PHILOSOPHY Ethics- Midterm Study Guide
What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reforms?
Cultural relativism also has the peculiar consequence that social reforms of every sort would always be wrong. In this theory, culture would be the ultimate authority on moral matters and any reform would possibly be wrong. In the matter of abortion, if the culture is anti-abortion and the social reformer is pro-abortion then the culture would be right and the social reformer would be wrong. Social reformers such as Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Mary Wollstonecraft have often been right when they have argued that cultures were wrong about certain moral issues, this fact suggests that cultural relativism is wrong about morality. This odd rule raises an important question: what about a disagreement among members of the same society? When two people in the same culture disagree on moral issue, what they are really disagreeing about is whether their society endorses a particular view. If Sammy and Barbara are disagreeing about capital punishment within their society, what they are really disagreeing about is whether society X approves of capital punishments. Determining whether an action is right is a very different thing than determining what most people think.
How does Kant distinguish between treating someone as a means and treating someone merely as a means?
Kant believes in the means-end principle. It says that we must always treat people as ends in themselves, as creatures of great intrinsic worth, never merely as things of instrumental value, never merely as tools to be used for someone else's purpose. To treat people merely as a means rather as an end is to fail to recognize the true nature and status of persons. Since people are by nature free, rational, autonomous, and equal, we treat them merely as a means if we do not respect these attributes—if we, for example, interfere with people's right to make informed choices by ling to enslaving or coercing them. For example, lying or breaking a promise is wrong because to do so is to use people merely as a means to end.
How might the subjectivity of Kant's theory lead to the sanctioning of heinous acts?
Kant does not provide any guidance for how we should state a rule describing an action, an oversight that allows us to word a rule in many different ways. Consider, for example our duty not to lie. We might state the relevant rule like this: "Lie only to avoid injury or death to others." Neither rule would lead to an inconsistency if everyone acted on it so they both describe permissible actions. The second rule, though, is obviously not morally acceptable. More to the point, it shows that we could use the first version of the categorical imperative to sanctions all sort of immoral acts if we state the rule in enough detail.
Mill/Kant vs Aristotle
Mill/Kant: actor or rules individual orientated "what should I do?" Aristotle: agents of character community oriented "Who should I be?"
If you were on trial for your life (because of an alleged murder), would you want the judge to be an act-utilitarian, a rule utilitarian, or neither why?
Neither. I would want to be judged based on my psychotic state. I believe that people are literally in a different state of mind if they commit a crime. They may not be in the right state of mind therefore, making it complex as to why they commit the murder. In my background, I could have had a history of psychotic abuse, which is why I am the way that I am. This is why there should be reason for psychotic diagnoses in some severe cases where people commit murders or do something that seems a bit severe.
Does objectivism entail intolerance? Why or why not.
Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. This entails tolerance because it implies universal morals for everyone. However, absolutism, which implies rigid rules that have no exceptions, must be implied exactly the same way in every situation. For instance, if you take a picture you must load it to social media. This implies a command that must be followed each time the action is done. Morals that can be applied to everyone regardless of how cultures may differ usually have applications that better the individual. For example, treat your neighbor as yourself can be applied whether you are religiously tolerant or religiously non-tolerant. Most people who believe in universal morals tend to be more tolerant of other religions even if they do not believe in them. Absolutists are usually intolerant of everything they do not believe to be true.
Does objectivism requires absolutism? Why or why not?
Yes. There are morals that are applied whether you are tolerant or intolerant. Such as, people should have a good sense of right and wrong. This can be applied to all cultures and religions. Another example is people should respect the communities in which they reside. This rule of thumb can be applied to all cultures and religions. Therefore, absolutism is required because there are some morals that are not related to religion or culture and are simply a means to survive like respecting one another. In this society where people do not necessarily want to be affiliated with a religion or culture it is important to know the basis of respecting human beings. Basic respect is a fundamental of co-existing with other human beings. Even if you do not believe in good or evil, you would have to believe in having living conditions with other human beings. This is why we need absolute rules that tell us how to behave around other cultures and religions.
what are the three moral criteria of adequacy
1) Consistency with considered judgments. 2) Consistency with our moral experiences. 3) Usefulness in moral problem solving. A moral theory that is inconsistent with trustworthy judgments is at least dubious and likely to be false, in need of drastic overhaul or rejection. In this theory a moral theory must also be consistent with the data it was introduced to explain. A moral theory is supposed to explain what makes an action right, and the data relevant to the issue are our considered moral judgments. Therefore we consider and evaluate whether a moral theory is consistent with our believes.
