PHIL 231 Midterm 1

We discussed how we will pursue philosophical understanding. Discuss how and what methods we use to achieve that end.

- Ask questions - Develop and use methods for seeking answers to those questions - We use these answers of these questions to create a theory

In the chapter you read from Being Wrong so far, Kathryn Schulz introduces us to what she calls "wrongology," namely, the study of: i) what is it to be wrong, ii) why it's so hard for humans to be wrong, iii) how humans typically go about deciding whether they're right or wrong, and iv) the value of studying these issues. What are her basic views on these four topics?

- Being wrong is the most beautiful parts of being human - Everyone is wrong because it is a lack of knowledge - Being wrong is different than feeling wrong - Everyone is embarrassed of being wrong - Her view is that everyone should embrace fallibility instead of erasing it - Being wrong feels like being right - Road runner and Coyote: when coyote runs off a cliff, he does not fall until he looks down/ realizes he was wrong for running off a cliff

As we discussed, Plato's Socrates converses with several people in Book 1 of Republic. Two such people are Cephalus and his son, Polemarchus. Both people, I argued, ascribe to forms of retributivism, namely, a theory of moral justice that thinks of justice as retributive (i.e., giving to people what they are owed). We often capture that idea with the expression "an eye for an eye." What does Cephalus' version of retributivism say that justice is? Explain. What is Socrates' borrowed weapon counterexample reply, and why is his counterexample supposed to undermine Cephalus' theory of justice?

- Cephalus was saying wealthy people are the most just because they leave this world without any debts to gods and man alike. Justice is paying your debts and speaking the truth. - Platos responsive: A friend gives you a weapon to borrow, then they turned insane. It would not be acceptable to return that weapon since such an act could result in a "bad" outcome. Thus, owing debts cannot be a method to determine justice or not.

In your handout on normative ethics and metaethics, and in class, is discussed epistemology of morality, the difference between a posteriori claims and a priori claims, and the moral skepticism-moral anti-skepticism. Explain each. Furthermore, how is moral skepticism different from moral realism? Are Mill, Kant, and Plato moral skeptics or moral anti-skeptics? If they are, how does each think we gain knowledge of moral truths?

- Epistemology of morality: epistemology is the study of knowledge, so therefore we are trying to find the knowledge of morals, or is obtaining moral knowledge possible. - A Priori: uses only reason - A posteriori - gathers empirical evidence; makes closest conclusion to the truth - Moral skepticism: It's important for anyone to know whether something is morally just or unjust - Moral anti-skepticism: It's possible for someone to know whether something is morally just or unjust - Mill, Kant, and Plato are moral anti-skeptics - Kant and plato argue moral knowledge comes a priori - Mill argues moral knowledge comes a posteriori

Katherine Schulz argues that "Whatever falsehoods each of us currently believes are necessarily invisible to us." This is the problem of _____.

- Error blindness about our own wrongness

State and explain intrinsic value properties and extrinsic value properties and the difference between them? What are the two types of extrinsic value properties? Explain both. How does this help us understand not only consequentialism, but also Socrates' question "what is the greatest good you've received, Cephalus, from being very wealthy?"

- Intrinsic - "in and of itself", If an act is morally just, then that is all the reason any rational person needs to be motivated to so act. If an act is morally unjust, then that is all the reason any rational person needs to be motivated not to so act. All the reasons any rational person needs are contained in the moral status. - Mill believed in Intrinsic values and the ultimate intrinsic value is happiness. - Extrinsic - "in relation to something else", An act being morally just does nothing to provide any reasons for a rational person to be motivated to so act. An act being morally unjust does nothing to provide any reasons for a rational person to be motivated not to so act. In order for a rational person to have reasons to act, considerations beyond the moral status of the act are needed. - instrumental - "a means to an end" - something has instrumental value if it can be used as a tool to achieve something considered to be an ultimate value (Mill: happiness, Singer: preferences are most important instrumental value) - Chainsaw example: can be good or bad, like how a chainsaw is not good for brushing your teeth, even though brushing your teeth is a good. Somewhere in the distance, there has to be an intrinsic good. - stipulative - "the relative authority says so" - upheld by higher authority, you choose what has value (I am the relevant authority for my life)

In class we discussed the range of goals that Plato has in writing Republic. In particular, we divided those goals into his negative and positive projects, respectively. Be able to state and explain each of those projects and the goals within those projects.

