be judged for its consequences on the happiness of the largest number. That is: my search for happiness stops when it decreases the happiness of another individual or the happiness of the largest number, of the society or the community. As personal freedom is considered in respect of the freedom of other individuals and of the community, my freedom stops when it diminishes the freedom of another individual or the well-being of the society. We could say that utilitarianism is the continuation of Roman legislation, and its modern aspect is shown in the fact that utilitarianism adds an economical, legislative and political dimension to an ethical concept, that of happiness and well-being. The modern aspect of the doctrine will evolve throughout the 19th century, with Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick who succeeds in giving to this doctrine a practical and rational dimension which we can find in our modern society, in economics, politics and ethics.

Ethical Egoism

An ideal requiring one to act egotistically. Ayn Rand arguing in favor of ethical egoism: Self-reliance argument: If we mind our business & tend only to our own needs, we will effectively make everyone better off. Why? Because looking out for others is self-defeating. One Moral Duty: Actions are morally right just because they best promote one's self-interest. Promoting one's own greatest good is always in accordance with reason & morality. To not do so is immoral. EE may require some actions that seem highly immoral... and forbid us from some actions that seem morally good. May permit us to escape moral duty... by requiring that we help others only when we help ourselves in the bargain. EE is a moral theory: it tells us what we are morally required and forbidden to do. EE does not resolve conflicts of interest.

Hedonism

Attractions: 1. There are many models of a good life. 2. Personal authority when it comes to happiness. 3. Misery clearly takes away from a good life; happiness clearly improves it. 4. The limits of explanation: we don't need to show that happiness leads to anything else in order to show that it is valuable. Hedone- Pleasure A life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain. Happiness, defined as the experience of enjoyment, is worth pursuing for its own sake. A good life is a happy life. Something with intrinsic value means its presence makes us better off. - It leads to a good life. Epicurus. Only pleasure is worth pursuing. A life filled with pleasure. A life full of sustained enjoyment, with minimal sadness & misery. Inner peace is the most pleasant condition. Moderation & Intellectual Clarity. Attitudinal Pleasures: The positive attitude of enjoyment. Such enjoyment does not have a phenomenal character: it is not a feeling, not necessarily physical. Physical Pleasures: (ex. the taste of a peach) which are momentary and fleeting and not the same as happiness according to the Hedonist. Instrumental Goods: Those things whose value consists in the fact that they help to bring about other good things. (ex. money) On this view, pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable.

The categorical and hypothetical imperatives

Categorical Imperatives -Admit of no exceptions. Moral obligations do not depend on our having particular desires. We are obligated to be have in certain ways. -Possible because we have reason. -2 Expressions: a. The Formula of Universal Law: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. b. Formula of Humanity: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Hypothetical Imperatives -Tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant desires. Here the binding force of the 'ought' depends on our having relevant desires. -Possible because we have desires. -Ex. If you want to go to law school, you ought to sign up for the entrance exam.

Is all happiness equally valuable, or does the value of happiness depend on its sources?

Commonly, it is not happiness which is valuable, they will say, but the fulfilment of desires - that hedonism is plausible only to the extent that we desire happiness. This means that classical utilitarianism is a theory in which the right actions are defined as those bringing about as consequences the greatest net happiness (or pleasure). "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." The experience machine is meant to be an argument against hedonism. If hedonism were correct, then people would want to plug into the "Experience Machine." This is because the experience machine can guarantee more pleasure than one would have in real life. Nozick thinks that people do not really want to plug into the "Experience Machine." Therefore, hedonism is not correct. If hedonism were correct, then, by the definition of hedonism, the only thing people value, ultimately, is happiness or pleasure. The conclusion of Nozick's argument then says that people do, as a matter of fact, value things besides our own happiness; the fact that people are reluctant to plug in means that at the very least, humanity values the truthfulness of its experiences.

The Euthyphro Question

Divine command theory is widely held to be refuted by an argument known as "the Euthyphro dilemma". This argument is named after Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for the argument, though not, as is sometimes thought, the argument itself. The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

Normative theories

Ethical Egoism, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Psychological Egoism, Divine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, Kantianism

How do psychological egoists explain extreme acts of self-sacrifice?