What is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative?
A hypothetical imperative tells us what we should do if we have certain desires: for example, "if you need money, work for it" or "if you want orange juice, ask for it" We should obey such imperatives only if we desire the outcomes specified. A Categorical imperative tells us that we should do something in all situations regardless of our wants and needs. Kant says that the moral law consists entirely of categorical imperatives. They are the authoritative expression of our moral duties. They are rational, straightforward understanding of the law. A hypothetical tells us what we should do about certain desires. This theory believes that we should obey certain laws if the outcome is specified.
According to Kant, why is breaking a promise or lying immoral? Do you agree with Kant's reasoning? Why or why not?
According to Aquinas, at the heart of the traditional theory is the notion that right actions are those that accord with the natural law—the moral principles that we can "read" clearly in the very structure of nature itself, including human nature. A categorical imperative that we should follow regardless of our particular wants and needs; also, the principle that defines Kant's ethical system. Kant says we should. I agree that we should have the power to choose that lying immoral. However, it is not to us to condone a lie because lying is wrong.
According to natural law theorists, how can nature reveal anything about morality?
According to Aquinas, at the heart of the traditional theory is the notion that right actions are those that accord with the natural law—the moral principles that we can "read" clearly in the very structure of nature itself, including human nature. We can look into nature and somehow uncover moral standards because nature is a certain way: it is rationally ordered and teleological with every part of having its own purpose or end at which it naturally aims. How nature reveals it should be. The goals to which nature inclines reveal the values that we should embrace and the moral purposes to which we should aspire. For example, our natural inclination to smile after shaking hands suggests that there is a universal law of cordiality implemented when meeting new people.
Suppose you try to use the Ten Commandments as a moral code to help you make moral decisions. How would you resolve conflicts between commandments? Does your approach to resolving the conflicts imply a moral theory? If so, can you explain the main idea behind the theory?
I would resolve conflicts between commandments by going back to the Holy Bible and finding scriptures throughout the text that support that commandment. For example, one of the commandments is thou shall not kill. Throughout the bible there are examples of God punishing those who kill without military purposes or kill for vengeance. For example, the Lord says that vengeance is mine says the Lord. Therefore killing in the name of vengeance is against what the Lord authorizes his followers to do. My solution to solving problems between commandments falls under the divine commandment theory. The divine commandment theory is a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands. This theory is logical because the Bible says that the Lord is the ultimate voice is reason and is also a dependable force in time of worry. If I obey the Ten Commandments I am aligning with God's will for my life therefore; I am depending on him to act upon my behalf as my father in heaven.
what is the difference between act- and rule utilitarianism?
In rule-utilitarianism, the morally right action is not the one that directly brings about the greatest good but the one covered by a rule that, if followed consistently, produces the greatest good for all. In act utilitarianism, we must examine each action to see how much good or evil it generates. Rule utilitarianism would have us first determine what rule an action falls under then see if that rule would likely maximize utility if everyone followed it. Act utilitarian tries to judge the rightness of actions by the consequence they produce which is inconsistent with how societies are built and run. Societies have rules and consequences for breaking those rules according to the countries law or universal law that can be applied everywhere.
if you were the surgeon in the example about the five transplants, what would you do? Why?
In the example about the five transplants it would make sense for the person to perform the surgery based on the rule utilitarian because all human lives are important and should be preserved at the will of an animal. I would make this decision because I believe that human lives are precious and deserve the best chance at life. In the Christian faith, we believe that this is the only life that you have therefore; it is worth preserving at the cost of sacrificing an animal because God gave us dominion over the animals. Some people would disagree and say that it depends on how good the person has been throughout there life. However, everyone is capable of changing the course of their life and becoming a better person even if it were a murderer. This seems like it would not be a good decision, but what if that x-con was responsibility for saving your daughter in a car crash or coaching her through therapy. You never know how someone will fulfill his or her purpose or when there purpose will be fulfilled. This is why Christianity is so amazing because it gives all people the chance to become a better person through excepting Jesus Christ.
Is act-utilitarianism consistent with our considered moral judgments regarding justice? Why or why not?
Inconsistent. Act utilitarianism suggest that someone can measure an act solely on the consequences the will receive for following through with the action. This is extremely inconsistent with why the law is the law in the first place because it reflects what is just for the majority. However, in some courts of law juries measure acts by the graveness of the act, but according to the parameters for a jury, they should be judging the act according to the severity of the law. If juries measured the law solely on act utilitarianism then there would be better and worse ways to break the law, which is extremely subjective and in some instances can be races.
to what was Mill referring when he said; " It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"? Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
It is better to be dissatisfied with things you disagree with then to be satisfied with everything and not contemplate anything. Yes, I agree with this statement. This statement makes sense to me because to many people agree with everything that media and other mass forms of communication say instead of supporting the morals that they believe are true. According to this fact alone, some people are dissatisfied with the presidential candidates, which is a good thing. People should not be satisfied with every option that is placed in front of them.
