PHIL 4 FINAL
Define 'meta-ethics' and list three meta-ethical views.
Meta-ethics: the study of moral epistemology ( study of moral knowledge and the justification of our moral beliefs) and moral metaphysics ( the study of the nature of moral phenomena). 3 met-ethical views: Expressivisim, Nihilism, and Anti-realism
Define "direct evaluative utilitarianism."
"The morally best world to create at a given time t, is that world that contains at least as much happiness any other state of affairs that can be created at t"
According to Mill, what population should we consider when we're trying to evaluate which of several available actions will maximize happiness?
"all sentient creatures". Those able to perceive and feel things.
(3) The first formulation of the categorical imperative provides us with a way to test principles (or maxims) to see whether it would be moral to act on those principles. Critics have complained that the test is both too weak (it lets in bad principles) and too strong (it keeps out perfectly fine principles). Explain these criticisms using examples. How might Kant respond to these criticisms?
) form of universal law, kant. State relation of the categorical imperative: "only act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it AS UNIVERSAL LAW Formulate maxim: lie to get money Universalize it: what happens if everyone does it. No one will trust each other, everyone lies to get money and(4 medium essay) only works if you make an exception and you are the only one with that maxim. TOO WEAK life when you can get away with in. still immoral even though it follow CU not immoral even though CI rules it out TOO STRONG go to UCEN for lunch everyday Maxim 1: I will go to UCEN in order (action) (end) to eat lunch when I'm hungry. (circumstances) change: to when I'm hungry and it's not too crowded. Then able to achieve our end with the privision (make more specific) Maxim 2: I will lie to someone (action) in order to get money (end) when they are too stupid to realize it. (circumstance) kant will say this will work; but this is too weak, it let's in bad principles. Kant says that "when they are too stupid to realize it" is too general solution for maxim 1 is then the problem for maxim 2 be respectful of other peoples ends second formulation, don't treat people as a mere means
What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori moral knowledge? Describe what Kant would consider an article of a priori moral knowledge. Describe what Kant would consider an item of a posteriori moral knowledge.
- A priori knowledge: independent of experience "All bachelors are unmarried" - A posteriori knowledge: dependent of experience or empirical evidence "Some bachelors are very happy" - Kant claims that basic ethical laws should either constrain or describe the behavior of all rational creatures. -A priori: "it is wrong to act with the purpose of harming another person" -A posteriori: "it is wrong to act with the purpose of burning another person"
Explain the difference between consequentialism and utilitarianism.
- Consequentialism is a theory in ethics that judges people, things and issues on the basis of their outcomes and consequences. Utilitarianism is a special, and most popular type of consequentialism that focuses on the fact that we should engage in acts that maximizes good to the maximum number of people. (aggregate happiness)
Describe three functions that Mill assigns to a first principle of morality.
- it doesnt just tell us how things are and how things will be, it tells us how we should make things. - it allows for moral progress or the development of our moral system. - tells us how to act in order to achieve aggregate happiness
How does Kant define 'humanity'?
-Humanity is the ability to set goals, utilize the means to achieve these goals and organize these means and goals into a coherent whole.
Define 'autonomy'. What value must be weighed against autonomy to determined whether aborting a late stage fetus is morally permissible?
-autonomy: the state of self rule, self governance, self control, and independence Intrinsic value
Define "direct normative utilitarianism."
-the act of what we should do, that will produce at least as much of happiness as would any other action available at the time (aggregate)
***According to traditional theory (as reported by Brownlee) an act of civil disobedience must meet 4 conditions if it is to be morally justified. Describe 3 of the 4 Conditions
1) Moral Motive 2) Intention to Communicate 3) Publicity- genuine civil disobedience still requires the disobedient parties to willingly make their identities known after the fact 4) Acceptance of Consequences or Punishments: The willingness of disobedients to accept punishment is taken not only as a mark of general fidelity to the law, but also as an assertion that they differ from ordinary offenders."
What, according to Kant, are the two functions of "empirical ethics"?
1. applying laws to instances 2. overcoming inclinations
Define "brute relativism"
A person P is right to A in community c at time t, while (Temporal) a relevantly similar person P' is wrong to A in community c at time t+n, or (Spatial) a relevantly similar person P'' is wrong to A in community c'≠c at t, where there are no morally relevant
Who was Kitty Genovese
A woman murdered in 1964 in New York, in 35 minute period, with 37 neighbors hearing her scream, begging for help while being stabbed. Neighbors displayed the bystander effect as all of them didn't call for help until too late, as she was stabbed, was alone and then the killler came back to finish the job.
