PHL 101 Final

What are Kant's two formulations of the categorical imperative?

1: An action is right if it meets two conditions, universalizability and reversibility. 2: An action is right if it treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end.

What is the main objection to using a moral code to decide right from wrong?

Moral codes can offer guidance, but they can't function as full blown theories of what makes an act right or wrong, for they are often too general or specific to solve a moral problem, and they can offer conflicting advice.

What is the difference between normative ethics, and descriptive ethics?

Normative ethics: describes what should be the case; descriptive ethics: describes what is the case

What distinguishes and Ethics of Care from all the other moral theories we examined?

Not a full blown ethical theory because it doesn't offer a decision procedure for how to solve ethical problems

What is the difference between objective time and psychological time?

Unlike objective time, psychological time contracts and extends.

What is the Extended Mind Thesis?

Our minds extend through technology

What are the three main principles of a just society Rawls thinks people would agree to when constructing a social contract from behind a veil of ignorance?

(1): The principle of equal liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (2): The principle of fair equality of opportunity: Offices and positions are to be open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. (3): The difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.

What are some of the virtues of the identity theory?

1) Compared to Cartesian dualism, a simpler and more conservative theory because a) it doesn't assume the existence of a mysterious non-detectable mental "substance" (supernatural stuff), and b) it fits well with existing scientific theory and methods of studying cognition. 2)Consistent with the fact that we have no solid evidence that the mind survives the death of the brain. 3) ) It is a fruitful theory. Leads to successful research programs on how to alleviate effects of dementia, mental illness, PTSD, etc. 4) It has broad scope. That is, it accounts for a wide range of mental phenomena.

What are the two main criticisms we covered regarding considering ethical egoism as a MORAL theory?

As an "ethical" theory it would seem to condone evil acts so long as they are in the egoist's best interest. But that's not what an "ethical" theory is about. You can't preach what you practice. Ethical theories are generally regarded on principles of equality, that equals deserve equal treatment. But it is not in the egoist's interest to try to universalize her theory. The clever egoist will not openly act like one, and will encourage others to act altruistically.

What was the main difference between Mill's version of utilitarianism, and Bentham's, and what problems does it generate for Mill?

Bentham: happiness measured in quantity alone; Mill: happiness should be measured in quality and quantity like everything else

What is the objection to identity theory sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism?

Carbon chauvinism: only carbon based entities can have a mind

What is one possible way to resolve the problem presented by cultural relativism? (covered the slideshow and the readings)

Cultural practices are not the same thing as moral judgments. We need to understand the larger context within which the practice occurs. Cross-cultural moral disagreement may not lie in moral principles, but in the factual beliefs. Moral standard + Factual Beliefs = Moral Judgment. Perhaps everyone believes equals should be treated equally, but we disagree on what constitutes being an equal. What differs are our views about the nature of reality, not the nature of morality

Explain emotivism, and the theory of meaning that generated it. What are the standard criticisms of this theory?

Emotivism: the doctrine that moral utterances are simply expressions of emotions, and have no truth value, for they are not making any real claims about the world. arose from the verifiability theory of meaning: if a sentence cannot be verified (if there is no way to determine what would make it true or false), then it is cognitively meaningless—-that is, neither true nor false. criticisms: emotivism can't account for any real moral disagreements, which flies in the face of common sense;I if Emotivism is correct, then we can't condemn something like torturing innocent children as genuinely wrong. But it is, right?; common sense can be wrong (turns out the earth is NOT flat), but you need good reasons to reject it. Emotivism does not offer any.

What is functionalism, and what are some of its virtues?

Functionalism: Mental states are functional states. Minds are (like) computer programs. The mind is to the brain as software is to its hardware. Your mind is the software that is running on your brain. Does not limit minds to organisms with carbon based brains. Raises the possibility of indefinite life.

What was Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's research on the stages of moral development?

Gilligan was a developmental psychologist and colleague of Kohlberg's who claimed from her research that women tend to make ethical decisions differently (Kohlberg's system was based entirely off interviews with boys and men)

What is the problem of interaction that a Cartesian dualist faces, and how do epiphenomenalists propose to solve it?

How can an immaterial mind interact with a material brain/body? Answers that appeal to any biochemical processes, like neurotransmitters, electromagnetism, "energy", etc, just push the question back one step, for all of those things are still on the matter side of the divide. For example, how does the immaterial mind cause neurotransmitters to fluctuate? Epiphenomenalism: Yes, there are Cartesian minds, but they have no causal powers. The mind arises out of, and is caused by, the brain, but it is merely an ineffective byproduct of physical processes.

What is the difference between a categorical and hypothetical imperative?

Hypothetical imperatives demand you do certain things only if there is a certain end or goal you desire. For example, if you want to be a good student, study diligently. A categorical imperative is one that must be obeyed under any circumstances. For Kant, moral principles are categorical imperatives, hence his moral theory has come to called the "categorical imperative.

How might one respond to the claim we are all hardwired to be egoists? Use examples in your explanation. (possible essay question)

If psychological egoism is true, then we might as well all adopt ethical egoism, because a moral theory should only ask of us what's possible.

Be able to explain Descartes' inconceivability and indivisibility arguments against the mind being the body, and the objections we considered in class.

Inconceivability: 1) An attribute is essential to something if and only if it's inconceivable that the thing exists without it. 2) It is conceivable for me to exist and not have a body. 3) Therefore my body is not essential to me. 4) It is inconceivable for me to exist and not have a mind. Indivisibility: 1) If minds are identical to bodies, then whatever is true of minds is true of bodies, and vice versa. 2) Minds are indivisible and bodies are divisible. 3) Therefore, minds are not identical to bodies.

What is the basic difference between individual and cultural relativism?

