Ethics Exam 3

What is a proper duty according to Ross?

A moral obligation that cannot be overridden.

Is normative or substantive morality an evolutionary adaption according to Ruse?

Does morality give us survival value as a species? Yes, he thinks it is an adaptation that helped us survive.

What is Thomson's burglar example and what does she conclude from it?

If the room is stuffy and you open a window and a burglar climbs in then you are responsible since you opened the window. You wouldn't say that the burglar has a right to stay since you opened the window. You opened the window to get air, not to let a burglar in even though you understand that it is what burglars do. A women who participates in consensual sex and understands the risk of pregnancy doesn't give a fetus the right to stay in the womb.

Why does Willard think that moral reality and naturalism are, in the end, incompatible with one another?

If there are no representations (ideas, beliefs, thoughts) then there is no knowledge or choice. If there is no knowledge or choice, then there are no settled intentions with reference to anything. If there are no settled intentions (with intentionality to preserve life or good things) then there is also no knowledge of logical relations. If this is the case then the good will can't exist on naturalism.

How does Judith Jarvis Thomson deny the second premise?

In most cases, the fetus' death is not intended. It is a side effect and an unintentional death because the intention is something else. Thomson grants the fetus personhood all the way from conception to birth, but still claims that abortion is plausible.

What is the difference between induced abortion and spontaneous abortion?

Induced is a normal abortion and is deliberate, spontaneous is a miscarriage and is a result of natural causes.

What is the prima facie case against abortion? What are the two premises and the conclusion of this argument?

Intentionally killing an innocent person is always morally wrong. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person. Therefore, abortion is always morally wrong. The two premises: Intentionally killing a person is always morally wrong. Second: Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person.

What does Ruse think naturalistic evolution shows us concerning ethics? What can it account for and what can it not account for?

It accounts for normative ethics (our moral experiences, oughts, duties, thinking things are valuable or has worth) and not metaethics (no metaethical basis because it can't be rooted in anything).

What does naturalistic evolution cause us to believe about metaethics according to Ruse?

It causes us to believe that there is a grounding or basis for our moral instincts or else we wouldn't behave a certain way or seek justice if there wasn't a basis and it was solely a feeling. Normative ethics is a feeling, metaethics is a reality.

For whom does the categorical imperative hold? To whom does it apply?

It holds and applies to all rational beings.

What is a hypothetical imperative?

It is a means-end rationality that says "if one intends E (whatever goal you have) and recognizes that A (actions) are necessary to bring about E, then you must either do A, or give up E."

One problem with Kant's categorical imperative is that it gives "false negatives"; what does this objection amount to?

It means that the categorical imperative rules out too many things as morally wrong.

Is Kant a consequentialist? If not, what is he?

Kant is a non-consequentialist.

What is a "law of nature" for Kant according to Fred Feldman?

Kant's "law of nature" is universal law that says, "my maxim, if I think it's of universal law, admits no exceptions." It will have physical necessities that are logical, physical, and metaphysical.

Why does Ruse think that our moral instincts by themselves cannot ground moral obligation?

Moral instincts are a belief in moral realism, both have survival value and were selected for us. We objectify our instincts and turn them into real things, but moral objectivity is only an illusion. Evolution doesn't pick the maxim, it picks the instincts. But naturalism gives no reason to believe in moral reality or moral obligation.

What are the two competing ontologies?

Naturalism and non-naturalism.

What is the problem, according to Willard, with the good will given the naturalist ontology?

No physical properties, as determined by physicalism, or a combination thereof can constitute the good will.

Do aims, ends, or success impart moral worth to an action for Kant?

No, moral worth is determined by the maxim of the action.

What is naturalism?

Only the physical cosmos that science studies, exists.

Why does Ross thing that "right" is independent of consequences and how does he try to show this?

Our certainty that is a prima facie right depends not on its consequences but on it being a fulfillment of a promise. Ross concludes that no one means by 'right' just 'productive of the best possible consequences,' or 'optimific,' the attributes 'right' and 'optimific' might stand in either two kinds of relation to each other. 1- They might be so related that we could apprehend a priori, either immediately or deductively, that any act that is optimific is right and any act that is right optimific, as we can comprehend that any triangle that is equilateral is equiangular and vise versa. 2- the two attributes might be such that the question whether they are invariably connected had to be answered by means of an inductive inquiry.