According to Mill, how can we determine which of two kinds of pleasure is more worthy of promotion?
Mill suggests a test is used in order to determine this. He says that of two pleasures, if there is one that almost all, or all people who have experienced both pleasures decide to prefer, despite any feeling of moral obligation to prefer that pleasure, then that is the more desirable pleasure. Also, if one of the two pleasures is, by those who are well aquainted with both, places so far above the other pleasure, that they prefer it, even though it could come with feeling of discontent, and the person will not replace this pleasure with any other. (quality over quantity)
Explain why Kant thinks that happiness does not have unconditioned value.
Happiness is not good without limitation. a.) it isnt good when a bad person is happy, and b.) happiness can lead to arrogance, and it isnt good when this happens. Unconditional value is value at all times.
What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
Hypothetical: when the action is good merely as a means to something else Categorical: when the action is good in itself, as principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason
Kant thinks that only actions done from duty have true moral worth. State the "actual account" of what makes it the case that an act is done from duty.
If the person recognizes that the action is his duty and he does the action in the absence of any inclination to the action.
Kant thinks that only actions done from duty have true moral worth. State the "counterfactual account" of what makes it the case that an act is done from duty.
If the person recognizes that the action is his duty and he has no inclination to the action OR he does have inclination BUT he would have performed the action even if he had no inclination to do so.
Describe the findings of the Church Commitee
In 1975 & 1976, The Church Committee uncovered numerous instances of unlawful domestic intelligence programs conducted by the CIA and other agencies, which directly violated the Constitution
Explain the difference between direct and indirect forms of civil disobedience.
In breaking the law, the disobedient aims to express to others her belief in the immorality of: (a) direct civil disobedience: the law she is violating, or (b) indirect civil disobedience: other laws, policies or decisions In other words, civil disobedients can either breach the law they oppose or breach a law which, other things being equal, they do not oppose in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy.
Describe Kant's distinction between rules of skill and counsels of prudence
Kant divides hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories: the rules of skill and the counsels of prudence. The rules of skill are hypothetical imperatives that cite an end other than happiness.. The counsels of prudence are hypothetical imperatives that have happiness in the end.
How might someone argue for the consistency of the following two positions: (a) killing a fetus is never justified; (b) capital punishment is a justified punishment for convicted murderers?
One could say that people have a right to life, but it isn't inalienable. This means that there are circumstances in which one can relinquish one's right to life. They could then state that a person can only relinquish her right to life by willfully and intentionally harming another person (or attempts to do so). If this does happen, then it is morally permissible to kill that person. One then should say that fetuses are incapable of willfully or intentionally harming others, therefore a fetus retains its right to life, and it is never moral to kill a fetus.
Define "non-culpable ignorance"
P may be physically capable of performing A at t, but be unaware than he can A at T. If P is not to blame for being unaware that he can A at t, then even is Aing is the right thing for P to do at P, P is not to be blamed for failing to A at t.
Define 'perfect duty' and 'imperfect duty' and provide an example of each.
Perfect duty: a duty (or right) that all people have at all times. Ex: NOT to harm anyone Imperfect duty: a duty (or right) that all people have at all times, but it is a right that some people have at some times. Ex: To help someone in need.
What questions does moral psychology address? List some positions in moral psychology and describe the answers they give to these questions.
Questions that it addresses: "Why do people act morally (when they do)?" and "Why should we be moral?" Positions and answers: a.) Religious position: normative answer: we should be moral becasue God wants us to be moral, or loves what is right. psychological answer: people sometimes or always act morally (even when they know they are sufficiently clever or powerful to avoid earthly punishments) out of fear of God's wrath or a desire for God's love. b.) Teleological position: normative answer: we should be moral because the function of people is to be moral; people are "malfunctioning" when acting immorally. Psychological answer: people will act morally so long as their cognitive faculties are not impaired.
According to Kant, what is the difference between unconditioned value and intrinsic value.
Something that has intrinsic value, does not have unconditional value. • Unconditioned value - treated as an end • Intrinsic value - non-instrumental, treated as a means
Define "NSA" AND "FISA"
The National Security Agency is a government agency responsible for protecting Americans and exploiting intelligence. We gather and analyze foreign intelligence to produce vital information for U.S. policy makers and warfighters. And we protect American intelligence from the ever-listening ears of our adversaries, giving our Nation a decisive edge FISA is is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).