- Negative: Sophists are bad; traditionalism is bad. Conventionalism and immoralism is fake - Positive: Bigger picture is virtue theory, aristocracy is the best, virtue leads to flourishing, qualities are in it of itself good, so therefore we should thrive to flourish - Retributivism is too narrow, justice is about care

What is normative ethics (its topic and focus)? What are the other two branches of philosophical ethics (their topics and focus)? How are those three branches of philosophical ethics related to one another? One of the three branches of philosophical ethics is "the starting point" field of moral philosophy. Which is that and why? What is a metaethical theory, and what is the relationship between it and normative ethics?

- Normative Ethics- that branch of philosophical ethics that seeks to develop a fully-fledged theory regarding the nature of moral justice and injustice, one that tells us what exactly moral justice is, on what basis upon which we can determine that, and is complete, consistent, coherent, and authoritative. - The two other branches are Metaethics (Seek to answer specific questions about the nature of ethics) and Applied Ethics (seeks to determine the moral status of specific actions/practices in light of one or more general moral principles that are a part of one's normative ethical theory. - Applied ethics depends on normative ethics, and normative ethics depends on metaethics. So, think of metaethics as the field of philosophical inquiry that is not seeking to answer ethical questions, but seeking to answer questions about what we're doing when we do ethics. - The starting point is related to Metaethics because metaethics is the building block upon which the other branches are built. - A metaethical theory is moral realism and moral anti-realism. Seeks to determine the source of moral ethics

From your readings, you learned that the three branches of philosophical ethics are _____.

- Normative ethics, metaethics, applied ethics

We distinguished ethical inquiries into two types: philosophical inquiries and non-philosophical inquiries. What is the basic difference between the two? What are the two types of non-philosophical ethical inquiries, and why are they argued to be philosophically irrelevant to answering the justice questions?

- Philosophical inquiries: metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics - Non-philosophical inquiries: "moralizing"/moral training, Descriptive ethics - sociology, psychology, anthropology - Irrelevant because they ask about what you would do based on these inquires, not what you should do or what the REAL course of actions are.

How did we define 'philosophy' in class and, given that, what is the true spirit of philosophical inquiry? How and why is Dieter Rams' quote "Question everything generally thought to be obvious" a serious candidate for describing what one is pursuing and how they pursue that when doing this thing called 'philosophy'?

- Philosophy - lover of wisdom - Philosophy is the use of reason and argument to improve human life - The question doesn't mean to say everything's false but to be open minded. We must learn not how to think but how to think better which is what Philosophy uses to answer questions

Doing philosophy involves _____.

- Questioning everything, even seemingly obvious things - Seeking self-knowledge and a rigorous, objective perspective about ideas - More than just having deep thoughts - Seeking first to understand (charitably) an idea that someone offers

Metaethics is _____.

- The "starting" branch for moral philosophy - The branch that seeks to determine if moral realism is true - The branch that seeks to determine the source of moral values

As you learned, moral realism is the view that _____.

- There are moral facts

State and explain the concept of a value judgement, and what makes it an apparent judgement (that is, it looks like one)? What are the different types of evaluative judgements that we distinguished from one another and discussed, and what are the key differences between them? Also, as we discussed, there are judgements that we all make that aren't evaluative. What are some examples? In class, I argued that making judgements (of any kind) make sense only if we accept that there are facts. Explain why.

- They all access something as good or bad/ right or wrong - They are all assessments which makes them evaluative - Evaluative: Good or bad - Non evaluative: seeing something that doesn't have an initial good or bad quality (Sensory judgment)

As you learned in reading of DeNicola's chapter "Ethical Theory, Moral Concerns," the tools that philosophers use to "explicate and critique ethical theories" are _____.

- Thought-experiments - counterexamples

Explain Plato's allegory of the cave and how he uses it to help us think not only about what he thinks philosophy concerns and what a person is doing when they do philosophy, but how he conceives of philosophy as tied to living well.

- Three men are chained up and only see shadows - this was their only perception of the world. One man escaped and went out and saw the real world but when he went back and tried to explain it to the other two, they couldn't comprehend anything he was trying to tell them. - The prisoners are so chained to their world, they have no way of seeing past it. - Things aren't always what they seem - relates to empirical evidence - Philosophy is climbing your way out of your prison body to see what things are, mostly the GOOD the TRUE and the BEAUTIFUL

In class, I said that we have two goals in the course. What are those two goals and how are they connected with what we're calling the justice questions? Explain the important distinction between the political and moral versions we made and why they are relevant to answering the justice questions.