What is a categorical imperative?

PIt is not relative to your goal and is unconditional. It doesn't matter your desires, you must perform the action regardless. If you have a categorical imperative from reason, then you must do the means no matter the ends.

How do perfect and imperfect duties relate to the two levels of moral consistency?

Perfect duties relate with the first in that you want them to be thought of consistently, imperfect duties relate to the latter in that you don't want them willed consistently.

What is the ontology of naturalism?

Physicalism which says that the only way you can figure out how we got here is through GEM which generates that everything that exists is physical.

What is the epistemology of naturalism?

Scientism, the idea that sciences and physical sciences are the only or best way to gain knowledge.

What does the ontology of naturalism say about the contents of the basic categories of existence?

Substance, properties, and relations all must be physical and result from the GEM.

What does the ontology of non-naturalism say about the contents of the basic categories of existence?

Substance, properties, and relations can be non-physical.

What are the three basic categories of existence according to ontologists?

Substances (people, dogs, tables, all physical objects), properties (colors, smells, shapes, and all characteristics), and relations (aspects of two or more things when taken together).

What is an example of a perfect duty for Kant?

Telling the truth, we always have a duty to tell the truth.

One problem with Kant's categorical imperative is that it gives "false positives"; what does this objection amount to?

That categorical imperatives make too many things morally right.

What are the two types of rational consistency for Kant?

That it can't be thought consistently and can't be willed consistently.

What is "John Foster Dulles morality" according to Ruse?

That it is plausible to suggest that humans might have evolved with his kind of morality, where the highest ethical calling would not be to love your neighbor, but to hate your neighbor. But remember that your neighbor hates you, and so you had better not harm him or her, because they are going to come straight back at you and do the same. We believe that what we do is because of our biology, and what we believe is that because of our biology, our substantive moral reality is objectively justified.

According to Kant, what is the "supreme principle of morality?"

The Categorical Imperative.

What is the etiology of naturalism?

The Grand Evolutionary Myth. The Big Bang which led to the Atomic Theory of Matter, which led to the Theory of Evolution.

What is the only thing that can be regarded as "good without qualification" for Kant?

The good will.

What is the primary moral phenomenon for Dallas Willard?

The primary moral reality is the good will and it aims at two things: one's own moral perfection and the happiness of others.

What is practical reason?

The reasons for acting.

What is the reformulated version of the categorical imperative in Feldman?

The reformulated categorical imperative is that "an act is morally right if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable."

What is metaphysics according to lecture?

The study of what is real, unreal, and what is ultimately real.

What is physicalism?

The view that all substances, properties, and relations are physical and all of its contents are physical. Nothing is nonphysical or mental.

What are examples of non-naturalistic ontologies?

Theism, Pantheism (God is everything and everything is God), some versions of Hinduism, Idealism (complete opposite of physicalism), cosmic dualism (ying-yang), Daoism, anything that says the primary thing isn't physical.

What does Ross mean by saying that our prima facie duties are self-evident?

Them being self-evident means that we can contemplate the duties and know they are true based on that contemplation-- but only if we contemplate them right. They are directly conceived and need no proof or justification.

How can naturalistic evolution explain our altruistic tendencies given that the evolutionary struggle for existence would cause us to be selfish rather than altruistic?

There is an indirect survival advantage to helping others. Kin selection is indirectly helping the furtherance of my genes (grandparents taking care of grandkids) that is a survival value to their genes though helping people genetically related to us. Reciprocal altruism is indirectly helping and ensuring the survival of our genetic heritage by helping someone and them helping us back. Overtime we develop altruistic tendencies which gives rise to our moral instincts.

What does Ross' take on the moral order mean for the fact/value and is/ought dichotomies?

They involve the same trust in our reason that is involved in our confidence in mathematics and we should have no justification for trusting it in the latter sphere and distrusting it in the former. In both cases we are dealing with propositions that cannot be proved but that just as certainly need no proof.

Is it true that, according to Ruse, naturalistic evolution is a "directionless process"?

Yes, because of the evolutionary tape theory. He says that there is really no reason why humans might not have evolved in a very different way.