Define 'indirect normative utilitarianism'.
The act where you set yourself a set of secondary moral rules that you should follow in order to lead to aggregate happiness.
(4) State Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative. Does the categorical imperative on this formulation prohibit lying to escape embarrassment? What sort of inconsistency (if any) arises from adopting and acting on a policy of lying to escape embarrassment and at the same time doing what the categorical imperative tells you to do? Make sure you use examples to back up your answers.
The formula of universal law: only act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as universal. A maxim is a ground rule or subjective principle of action; in that sense, a maxim is a thought that can motivate individuals in other words, it is an underlying, general rule to which we appeal when we perform actions. Furthermore, Kant's theory requires that it be subjective; that is, "it is the principle of a particular subject or agent" This means that a maxim does not hold objectively, as a law of nature would, but is determined by reason "in accordance with the conditions of the subject" that is acting on it. The categorical imperative on this formulation cannot prohibit lying to escape embarrassment because you cannot make this a universal law. You will not be able to keep everyone in the world from lying because it cannot be regulated. This would not allow anyone including yourself and others to lie to escape embarrassment. You cannot be the exception. It commands that every maxim you act on, that you are willing to allow everyone else to act in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie everytime to escape embarrassment, I would have to be willing to make it so that everyone always lies to escape embarrassment- but if this were to happen, no one would ever believe you and you would never believe them therefore your lie would not prevent you from escaping embarrassment. So by willing that such a maxim (of lying to prevent embarrassment) to become a universal law, it 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.
(3) Apply the formulation of humanity version of the categorical imperative to laziness or sloth. Why, according to Kant, is laziness immoral? Are Kant's reasons compelling? Defend your answer with an argument.
The formulation of humanity is to "only act so that you use humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means. (treating people as ones with feelings, not as a means where you use them) While Kant agrees that a society could subsist if everyone did nothing, he notes that the man would have no pleasures to enjoy, for if everyone let their talents go to waste, there would be no one to create luxuries that created this theoretical situation in the first place. Not only that, but cultivating one's talents is a duty to oneself. Thus, it is not willed to make laziness universal, and as a part of humanity we have a duty to cultivate our talents, which cannot be, achieved through laziness/slothness. Therefore, laziness is immoral because of the society it would create. I think Kant's reasons are compelling because as humans we each have an underlying want to be the best we can be. Most people cannot live by being lazy/sloth as that would create an unproductive society where people cannot be happy as nothing would improve. As humans, we act in a way to improve ourselves and society, By being lazy, this cannot provide for this. sitting on the couch, treating others as a mere means so that you can live this life style using them to a means to your end of happiness you're treating yourself as a mere means because you're treating yourself over humanity for your own happiness
(1) What does Waldron mean by "the tyranny of morality"? Do we need privacy to protect us from this form of tyranny? If so, what kind of privacy must we have to be free of the form of tyranny in question? If not, how might diversity (in thought, dress, speech and opinion) and autonomy (or control over one's own thoughts and actions) be protected or advanced in the absence or privacy?
The tyranny of morality is the obligation to justify oneself and one's actions to others in one's community. google glasses. People would be informed when you've done the wrong thing. We think that we should be motivated by the right things to be honest and moral We want to do it by our own morality Morality is being imposed on you by society Forced into morality, fear of being caught Correlet article: without privacy, we are not able to reach our full potential Everyone is able to see everything about everyone, but we wouldn't have as much innovation Would feel pressure to answer why we are doing what we are doing Experimentation would reduce from the pressure of people watching you Do we need privacy to protect us. And then your opinion and arguments. Somethings are bad to let other know. But there are something that are better to keep private. Glasses, would we still have selfrespect? Eight different kinds of privacy. Autonomy, what you wear and where you go.
Explain how Williams argues against the seemingly obvious claim that it is not immoral to do what you know will make the world better than it would have otherwise been.
Williams would say that in cases where your integrity would be compromised, you don't have an obligation to do what you know will make the world a better place because integrity is a fundamental part of morality.
Seeking to revise the law through political means (by proposing legislation and lobbying the legislature to enact it) is legal and (all else equal) moral. Is breaking an unjust law morally permissible? If so, under what conditions is it permissible? If not, why is it never permissible?
