Intro to Ethics Final

main argument against raising and killing animals for food (RFK)

1) RFK is extremely bad for animals 2) RFK is only trivially good for humans 3) Therefor RFK should be stopped

objections to the argument against RFK

1) RFK is good for animals because it gives them reason for existence 2) humans need to eat meat to be healthy 3) eating meat is good for humans because of the pleasure it gives us

Huemer's response to the argument of druse uses from harm to others

1) absurd to jail people for not valuing their freedom and embrace personal responsibility 2) assured to prohibit people from doing things that have a CHANCE of causing certain behaviors

criterion of moral status

1) being human - homo sapiens 2) rationality - being able to make logical decision 3) sentience - experiences pain or pleasure

two types of contradictions in the will (why we cannot want maxims to become universal laws)

1) cases where it is impossible to even imagine a scenario in which everyone follows that maxim ex: cheating on taxes 2) generalized maxim can be a universal law, but we cannot want it to become a universal law, because that would go against some of our own desires or goals ex: not voting because you do not believe your vote matters

the argument of druse uses from harm to users

1) drug use is very harmful to users 2) the government should prohibit people from causing harm to themselves 3) therefore the government should prohibit drug use

the argument of druse uses from harm to others

1) drugs are harmful to others such as family and friends and diminishes the user's capacity to be effect students, parents, spouses, and employees 2) government should profit people from doing thing that harm family, friends and society 3) therefore the government should prohibit drug use

reasons for Frey's "quality of life" criterion for moral status

1) humans are richer in life, projects and experiences 2) humans can autonomously choose how to live

objects to singer's argument (being the only one who can help vs. millions who can help)

1) in singer's drowning children example, we are the only ones that can help vs. in reality where millions of others can also help people in poverty singer's response - the idea that others can help does not lessen our moral duty

problems that fail the universalizability test

1) some actions that are usually permissible fail the universalizability test ex: lying to the murderer at the door; telling a white lie to a friend 2) some actions that are usually wrong might pass the universalizability test ex: torturing convicted murderers

Huemer's response to the argument of druse uses from harm to users

1) some drugs are harmful to uses and some are questionable in the case of harm 2) there are many things that people do that are harmful to themselves that we do not believe the government should prohibit

role of Singer's drowning child example

1) the idea that others can help does not lessen our moral obligation 2) does not matter if the child is near or far, our reactions should be the same 3) there should not be a difference in reaction between a drowning child and a child in poverty

Frey's "quality of life" criterion for moral status

1) the moral status of an individual depends on the value and quality of there life

Huemer's argument for why drug prohibitions unjust

1) unjust to punish people for exercising their rights 2) individuals have a right to use drugs 2) therefore, drugs prohibition is unjust

objects to singer's argument (doing our fair share)

1) we are only obligated to do our fair share in alleviating the effects of poverty singer's response - we cannot live or rely on a hypothetical claim or desire only what is reality and the reality is that although through everyone's fair share, these problems can be alleviated, most people will not/do not do their fair share. Therefore, the possibility of others helping does not lessen our moral obligation or duty

singer's duty and charity

1) we believe that it is our moral obligation to not harm one another but helping others is morally optional 2) we are praised for charity however it is actually morally required of us to help others

Bramble's response to the arguments FOR RFK

1) we can compensate for the pleasures that eating meat gives us by starting new vegetarian dishes and traditions 2) we can redirect all the money spent on meat in the economy towards resources such as education and health 3) there could be some psychological cost and challenges that come with eating meat even when we do not realize it

universalizability test

1) when contemplating doing an action, ask what maxim (rule) you would be following if you did that action 2) then ask is this a rule that you would like to be followed by everyone at all times?

problem of promises for utilitarianism

According to utilitarianism, we should keep our promises just in case doing so maximizes utility. But this goes against our practice of making and keeping promises.

the universal law formula of the Categorical Imperative

Act only according to the maxim that can become a universal law

maxims

a principle or rule that we give to ourselves as to how we should act

humanity

all rational and autonomous beings, no matter their species

fundamental principle of utility

an action is right if and only if it maximizes utility

comparative question of moral status (unequal status)

animals have some moral status but not on the same level as humans

paternalism

failing to respect autonomylimiting the liberty of others for their own good ex: selling a friends T.V because they spend too much time on Netflix

autonomy

free will; capable of making your own decisions.