Even accepting the theory of universal positivity, it is difficult to explain, for example, the actions of a soldier who sacrifices his life by jumping on a grenade in order to save his comrades. In this case, there is simply no time to experience positivity toward one's actions, although a psychological egoist may argue that the soldier experiences moral positivity in knowing that he is sacrificing his life to ensure the survival of his comrades, or that he is avoiding negativity associated with the thought of all his comrades dying.[26] Psychological egoists argue that although some actions may not clearly cause physical nor social positivity, nor avoid negativity, one's current contemplation or reactionary mental expectation of these is the main factor of the decision. When a dog is first taught to sit, it is given a biscuit. This is repeated until, finally, the dog sits without requiring a biscuit. Psychological egoists could claim that such actions which do not 'directly' result in positivity, or reward, are not dissimilar from the actions of the dog. In this case, the action (sitting on command) will have become a force of habit, and breaking such a habit would result in mental discomfort. This basic theory of conditioning behavior, applied to other seemingly ineffective positive actions, can be used to explain moral responses that are instantaneous and instinctive such as the soldier jumping on the grenade.

What does Epicurus think is the most pleasant sort of life?

For Epicurus, the most pleasant life is one where we abstain from unnecessary desires and achieve an inner tranquility by being content with simple things, and by choosing the pleasure of philosophical conversation with friends over the pursuit of physical pleasures like food, drink, and sex

Principle of Humanity

Formula of Humanity: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

What does he mean when he claims that, death is nothing to us?

He argued that man should rid himself of the irrational fear of death. Epicurus began his argument with his conclusion, "that death is nothing to us." His basic argument is laid out as follows: 1. Death involves neither pleasure nor pain. 2. The only thing that is bad for us is pain. Thus, death is not bad for us.

Theories of well-being

Hedonism, Desire Satisfaction Theory

Human Nature

Human nature is animal nature. Human nature is what is innately human. Human nature is what all humans have in common. Human nature is our natural purpose. Natural Law Theory claims that morality is objective... human nature sets the standard: Morality depends on human nature, not human opinion.

Does the existence of a law imply a lawmaker?

In Socrates speaking with Euthyphro, the existence of a law maker is addressed. Socrates sets up a rather elaborate argument to show that the two cannot be equivalent. What is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy, so what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods. And what gets approved of by the gods in turn determines what is approved of by the gods. It follows from this reasoning that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two determines what gets approved of by the gods and the other is determined by what gets approved of by the gods. So yes a law has a creator but that creator could be society.

Natural Law Theory

In this view humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason. Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them. Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for species to survive and procreate. Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work against that law are morally wrong. As an example consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy is morally wrong. Two types of Natural Law Theory: Natural Law Theory can be held and applied to human conduct by both theists and atheists. The atheist uses reason to discover the laws governing natural events and applies them to thinking about human action. Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong. For the theists there is a deity that created all of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience to those laws and the supplement to those laws provided by the deity is the morally correct thing to do. For atheists there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable. For atheists who accept this approach to act in keeping with the laws of nature is the morally correct thing to do. What are the laws of nature that provide guidance for human actions? These would include: the law of survival, the natural action for living things to maintain themselves and to reproduce, etc.. It is a major problem for this theory to determine what exactly those laws are and how they apply to human circumstances.

Kantianism

Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent). Morality and imperatives: What does it mean for one's duty to be determined by the categorical imperative? What is an imperative? An imperative is a command. So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!" Hypothetical Imperatives: these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E.g. "If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college." If you don't want to go to medical school, this command doesn't apply to you. Another example, your father says, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command. Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. E.g. "Don't cheat on your taxes." Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat. What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. How does the categorical imperative work? The categorical imperative has three different formulations. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation. 1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]." a) What is a maxim? A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family. b) Basic idea: The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises. c) More detail: More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

Kazez's "necessities"