How does subjectivism relativism imply moral infallibility?
Subjectivism relativism says that morality is right for the person who approves the moral. So what is right for me is might be wrong for you, and what is right for you might be wrong for me. In other words, what is right for me is decided based on my culture and religion does not have to be right for you because it does not apply to you. For the reason, I would say that moral subjective relativism does imply moral infallibility just because a person could reason why what's right for me is wrong for you. This theory suggests that everyone is capable of making decisions on what is right for them based on their cultural and religious background.
Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture?
The answer is no. The principle behind this is that people's judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, and right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. The problem with this argument is that it infers that right and wrong are determined by cultures and there are not universal moral truths. Even if cultures differ in religion or ethics, those differences do not show that morality is relative to culture. Suppose Culture A believes in infanticide, but Culture B does not. This disagreement does not show that both cultures are equally correct and that there is no universal truth. Without universal truths, cultures would not be able to peacefully discuss matters that result in opposition. However, just because they disagree does not mean that they are equally right. In this theory there is a right or wrong and one of the cultures is either right or wrong about the issue. Some philosophers argued that a core set of moral values—including, for example, truth telling and prohibitions against murder—must be universal, otherwise cultures would not survive.
What is the doctrine of double effect?
The principle that performing a good action may be permissible even if it has been effects, but performing a bad action for the purpose of achieving good effects is never permissible; any bad effects must be unintended.
Suppose a serial killer approves of his murderous actions. According to subjective relativism, are the killer's actions therefore justified? Do you believe a serial killer's murders are justified? If not, is your judgment based on a subjective relativist's perspective or an objectivist perspective?
The serial killer's actions are absolutely wrong. I believe it is morally wrong to kill just for the sake of fulfilling some sick purpose. Objective relativism says that some moral principles are valid for everyone while subjective relativism says that morals are right according to individual moral infallibility. In a world where objective relativism is the law, a killer's action would be viewed as a crime that is punishable by law. This theory suggests that there is a universal law that states that killing is wrong and can be punishable by law. According to a subject relativism law killing is right or wrong according to what the person says. This law can be confusing because there is not a general understanding of what is right or wrong. This law suggests that some laws are right or wrong according to popular opinion. This law also suggests that there is not really a right or wrong but is left up to the individual to decide which can be dangerous for any society because everyone would be right and no one would be wrong, which is impossible. My belief that killing is wrong probably stems from a objectivist stand point because I believe that no matter what the religion or culture killing should be viewed as wrong; therefore, there is a universal understanding that killing is wrong that everyone would have to follow. In the United States and across the world, there is an understanding that killing for the sake of killing is wrong therefore killing would be punished by the law in any country no matter what the religious or cultural affiliation may be.
According to the textbook, natural law theory generates judgments that conflict with commonsense morality. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not.
There is a good example that demonstrates why natural law theory contradicts common sense morality. Natural law theorists would condemn the killing of the one innocent person even if it would save the lives of hundreds. This statement alone contradicts what it would mean to be a natural law theorist. A natural law theorist says that nature is authoritative doctrine even though there is a more logical decision that might make sense. I would say that that a natural law theorist is impractical because things do not always happen the way they are naturally meant to happen. This is evident with natural law.
What is the main difference between the ways that Mill and Bentham conceive of happiness? Which views seem more plausible?
They differ on the nature of happiness and how it should be measured. Bentham thinks that happiness varies only in quantity—different actions produce different amount of happiness. To judge the intensity, duration or fecundity of happiness is to calculate its quantity. Mill contends that happiness can vary in quantity and quality. There are lower pleasures, such as eating, drinking, and having sex, and there are higher pleasures, such as pursuing knowledge, appreciating beauty and creating art. The higher pleasures are superior to the lower ones. I think that Mills theory is more plausible according to divine theory, which supports that the will of God is perfect. God says that some of the higher pleasures are closer to Godliness and some of the lower pleasures should be done in moderation or within marriage. In Bentham's theory, he over speculates how pleasure should be measured. His theory tries to measure pleasure in the duration and quantity in which it is done. However, if you believe in Christianity you believe that these things are done according to the law and will of God, which never fails and is just.