- To discuss and investigate various theories of moral and political justice (can moral theories be true?) - To discuss and investigate various theories of moral psychology concerning what can and should motivate someone to follow a demand of justice. - JQ2 relates to goal 2 because it's a question about reasons to do or not to do what justice demands - purely psychological

According to Jim Pryor's discussion on philosophical methods, analyzing concepts is _____.

- Trying to figure out what something really is, e.g., what it really is to die - What we really have in mind when talk about something

While some moral philosophers believe the Judeo-Christian idea that moral rightness and wrongness are features of actions (that is, doing good or bad), others philosopher—such as Plato and Aristotle—believe those value properties are features of _____.

- being a certain type of person

As discussed in your readings, the three primary normative theories of ethics—what I called "the big three"—are _____.

- consequentialism, deontology, virtue theory

We briefly discussed an overview of Plato's theories of the just city and the just person. What are the three "parts" of both, what role does each part play, and why is it necessary in Plato's mind that each part "do its job" work harmoniously if the city and person are to be just (that is, achieve the Good)? What's more, if a virtue is defined as a quality that makes the thing in question good, what is the "virtue" of each part of the city and also each part of the person? What does that tell us that Plato believes is the ultimate virtue that should rule both the city and the person, and why?

1. The rulers 2. The enforcers 3. The populace/artisans A just person - Ruled by reason - Enforced by will/spirit - In order to serve the passions The ultimate virtue is reason

Why does Cephalus believe people have good reasons to be just rather than not? How and why does Plato think that makes Cephalus and anyone who thinks that way a morally complacent person?

Cephalus being just not for others but for himself

Utilitarianism is a type of _________

Consequentialism

How did we distinguish the difference between deontic normative theories and aretaic normative theories, and what relevance does it have the construction of a normative theory?

Deontic: the proper object of moral evaluation is actions (evaluates actions) Aretaic: the proper object of moral evaluation is persons (evaluates people)

______ tell us that an act A is morally right if A was the agent's moral duty

Deontologists

(T/F) JQ1 asks about why anyone should care about and be motivated to do what justice demands.

False

Which branches of philosophical ethics seeks to answer the first justice question? Which the second justice question? Explain your answer.

JQ 1 : Normative Ethics Normative ethics studies the basics of morality, therefore setting the exact foundation of what justice is JQ 2 : metaethics Studies the idea of moral psychology which is in the branch of metaethics

We introduced the debate between moral realists and moral anti-realists. What does each theory allege, and what are they debating exactly?

Moral Realism: There are moral facts/truths Moral AntiRealism: There are not moral truths/facts

JQ2 is a metaethical question since it's concerned with ____.

Moral psychology

Which thinker(s) covered in class believe(s) that ethical foundationalism is true?

Plato, Kant, Mill

Continuing with the same retributivist theme as his father Cephalus, what is Polemarchus' similar, but modified theory of justice? That is, what does Polemarchus say that justice is in light of the conversation between his father Cephalus and Socrates? How is Polemarchus' version supposed to avoid Socrates' borrowed weapon counterexample?

Polemarcus' view on justice is "to give each man what is proper to him". This amendment is said to avoid Socrates' borrowed weapon example as it makes the his approach context-based as opposed to unanimous.

According to moral realism, _____.

There are moral facts

(T/F) In his chapter "The Role of Moral Theory," Kernohan discusses the ought-implies-can principle. He does so to demonstrate that an important question for moral philosophers is to ask when people can be held morally responsible for their decisions.

True

T/F: According to Mill, the answer to the question what is the summum bonum? is located in psychological nature of the species type in question

True

Consequentialism and deontology are _____-centered theories whereas virtue ethics is an _____-centered theory

act, agent

If Jones engages in _______ ethics research, then Jones is seeking to answer JQ1 and to understand value predicates such as "morally good", "morally bad, "morally right", and "morally wrong"

normative

According to Mill, what is the ______ _______/what is the foundation of morality is the main question that has always been of greatest interest to those who engage in "speculative thought"

summum bonum