Kazez's Objective Good 1: -Happiness happiness is good, period; it is critical. we need to have at least some happiness to live a good life Kazez's Objective Good 2: -autonomy--better other parts of our lives (like having autonomy in better job position--Caroline; certain arranged marriages) Kazez's Objective Good 3: -Self Expression/A sense of identity--people prefer feeling confident that they know who they are rather than an illusion (Nowhere man; "I'm an atheist on Tuesdays") Kazez's Objective Good 4: -Morality--it is good for us because it makes us less alone; brings friendship (tied to living among others, which is itself a good) Kazez's Objective Good 5: -Progress (the case of Constance--she is in a good state but never progresses and misses the good of growth) Kazez's Objective Good 6: -Source of Happiness (Maggie and the wonder drug--she finds everything great only because the drug--compares to someone who loves gambling and only source of happiness) Kazez's Methodological principle 1: Sifting of Cases principle: -What do the lives we consider good have in common? What do the lives we consider bad lack? If something, X, answers to both of these questions, that is reason for thinking X is necessary for a good life. Kazez's Methodological principle 2: Human motivation principle: -How persistently do humans pursue X? If most people persistently pursue X then that is reason for thinking that X is a necessity.

Mill claims that "pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends." Are there any examples that can challenge this claim?

Most people also believe that there are other things of value besides pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and not merely the instrumental value of contributing to a net gain of pleasure over pain - virtue, for example. The hedonist then usually goes to great lengths to provide convoluted and highly speculative arguments to the effect that these things are simply instrumentally valuable to pleasure - for example, by arguing that the virtuous person will have a more pleasant life and that society as a whole will be better off with virtuous people than without.

Pyschological Egoism

PE is a psychological view, based on behavior, not an ethical theory. Expected Benefit- 1. Whenever you do something, you expect to be better off as a result. 2. If you expect to be better off as a result of your actions, then you are aiming to promote your self-interest. 3. Whenever you do something, you are aiming to promote your self-interest. Strongest Desires- 1. Whenever you do something, you are motivated by your strongest desire. 2. When you are motivated by your strongest desire, you are pursuing your self-interest. 3. Therefore, whenever you do something, you are pursuing your self-interest. PE focuses on intentions, not results. PE aims to describe the facts of human motivation, rather than to prescribe the standards that we ought to live up to. If PE is true, every single action is done from the hope pf personal gain... actions are never done from altruistic motives.

Optimific

Producing the optimum outcome. In response, Brandt argues for what he calls ideal rule utilitarianism, which makes the frame of reference for rule consideration not the actual rules available, but the ideal rule, i.e., the rule that would be optimific (productive of the best possible consequences), were it employed.

What is Philippa Foot's objection to the view that a good life is just a happy life?

Quality v. Quantity- "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied." Lobotomy of a child will make them happy all the time but decrease their potential life value.

How might religion motivate people to behave morally?

Religion might motivate people to do good deeds for several reasons; they might act out of love for their God(s), fear of the same, kindness and benevolence to other people, or for general self-interest. The motivation for performing a deed is important in that it affects how the deed is done as well as its moral nature. This is thought to be a morally problematic question.

What is the difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value?

Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good "in and of itself,'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring something else. Happiness might be an example of an intrinsic value, because being happy is good just because it's good to be happy, not because being happy leads to anything else. Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value. Having a net worth of a million dollars is an instrumental value. Having those assets is good only to the extent that you can use them to get something else--like happiness.

Objective v. Subjective welfare theories

Subjective theories of Welfare -Something we get in life benefits us when we have an interest in it, or we want it. -If something is truly a benefit to someone, it must be something she wants, likes, or cares about. -Being well off has to do with the attitudes we have toward what we get in life. Objective Theories of Welfare (Kazez) -Objectivists claim that some of the intrinsically beneficial things in our lives are good for us even if we don't want them or don't care about them. -They are good for us whether we like it or not. -They bear no necessary connection to any positive attitudes on the part of the person for whom it is supposed to be good. -Being well off has to do with the nature of the things themselves.

Principle of Universability

The Formula of Universal Law: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

What is the difference between physical and attitudinal pleasure?

The difference between physical and attitudinal pleasure is, that one is something that you can hold and grab, while the other is something that is in your mind. Physical pleasure is something that will only last for a few seconds or minutes, while attitudinal pleasure can last for a long time. Physical pleasure is something like, having sex and attitudinal pleasure is a memory that you will keep for ever. Attitudinal pleasure is always intrinsically, because it is the positive attitude of enjoyment. They make a distinction, because they are two different types of pleasure. A type of pleasure that you can have for only a few minutes compared to one that you could have your entire life.