Yes. US constitution guaranteed equality for all, but individual states segregated black and white children within the schooling system, and introduced criteria for voting which made it all but impossible for black people to register. In such circumstances, it is argued that we have an obligation to obey the state, but it is morally permissible to break the law in order to right specific injustices. It is never permissible to violate a just law to protest an unjust law because of the legal but moral responsibility we as people have to obey just laws.
Describe three of the six arenas in which Mill says we use the terms "just" and "unjust."
a) it is just to respect, unjust to violate, the legal rights of anyone b) it is just that each person should obtain (good or evil) that which he deserves, and unjust that he should obtain a good, or be made to undergo evil, which he does not deserve. c) it is unjust to break faith with any one d) unjust to deprive someone of their personal liberty, property, or anything else of theirs
State all three formulations of Kant's categorical imperative.
a. The formula of universal law: only act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as universal. b. The Formula of Humanity: Only act so that you use humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means. c. The Formula of Autonomy: only act in accordance with maxims that would be enacted into law by a legislator and member (citizen) of a realm of ends.
Define 'pro tanto obligation'
an obligation that may be later overruled by another more pressing one
Explain Mill's distinction between internal and external sanctions.
external: the hope of favor and the fear of displeasure of others (including, possibly, some God) Internal: a feeling of conscience "which in properly cultivated moral natures" arises and is strong enough to make immoral action too "painful" to perform.
(8) Does our intuitive response to Nozick's experience machine present a problem for utilitarianism? Does it present a problem for all forms of consequentialism? Explain your answers.
intuitive response, no we don't want to go in. why will it present a problem? Yes it does by plugging in we get the best experience and more pleasure don't want to, pleasure is not the only intrinstically valuable thing connection to reality, want to actually cure cancer in the real world max happiness, pleasure is only intrinsically valueable thought example is a counterexample explain what the experience machine is by plugging in you get more pleasure than not plugging in other things are intrinsically valuable no, utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism. Max good, but there are other things to maximize I'm not going to plug in because I have autonomy and you should try to promote Consequentialism at large Utilitarianism = act consequentialism (maximize good) + hedowism (only thing int. good is pleasure) Doesn't relate, because it wants to figure out what you individually would do
Define supererogatory
is the technical term for the class of actions that go "beyond the call of duty. Supererogatory acts are morally good although not (strictly) required.
(2) Suppose there is a gene that codes for a propensity to experience benevolent feelings when seeing others in need. Suppose further that John has this gene, and as a result, he has the relevant benevolent feelings when he sees that others are need. John wants to help people in need, and because of this desire he decides to become a fireman. Now suppose John is led by his sympathy for the people trapped in the crumbling world trade center to run in and try to rescue them. Does his act have moral value? Does he deserve credit or praise for what he has done? What would Kant say?
john the fireman: what would Kant say, and what would you say. Kant: if john is doing it out of benevolent inclination, it does not have moral worth. Act only has moral worth if you do it for respect of the moral law. His act doesn't have moral worth, doing things out of duty has more worth than benevolent inclination. We are our rational selves. It wasn't up to him, he just got lucky for being happy. Praise the guy with duty because he is doing it for good will. And does have moral worth and praise. You: miserable wretch. Kant needs to allow for someone moral worth, even if they do it by benevolent inclination as long as they have respect for the moral law. It would be crazy to A lot of people know what to do the right thing. Some people do the right thing, others still don't do the right thing. Kant: formula of humanity, treat your humanity higher than others. Treating others humanity as a mere means, to increase your happiness. Treat them as a mere means to your own happiness. Who should we praise more? If john number 2 more, then agree with kant. But why? Kant says, because he is struggling with this, but it's also because he's using his humanity (that has unconditional intrinsic value); only blame people for what they have control over (it wasn't up to john 1 that he woke up happy), only get praised for things that are under your control. Epistemological: it is possible, but we can't know it. You seem to be doing it for the right reasons, but you actually get pleasure from it.