comparative question of moral status (equality)

humans and non humans are equal

Timmerman's response Singer's Drowning Children example

if you are constantly helping others, you should be able to dedicate a small part of your life for personal achievements and pleasures

Mill's response to "lack of time" objection to utilitarianism

in the cases that need quick action we should rely on gut feelings and commonsense rules of thumb

problem of justice for utilitarianism

it is indifferent to justice as long as it maximizes utilitarianism

singer's main argument from 'famine, affluence, and morality'

it is our moral obligation and duty to donate a large sum of our income and time to poverty relief organization because if we are able to prevent something bad like the death of a child from hunger from happening, we should do everything in our power to prevent it whiteout sacrificing anything morally significant

the challenge of the the "quality of life" criterion for moral status

it supports an unequal moral status between humans as well as animals and excludes individuals such as those with cognitive disabilities who cannot display these same quality and richness of life

main problem for the "rationality" criterion for moral status

leaves out human infants, severely cognitively disabled people, non-human animals

the main problem for the "being human" criterion for moral status

leaves room for discrimination of genetics/biological features

"too high for humanity" objection to utilitarianism

many of our actions that are morally right are not motivated by the desire to maximize utility ex. we help our neighbors because we want to get along with them not to maximize utility

principle of humanity

never treat people as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end, all persons deserve respect and dignity

what is maximizing utility?

no action could have been done instead that maximizes utility

comparative question of moral status (no status)

non humans (animals) have no moral status and deserve no moral concerns

objection that utilitarianism demands too much from us (personal projects)

personal projects: does not leave room for pursuing personal projects ex: Bridget save up to $7,000 to pay for her first car but she hears about a tsunami in South East Asia that destroyed communities and life. According to utilitarianism, she should give the money to the relief efforts

objection that utilitarianism demands too much from us (personal relationships)

personal relationships: unable to accommodate our personal relationships ex: Simon's mom is feeling lonely and would like Simon to come over but Simon signed up to volunteer that day so according to utilitarianism, Simon should volunteer rather than volunteer.

objection that utilitarianism demands too much from us (personal values and commitments)

personal values/commitments: utilitarianism cannot accommodate our personal values and commitment ex. George is morally opposed to making chemical weapons but if he does not take the job, then someone else would make the weapons worse than he will

what is utility?

the result of subtracting the sum of all suffering produced by that act from the sum of all the happiness produced by that act

problems with Kant's examples according to Feldman

the universal law formula does not really work well when applied to some of Kant's own examples ex: neglecting one's natural talents Kant believes we cannot let this be a universal law because it undermines our potential Feldman believes people should be able to be idle and not want to develop their natural talents

"Lack of time" objection to utilitarianism

there is not enough time for calculating the maximum utility in cases that need quick action

rationality

to act morally or rationally is to act in ways that everyone could live by

Treating someone as an end

treating someone as capable of making their own decisions

Treating someone as a mere means

treating someone only as a tool for achieving your goals involving them in an action to which they could not consent to

treating someone as a means

using someone to achieve one of your own goals this is not a problem because you can treat someone as both a means and an end ex: hiring a plumber, your plumbing issue is fixed and you pay them

J.S Mill's response to the "too high for humanity" objection to utilitarianism

utilitarianism does not require that we should always be motivated by the desire to maximize utility, utilitarianism only request that our action maximize utility

problem of punishment for utilitarianism

we should punish people for their actions just in case nothing else we can do instead would produce more utility

singer's radical/practical consequence

we should radically change our lives by not wasting time or money on morally insignificant things and instead use that time and money to help others

Hypothetical Imperative (Kant)

what we must do in order to achieve some desired goals Eex: if you want to go to law school, you ought to practice for the LSAT

Categorical Imperative (Kant)

what we must do no matter what our desires are moral obligations do not depend on our having particular desires.

problem of moral community for the Principle of Humanity

who deserves respect and moral concern?leaves out animals, infants and cognitively disabled peopler because they are not rational or autonomous