Ethics Midterm

What are some of the reasons that we cannot consider science to be value neutral? Apply this to the issue of cloning and/or genetic engineering.

Scientific research is supposed to be objective, and scientists are not supposed to be swayed by personal ambitions and preferences. Cloning brings in the question of whether or not they are human, many religious groups say that only God can create life.

Tu Quoque

Distracts from the argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of the opponent.

How might ethical relativism reduce to subjectivism?

It reduces from society as a whole to the people in the society.

What does Mill mean when he says, "It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."?

"Humans prefer to hold on to their dignity and strive for truly fulfilling experiences rather than settle for easy contentment."

What is the problem of induction as it relates to the debate about moral norms?

"The problem of induction is that we never can be sure that we have looked hard enough to gather all possible evidence." It can't be absolutely proven valid. Nothing is 100% certain.

How does ethical relativism make it impossible to criticize or praise other cultures?

"There is no way to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves." We also can't learn from other cultures. "We have no right to criticize other cultures, period."

What are the universal cultural values suggested by James Rachels?

1) A policy for caring for enough infants to ensure the continuation of the group. 2) A rule against lying. 3) A rule against murder.

Explain the five criticisms of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

1) Consequences count [by asking "what if everybody does what you want to do?" wasn't Kant worrying about consequences?] 2) Conflict between duties [can we be so sure that the categorical imperative is always going to tell us what to do?] 3) The loophole [the categorical imperative tells us that it would be irrational {and this morally impermissible} for anyone to even think about robbing a bank if he needs money because we wouldn't want everyone in the same situation to take that course of action.] 4) What is rationality? [who is to say when something is irrational?] 5) No exceptions? [does it really seem right that we can never be morally correct in breaking a universal rule?]

What are the four arguments against ethical egoism?

1) Ethical egoism is self-contradictory (we should stay out of other people's affairs because it is best for everybody). 2) It carries no weight as a solver of moral conflicts. 3) Ethical egoism doesn't work in practice. 4) Apparent callousness of an ethical egoist.

According to Kant, what are the requirements for the moral law and why does a hypothetical imperative fall short of meeting those requirements?

1) Imagine that as a general for action you'll follow every time the situation comes up, maxim 2) then imagine everybody else doing it too; by doing this you universalize your maxim 3) then ask yourself would this be rational and could I still get away with it if everyone did it? A hypothetical imperative is not binding, if you don't want the outcome, the outcome is not binding.

Irrelevant conclusion

A fallacy committed when the premises of an argument purporting to establish one conclusion are actually directed toward some other conclusion.

Argument from ignorance

A fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an illegitimate appeal to ignorance, as when it is supposed that something is likely to be true because we cannot prove that it is false.

Accident

A fallacy in which a generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not govern.

Complex question

A fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in the question.

Ad Hominem abusive—Attach against the person

A fallacy in which an attack is made on the character of an opponent rather than on the merits of the opponent's position ("mudslinging" in politics).

Ad Hominem circumstantial

A fallacy in which an attack is made on the special circumstances of an opponent rather than on the merits of the opponent's position.

The appeal to inappropriate authority

A fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate because the authority appealed to has no special claim to expertise on the matter in question.

False cause

A fallacy in which the mistake arises from accepting as the cause of something that is not really its cause ("Of course you're a perfectionist, you're a Pisces).

Equivocation

A fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same word or phrase have been confused.

What is a hypothetical imperative? Explain in detail and give an example.

A hypothetical imperative is an "if/then" statement. If you want to be good at baking biscuits, then you ought to bake them from scratch and not use a prepared mix.

How does the prisoner's dilemma illustrate the notion that it might not be rational to be selfish?

A prisoner's dilemma is a situation where individual decision-makers always have an incentive to choose in a way that creates a less-than-optimal outcome for the individuals as a group.

Clearly explain, with examples, the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism: Morally correct thing to do is to perform the act that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (i.e. donating to a hospital). Rule Utilitarianism: Morally correct thing to do is to perform the type of act that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (i.e. promising to donate but you don't donate and a promise loses its meaning).

What are Rand's critiques of altruism and how might her arguments commit the Straw Man Fallacy?

Altruism indicates a lack of self-esteem, implies a lack of self-respect for others, maintains a nightmare view of existence, and is indifferent to ethics and hopelessly cynical mortality. Her arguments commit to the Straw Man Fallacy because Rand simplifies altruism's argument in order to make her own argument look better.

What is subjectivism?

An ethical theory that claims that your moral belief is right simply because you believe it.

What is the difference between cultural and ethical relativism?

Cultural Relativism: the theory that different societies or cultures have different moral codes (a descriptive theory). Ethical relativism: the theory that there is no universal moral code and that whatever the majority of any given society or culture considers morally right is morally right for that culture (a normative theory).