(7) Explain Thomson's reasons for thinking that the right to privacy consists in certain rights of ownership. Is Thomson right about this? Defend you answer with an argument.
right of privacy is derivative of right of property of your things and your body anything as a violation to your privacy can be explained as a violation to your right of ownership anything that you think is violation of right to privacy is a violation of right of ownership (that's why it's wrong) right to privacy to a derivative of some other underlying right that is being violated RIGHTS: OWNERSHIP NOT BE HARMED PRIVACY(apart of both) you're waving your rights everyday
(2) Apply the principle of utility (PU) to the issue of suicide. Does the PU permit or prohibit suicide? Make sure to consider the various circumstances in which a person might commit suicide and defend your answer with argumentation.
suicide: depends on things, it is permissible depending on the situation impermissible: have a good life with friends and family and only person with the cure to cancel permissible: really old and going through a lot of pain and no one is depending on you, no friends, no pets The Principle of Utility is the belief that when a person has a number of options in a moral situation he should chose the one that results in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The principle of utility prohibits the issue of suicide. There are many circumstances in which a person might commit suicide like if they are really sad because of the amount of bullying they are receiving at school. Although during that minute you may feel that suicide is your only way out and you wouldn't have to deal with this anymore. But by doing so, it would result in the happiness of your friends and family which goes against the principle of utility. Another situation is an old grandpa than is in pain and want to use euthanasia which is physician assisted suicide. Using the principle of utility, " If performing a physician-assisted suicide would benefit more people than just the person who is suffering, then a Utilitarian would consider it. Perhaps if the victim's family would be comforted knowing that they won't suffer anymore because of the pain from the illness they have which is incurable, then a utilitarian would be in favor of physician-assisted suicide.
Describe Kant's conception of the will
the manifestation of reason in its practical form
(6) Does anyone have a right to privacy? If not, why not? If so, is the right to privacy universal or do the members of some countries have this right whereas the members of other countries do not have this right? Defend your answers with arguments.
what is privacy contingent on? Explain why someone wouldn't have the right to privacy from a community or circumstance. Or yes, everyone should have the right to privacy. Shame, not guilt, we are embarrassed. But for some, that's not reason enough. YES universal? Or depends on where you are born? Example: people living in the same room (has sex and poops in front of each other) Violates? Don't name countries
(5) Is it a mistake to value money for its own sake? Is happiness the only thing that really has intrinsic value? How would Mill answer these questions? How would Williams? Are their answers compelling? Defend your response with arguments.
yes, happiness only has intrsinc value: the guy that only values money, he is not mistaken and sees that money has instrumental value; the guy that only wants to keep making money, mill says that money doesn't have intrinsic value, but when treating it like intrinsic value he is one step away from happiness; mill: money isn't a basic thing you need for happiness; money doesn't have intrinsic value, but mill says given his value by valuing money for it's own sake, he's doing this for his happiness. He gets happiness by the mere possess of money it's part of happiness, it is included in happiness. Williams: he is opposed. Consequentialism is weird. Actions should also have intrinsic value. Happiness is not mere. We take pleasure in actually doing. Not valuable for the affects, but the process and happiness you get from doing the projects Art, friendship, scientific discovery Guy counting the blades of grass. No obvious, Need to defend your response with arguments
(4) Did Edward Snowden expose unjust or immoral violations of our right to privacy on the part of the NSA? Was Snowden's act of releasing classified documents detailing the NSA's activities an act of civil disobedience or justified "whistleblowing"? Should Snowden be offered some form of clemency for his crime by the Obama administration? In defending your answers to these questions, make sure to draw upon the readings and materials on privacy and the nature of civil disobedience that we discussed in class
your own answer. And argue for it. Step 1: the ultimate question. Yes, he exposed. Was it a violation of our right to privacy? The case of us using google, are we waiving our right to privacy? Listening to phone calls is violation. Make distinguishings. Yes, unjust and immoral. And look up an example. Do arguments by analogy: shouting coupling waves right to privacy to person outside. But if they record it, is that a violation? Yes, violated. But it's justified for competing right to security. Violated right to privacry but outweight by the right of security. OpLOVEINT Step 2: does it fit criteria for civil disobedience? Is it justified? Civil Disobidience (acc to brownlee): Moral motive, intention to communication, publicity, non-violence, accepting consequence/punishment, illegality Justifying it: - proportionality - necessity - prospect of success - motive step 3: SEP on Civil Disobdience in reader NOT CIVIL disobedience becuse if they break a law must accept that they may be arrested and have a duty to submit to punishment. NOT A whistle-blower is one who reveals to the public wrongdoing, corruption or illegal behavior committed by those in authority, but who also cooperates with investigators as they work to ascertain the veracity of those allegations. Snowden had a chance to properly blow the whistle. He could have reported serious problems associated with the National Security Agency program to Congress under a process established by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law would have provided Snowden legal protections and given Congress an opportunity to properly investigate the matter without jeopardizing national security.