Individual Relativism: nothing is absolutely right or wrong, it depends on the individual. Whenever someone says an action is right, what that means is, it is right for her. Cultural Relativism: moral rights and wrongs are relative to a culture (or even a subgroup in a society).

What were some of the metrics Bentham felt should be taken into consideration in employing his "hedonic calculus"?

Intensity, Duration, Probability, Propinquity (nearness in time), Fecundity (probability it will produce more happiness in the future), Impurity (probability that it will produce less happiness in the future)

What is the 2nd major objection to the identity theory of the mind?

Misses qualitative experience. Minds and brains don't seem to have exactly the same properties. The subjective 1st person character of conscious experience, what it is like to be you at this moment, is not capturable by describing some brain state, even if the brain state and conscious experience are strictly correlated. •What something feels like can only be known from the "inside"—from a 1st person point of view. It is NOT a physical property.

Explain sociobiology's approach to normative ethics, and be able to describe the fallacy most philosophers believe it commits.

Natural selection has determined what kind of social behavior has survival for the species - this commits the naturalistic fallacy, assuming we can derive and OUGHT from and IS.

What basic fact about how we make moral judgments in everyday life do all the theories considered so far seem to ignore?

Shouldn't we prioritize family and loved ones in our moral lives? Isn't going for totally impartiality, wrong?

What is rule-utilitarianism, and why is it generally not considered a satisfactory alternative to act utilitarianism?

Rule-utilitarianism: An act is right if it follows a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered; start making exceptions and eventually fall back on act utilitarianism

Explain Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment, and how it was supposed to cast doubt on the validity of the Turing test.

Suppose a human who knows no Chinese is locked in a room with a large set of Chinese characters and a manual that shows how to match questions in Chinese with appropriate responses from the set of Chinese characters. The room has a slot through which Chinese speakers can insert questions in Chinese and another slot through which the human can push out the appropriate responses from the manual. To the Chinese speakers outside, the room has passed the Turing test. However, since the human does not know Chinese and is just following the manual, no actual thinking is happening.

What is the doctrine of multiple realizability?

The doctrine of multiple realizability: minds can be realized in things other than brains

Give a detailed explanation of Rawl's "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and what it was designed to show. (possible essay question)

The parties to the social contract are in an original position of being behind a "veil of ignorance" with regards to their natures or position in society. This means they are bargaining on a social contract for how to set up society, while not knowing anything about who they will be in terms of their race, age, sex, religion, social position, income, sexual orientation, talents, abilities, physical aptitudes, health, etc. So, Bargain on the assumption that for all you know, you will come into the world poor, or part of a historically underprivileged group, handicapped, with one parent, few talents, limited IQ. KEY POINT: Behind a veil of ignorance, any rational and self-interested person will only agree to a contract that protects the least among society, and discriminates against no particular group.

What is traditional utilitarianism (act-utilitarianism)?

The right action is one that maximizes happiness for everyone affected by the act. Basic intuition: Seek to maximize the total amount of good or happiness in the world (and minimize suffering).

Describe the two thought experiments that lead to Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative.

Thought experiment 1: To determine whether a particular action is moral, imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted on that principle. If such a world is conceivable, and you would be willing to live in it, then it is morally permissible to act on that principle. (This is universalizability). Thought experiment 2: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and decide whether you would let them do to you what you are about to do to them. If not, refrain from performing the action. (This is reversibility)—like the golden rule, except focuses on the principle in question, not the people involved

How does virtue ethics change the focus in discussions about morality?

Virtue ethics focuses on what makes

What are some of the possible "virtues" of cultural relativism? What is the main drawback?

Virtues: Promotes tolerance and acceptance of differences, leading to more empathy and compassion. Diffuses belief in the superiority of one's way of doing things. Counteracts black and white thinking, us vs. them. Good antidote to ethnocentrism. Encourages us to try to understand a culture's beliefs and practices from within that culture's point of view. Drawbacks: Would seem to deny universal moral truths. Isn't sex trafficking of children wrong, no matter what? Isn't female genital surgery wrong, no matter what? What about the notion of universal human rights?

What is the difference between psychological egoism (hedonism) and ethical egoism?

What makes an action right for an ethical egoist is that it promotes one's own best interests. Psychological egoism (hedonism): we can't help but act in our own self-interest. To act voluntarily, to act on a desire, just is to act in our own self-interest. We can't help but be "selfish".

What was the central empirical claim of Gilligan's regarding gender differences in moral decision making?

When faced with moral decisions or dilemmas, men tend to think about rights and responsibilities. Women tend to think about compassion and care, about who is involved. Men want justice to be served, women care more about preserving and nurturing relationships (though not at the expense of justice).

Know the major philosophical objections to relying on Divine Command Theory.

Would seem to imply that morality has an inescapable arbitrary element to it. If God had decreed that murder was OK, then it would be? Assumes there is a God. Which God? Which Religion? Still leaves us the task of figuring out what God decrees. How can you know? How do we settle disagreements? For that it seems we need an additional theory telling us how to figure it out (or we need to use our own moral reasoning, so we're back to where we started). Even if there is no God, isn't murder still wrong? Would imply morality ultimately does not rest on there being a supernatural being.

What are some of the "bizarre consequences" of Individual Relativism?

You can never be wrong, (assuming you fully know the situation and have thought it through). You are morally infallible by definition. You make an action right (for you) simply by agreeing with it. Moral disagreement is reduced to persuasion and matters of opinion, nothing objective. Most importantly, if taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to judgments no one would accept. E.g. If Hitler thought what murdering Jews was right, then (for him) it was right.

What is the difference between a teleological moral theory and a deontological moral theory?

teleological: the rightness of an act is determined by its consequences. Right acts maximize good consequences; deontological: the rightness of an act is determined not by its consequences, but its form, by the kind of action it is