What are the difficulties in defining "personhood"? How might it be conceivable that a person might not be human?

Defining "personhood" or "human" depends on how the culture defines it. Humans have rights, and some animals have rights as well but they are not necessarily humans.

Why shouldn't we be cruel to animals, according to Kant?

Desensitizing ourselves to causing them pain could make us more insensitive and more likely to inflict pain on other people.

How does the Abraham Lincoln example present a problem for psychological egoism?

Doing what we want isn't always selfish.

Why was Bentham's theory so significant given the time period in which it was presented?

England was just out of the feudal era and the Industrial Revolution was just beginning, it resembled the novels of Charles Dickens, and there were no child labor laws. He came up with hedonistic utilitarianism what is good is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful, and this resulted in the hedonistic calculus.

What are some positive aspects of ethical relativism?

Ethical relativists think of themselves as open-minded and very tolerant. There's no praise or blame for other cultures. Being an ethical relativist exposes certain perspectives that have been thought to be correct or dominant.

What is the difference between ethics and morals?

Ethics: the study, questioning, and justification of moral rules. Morals: the moral rules and attitudes that we live by, or are expected to live by.

How is Bentham's version of utilitarianism more egalitarian than Mill's?

For Bentham, what is good and bad for each person is a matter for each person to decide.

How does Ayn Rand argue that we have been indoctrinated by altruism and why does she view this as problematic?

For Rand, she sees that altruism indicates a lack of self-esteem (since the first concern is not how to live life but how to sacrifice it), a lack of self-respect for others (altruists view humans as a heard of "doomed beggars crying for someone's help"), it maintains a nightmare view of existence (believes humans are trapped in a malevolent universe where disasters are the constant concern of their lives), is indifferent to ethics, and is hopelessly cynical morality (the questions involve situations that no one is likely to encounter, therefore it leaves humans with no moral principles whatsoever).

How does Rosenstand defend Kant, despite the fact that he might today be considered to be a racist and a sexist?

His ideas of a kingdom of ends in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity have today survived to become a Western philosophical idea.

What does Hobbes mean by saying that justice is an invention based upon self-preservation?

Hobbes most likely means we created justice for our own safety and the preservation of our species.

Why does Bentham say that rights are "nonsense upon stilts."? How might Mill and Kant respond to this?

However rights are defined, we need a government to enforce them. Kant says "means" in place of "rights" and responds to this by bringing up the categorical imperatives formulation 1 (The Universalizability Principle) and formulation 2 (The Formula of Humanity). Mill responds with the Harm Principle which states that "one should not interfere with other people's lives unless those people are doing harm to others."

How does Wolgast criticize Rawls's theory? How does Friedman point out that we also need to be careful about Wolgast's communitarian approach?

Humans are not just social atoms, separate individuals who might imagine themselves to be someone else entirely, but persons already existing in a web of interrelationships. Communitarianism is tempting and reasonable but we should be careful because it may take us places we don't want to go.

What is Kant's criterion of rationality for the recognition of personhood? What (or who) does it leave out?

If a being is rational they qualify as full members of our moral universe, and humans have no right to treat them as tools to achieve knowledge or power One must be able to show that one has autonomy and can set up universal moral rules for oneself and others. What it leaves out are animals.

What does it mean to treat someone as "an end in herself or himself," rather than a means (only)?

If someone is used as a means to an end, she or he is treated as a tool for someone else's purpose.

How does psychological egoism fall prey to the fallacy of the suppressed correlative?

If terms are correlative, like hot/cold, and tall/short, they help define each other. In the case of psychological egoism, if you can be selfish then you can also be unselfish.

Using an example (i.e., cheating on an exam, borrowing money you can't pay back, etc.), clearly develop and illustrate the proposed test for right or wrong conduct from the standpoint of the Categorical Imperative. How does this differ from rule utilitarianism?

If you cheat on your exam to get a good grade, then everyone should cheat on their tests to get a good grade. But then going to school would be pointless and teachers teaching would be pointless. It differs from Rule Utilitarianism because the categorical imperative doesn't look to ensure the greatest happiness for most people.

What are some problems associated with determining what is morally "right" on the basis of majority rule?

If you disagree with society's rules then you must be wrong and there for immoral or not morally right. There is no room for reformers. "The isolation of moral values to the conventions of specific cultural groups forces us to bow to a moral majority rule, but ethical relativism says that only the rules of each society are proper and valid for that society.

Regarding the issue of affirmative action, explain the difference between forward-looking and backward-looking views of distributive justice.

In terms of punishment, retribution and vengeance are backward-looking views of distributive justice as it requires us to look to the past. Deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation are all forward-looking views of distributive justice because it sees the purpose of justice as creating a fair system of distribution of social goods in the future.

What is the difference between inclusive and exclusive multiculturalism?