Good Will & Duty

The only thing valuable no matter what is the good will. The good will is the ability to reliably know what your duty is. The good will is also the steady commitment to do your duty for its own sake. We see what we are morally required to do and we do it for that very reason. This is acting in accordance with duty. Acting from a good will is the only way that actions can be truly praiseworthy.

Principle of Utility

The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. If you are a hedonist, the most important question is: "Whose pleasure counts the most?" Classical utilitarians are altruists to the extent that they believe that the standard of right or wrong is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, the "Good" increases the number of persons experiencing pleasure among members of a specific group. The "Bad" increases the number of persons experiencing pain.

What is the difference between act (extreme) and rule (restricted) utilitarianism?

The supposed difference between Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism -For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge an act in terms of the consequences of that act alone.

What does the following mean: "Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?"

This argument states that the idea of morality is determined solely by the Gods or some kind of divine authority. Is something "good" because the Gods think it is good, or do the Gods approve of something only because it is "good"? These are almost like contradicting statements and there is really no way to find out which is true or if the two are even equivalent. They are two different trains of thought. One the one hand, we can accept that something is holy simply because it is approved, or we can believe that something is approved because it is holy.

In what sense does hedonism give us a say in what the good life looks like?

To Hedonist the good life is a life that is filled with pleasure and is free of pain. Pleasure as described by the Hedonists can come from either attitudinal pleasures or physical pleasures. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. All pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good.

How do utilitarians account for cases in which we lack moral knowledge?

We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules, and, when under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its compliance.

Maxim

We cannot determine whether an action is right or wrong until we know its maxim. Kant thought that an action's rightness depends on its maxim, and nothing to do with results. Those subjective principles on which we act. Maxims describe the act, its purpose is to guide conscientious deliberation. What maxims could be adopted by a plurality of agents? Nothing can be a moral principle which cannot be a principle for all. A short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct.

Why does Smart believe we should sometimes praise actions we know to be wrong, and condemn actions we know to be right?

We must never forget that an extreme utilitarian may praise actions which he knows to be wrong. Saving Hitler was wrong, but it was a member of a class of actions which are generally right, and the motive to do actions of this class is in general an optimific one. In considering questions of praise and blame it is not the expediency of the praised or blamed action that is at issue, but the expediency of the praise. It can be expedient to praise an inexpedient action and inexpedient to praise an expedient one.

Desire Satisfaction

Your life goes well for you when you get what you want. Desire Satisfied= The Good Life. Something is good for you if it satisfies your desires. Nothing can make your life better unless you get what you want. Desires Motivate us. The ultimate source of value, on this view, is the satisfaction of desire. We must be clear about "satisfaction". This does not refer to any sort of feeling. Rather, it refers simply to the situation in which a person gets what he wants; his desires are satisfied. Suppose I want my children to be happy after I die. Suppose they are, but I never know about this. Then my desire is satisfied in this sense, but I do not get any "feelings of satisfaction". On this theory, "The Good" is the satisfaction of actual desires, no matter what they are desires for; "The Bad" is frustration of actual desires, again no matter what they are desires for. I. Every case of desire satisfaction is intrinsically good; every case of desire frustration is intrinsically bad. II. The intrinsic value of a desire satisfaction is equal to the intensity of the desire satisfied; the intrinsic value of a desire frustration is equal to -(the intensity of the desire frustrated). III. The intrinsic value of a complex thing such as a life, consequence, or possible world is equal to the sum of the intrinsic values of all the desire satisfactions and frustrations that occur in that life, consequence, or world.

Intrinsic values

an ethical and philosophic property that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake" as an intrinsic property.

Moral agents

an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." THOSE WHO BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

Instrumental goods

something considered as a means to some other good; i.e., an instrumental good leads to something else that is good.

What virtues does Epicurus think are inseparable from a pleasant life?

t is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom. Therefore wisdom is a more precious thing even than philosophy ; from it spring all the other virtues, for it teaches that we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.

What is an objective theory of human welfare?

what is truly valuable (and thus what makes a life good) is fixed independently of what one thinks is valuable.