Inclusive Multiculturalism/Pluralism: the branch of multiculturalism that believes racial and ethnic discrimination in a population of cultural diversity can be abolished by a shared orientation in one another's traditions and history. Exclusive Multiculturalism/Particularism: the branch of multiculturalism that believes people not belonging to the dominant culture should retrieve their self-esteem by learning about the traditions and accomplishments of their own cultural group rather than those of the dominant group or any other group.

What is the difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value?

Intrinsic Value: to have value in itself without regard to what it might bring of further value. Instrumental Value: to have value for the sake of what further value it might bring.

What are the problems with subjectivism?

It has no conflict-solving capacity. It is difficult to adhere to in the long run because at crucial times we all act as if there are valid moral truths that we share with others. We still expect to share some values with others of our own culture.

How might Kant and Mill address the issue of torturing potential terrorists?

Kant would never allow for the torture of potential terrorists, Mill asks what are the costs compared to the benefits.

What is a logical fallacy?

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of a person's argument (make it illegitimate, irrelevant, and such).

Describe the key aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivism regarding metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics.

Metaphysics is the area of philosophy that pertains to the nature of reality and the key aspect is naive realism or the view that reality is simply as human knowers perceive it. Epistemology is the area of philosophy that pertains to knowledge and the key aspect is an objectivist view of reason which is the notion that our reason and rationality is the only true way to "know." Ethics is the area of philosophy that deals with moral issues where the key aspect is Rand's egoism, she is against altruism. Politics is the area of philosophy that studied the government and how we should be governed, Rand's issue is with pure capitalism.

Using examples, explain the difference between negative rights and positive rights.

Negative rights specify what ought not to be done to you, they are rights of noninterference like freedom of speech. Positive rights are rights to receive something from somebody, usually the government like when you are over the age of 65 you collect social security.

How is ethical relativism inconsistent with regard to the principle of tolerance?

Not only does ethical relativism not have a right to claim that tolerance is universally good, since it also claims that there are no universal values, but it also can't even give a practical answer as to how to deal with moral, religious, and political expansion.

Appeal to pity

Occurs when the arguer attempts to get the conclusion accepted by evoking pity from the listener or reader.

Appeal to force

Occurs when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a conclusion, provides some sort of threat or harm to the listener or reader if the conclusion is not accepted.

Slippery slope

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the claim that a certain event or situation will initiate a chain of events leading to some undesirable consequence, and when there is not a sufficient reason to think that the chain of events will actually take place.

Explain Kant's formulation of the kingdom of ends.

People are not mere means to an end. It indicates that people treat one another as ends only—as beings who have their own goals in life—never merely as means to other people's ends.

What is the theory of falsification and how does it present a problem for psychological egoism?

Principle of Falsification: the concept that a valid theory must test itself and allow for the possibility of situations in which the theory doesn't apply. In a sense, a part of the verification process of a theory is being able to hypothetically falsify it.

What is the difference between psychological and ethical egoism?

Psychological Egoism: the theory that everyone is selfish and self-interested (descriptive). Ethical Egoism: the theory that everybody ought to be egoistic/selfish/self-interested (normative).

What is the difference between retributive and restorative justice?

Restorative Justice focuses on the rehabilitation of the offender, victim healing, and reparation of the harm caused. Retributive Justice, on the other hand, focuses on punishment, one that is suitable and proportionate to the crime committed.

Using the example of the store owner, explain why Kant thinks that the only morally praiseworthy reason for not cheating her customers is because "it wouldn't be right."

She wouldn't want everybody else to cheat their customers (universal law).

What's the difference between soft-universalism and hard-universalism?

Soft Universalism: the ethical theory that although humans may not agree on all moral rules or all customs, there are a few bottom-line rules we can agree on, despite our different ways of expressing them. Hard Universalism/Absolutism: the ethical theory that there is a universal set of moral rules that can and should be followed by everybody. There is one universal moral code.

What is moral nihilism?

The conviction that there are no moral truths.

Explain the two backward-looking arguments for punishment.

The first backward-looking argument for punishment is retribution, where a person should be punished because he or she has committed a crime, and the punishment should be in proportion to that crime. The second backward-looking argument is vengeance, where the approach based on vengeance looks to the past in order to punish the guilty.

Explain the three forward-looking arguments for punishment.

The first forward-looking argument for punishment is deterrence, specific deterrence may make the criminal change their mind about breaking the law again, and general deterrence punishment may make others think twice before turning to crime. The second argument is rehabilitation in hopes that having undergone some form of punishment (generally incarceration), the criminal will have learned not to turn to crime again. The third and final forward-looking argument for punishment is incapacitation which says that if punishment keeps the criminal off the streets, the public is safe and a social good has been achieved.

What are Dworkin's two models for our political thinking about rights? Why does he prefer one over the other?

The first model says we have to find a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society. The second model says that invading a right is far worse than inflating it. Dworkin prefers the first model because by balancing individual rights against each other when the claims collide, then each individual still retains his or her dignity.

Explain the first three principles of equality Rosenstand mentions.

The first principle of equality she mentions is Fundamental equality which is the concept we know from the American Declaration of Independence that people should be treated as equals by their government and their legal system. The second principle is Social equality which refers to the idea of people being equal within a social setting, such as politics or the economy. The third principle she mentions is equal treatment for equals in which justice means treating people of the same, usually social, group in the same way (according to Aristotle's Politics).

What is Mill's harm principle and why does only pertain to adults? How might this relate to the debate about freedom of speech?

The harm principle is the idea that one should not interfere with other people's lives unless those people are doing harm to themselves. It only pertains to adults because they were able to exercise their freedom responsibly. The harm principle allows the government to limit liberties as necessary to prevent harm.

Explain the Hedonistic calculus, and using an example, show how it is supposed to work.

The hedonistic calculus is calculating the probable consequences of our actions before we choose that course of action, looking at its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, propinquity/remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. If we win the lottery the pleasure would be very intense and long-lasting, but if we give it to our family we would have the pleasure affect a greater number of people.

How might soft universalism provide a refutation of ethical relativism?

The main goal of soft universalism is to seek common ground beneath the variety of opinions and mores and refutes ethical relativism because soft universalism doesn't hold that moral values are only relative to their time and place. Basically different cultures can still agree on certain basic moral rights.

What is the naturalistic fallacy and how does it relate to utilitarianism?

The naturalistic fallacy is that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (people seek pleasure so we ought to seek pleasure for others).

What is the good will for Kant and why does he maintain that morality cannot be based upon our inclinations or our feelings?

The presence of good will is what makes an action morally good, regardless of its consequences. When we let our desires run rampant it is simply because we haven't come up with a way for our sense of duty to persuade us to do the right thing.

Explain five problems with utilitarianism?

The sheer numbers problem. The uncertain future. It considers everyone equally. Eliminating the minority for the happiness of the majority. It doesn't say how far we should look into the consequences, they could be long or short.

What is utilitarianism?

The theory that one ought to maximize the happiness and minimize the unhappiness of as many people (or sentient beings) as possible.

What are the two formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative that we discussed in class?

The two formulations are The Universalizability Principle (act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction) and The Formula of Humanity (act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end, and never as a mere means).

How does Peter Singer utilize the prisoner's dilemma to point out the evolutionary advantages of altruism over egoism?

There is a social advantage to having trustworthy partners. If there is an altruist and egoist partnership, the egoist will benefit, but the altruist will eventually catch on, so it is in your own self-interest not to be too self-interested.

Hasty generalization

This is basically the stereotyping fallacy, it occurs when a conclusion is drawn about all the members of a group or population from a sample of the group that is not representative of the group as a whole.

Straw man

This occurs when an arguer inappropriately simplifies an opposing argument so that it becomes a cartoon or caricature of the true argument and is easy to refute (this has the purpose of making your own argument look better).

Red herring

This occurs when an arguer introduces an irrelevant or unimportant topic in order to divert attention from the main question.

False dichotomy/false dilemma

This occurs when an arguer presents a pair of conditions as the only possibilities when they are not mutually exclusive.

Begging the question—circular reasoning

This occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised, in one of its premises.

How does Rosenstand explain the notion of treating, equals equally and unequals unequally"?

Under necessary circumstances, we are just 'equals' and deserve the usual decent treatment and respect. When someone has special needs, they become an 'unequal' who needs assistance to reach the level of those who are 'equals'

In Plato's Republic, what point about justice/morality is Glaucon making with the myth of the ring of Gyges?

We only act morally because we are afraid of the consequences if we don't. If we had a ring that would make us invisible, we won't be afraid to commit injustices.

What is the problem of sheer numbers in utilitarianism?

Whatever creates more happiness for more individuals or decreases their pain is morally right by definition (usually with regard to animal testing of medical procedures that could benefit humans).

What are some of the problems with Bentham's formulation of utilitarianism?

Where does he get his numerical values? How do you decide on the values that you assign to each consequence? It is basically a rating system that becomes a "pros and cons" list. Can it really help us make rational decisions? Consequences!

What were some of the points of Bentham's moral theory that Mill reconsidered in his formulation of utilitarianism?

While Bentham only considered the quantity of pleasure, Mill considered the quality and quantity of pleasure. We can't rely on our rationality to the extreme degree that Bentham thought we could.

Fully explain Rawls's thought experiment of the veil of ignorance and the original position. What is the purpose of this thought experiment?

You pretend you are ignorant of your position in the future and thus pull a veil of ignorance over your mind's eye. The original position is from the position that we should imagine making rules for all of society. The purpose of this experiment is to offer a new perspective to those who might not consider the other side of the coin.