Is it true that, according to Ruse, normative morality is an illusion put in place by our genes to make us good social cooperators?

Yes, survival value makes us good social cooperators; that cooperation makes us more apt to survive. Normative ethics is nothing but our moral instincts.

Is Michael Ruse a naturalist?

Yes.

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

"I should never act except in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become universal law."

What is a perfect duty?

A duty that admits no exceptions.

What is an imperfect duty?

A duty that does admit exceptions.

What is a prima facie duty according to W.D. Ross?

A duty that is binding (obligatory) other things equal, that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties.

Willard thinks that the morally good person and the morally bad person are basic categories of "moral identity"; what is the morally good person and what is the morally bad person, and how do these categories relate to the primary moral phenomenon for Willard?

A morally good person is intent upon advancing the various goods of human life with which they are effectively in contact in a manner that respects their relative degrees of importance of the extent to which actions of the person in question can actually promote the existence and maintenance of those goods. A morally bad or evil person is intent on the destruction of all the various goods of human life with which they are ineffectively in contact in a manner that disrespects their relative degrees of importance of the extent to which actions of the person in question do not promote the existence and maintenance of those goods. He believes these are moral identities, but that most people are somewhere in between on the spectrum. These relate to the moral phenomenon with its two aims, morally good people aim for moral perfection and aids in the happiness of others.

What is the classical definition of a person?

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. The classical definition wanted to make personhood abstract and broad enough to make aliens or angels, if they are rational, to be persons. This also makes God and member of the trinity persons.

What is a maxim and what are its two parts?

A principle of action that you give yourself when you're about to do something. Its two elements will contain your intended action: what do I intend to do? And the reason why: why am I doing it?

What is general ontology and how does it relate to metaphysics?

A sub-branch of metaphysics that asks: what is existence itself?

What is an example of an imperfect duty for Kant?

Absolutism.

What does it mean for Kant to act on the basis of inclination?

Acting on the basis of inclination is based on performance, desire, pleasure, and habit which is only praised and encouraged when actions are based in these, meaning they are not valued.

How does the rightness of some action relate to the categorical imperative for Kant?

An act is right if its maxim can be universalized (moral action) and an act is wrong if its maxim cannot be universalized (immoral action).

Louis Antony claims that any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises less obvious than the existence of objective moral values and duties themselves. If this is correct, then what does that imply at the choice between naturalism and moral realism given their incompatibility?

Antony believes in objective morality, but believes that is independent from God and human will and that they are objective in a sense of being universal. But says that one must choose naturalism or moral reality considering they can't coexist.

What are the moral implications of personhood?

Are persons more valuable than nonpersons (like a table)? Yes. Personhood makes you a locust of value or an intrinsically valuable and worthy thing. Personhood also makes you a bearer of rights, giving you natural moral rights.

What is the difference between autonomy and heteronomy?

Autonomy is solely acting from duty and is the self-law. Heteronomy is the other-law, meaning you are acting for others based on inclination.

Why does Kant think virtues, gifts of fortune, and moderate emotions cannot be good without qualification?

Because they could be acting from bad motives. Riches, fortune, health, etc. could cause you to be arrogant, you need moderation and good reason.

What are the two components of our moral instincts according to lecture?

Behavior and feelings. Evolution doesn't care about what you think or how you feel, it only care about how you act. But emotions and feelings motivate behavior.

How can one get out of the argument?

By denying one of the premises.

For Kant, which sort of imperative expresses genuine moral requirements?

Categorical imperatives.

What is theoretical reason?

Coming to hold true beliefs.

To which category of existence does consciousness belong in the naturalist ontology? Can it really belong to this category given the ontological requirements of naturalism?

Consciousness belongs to the properties in naturalist ontology. It cannot being to this category due to the fact that consciousness is not a physical property.

There are two ways to deny the second premise: what are they?

Denying that the embryo or fetus is a human being or denying that it is a person. It could be a human but not a human being, just like my finger is human but not a human being. Or you could say it is a human being, but not a person. If you're in a coma or a vegetative state then you are a human being, but you are not a functioning person. Fetuses haven't reached the development level to function as a person. Second is denying that it is intentionally killing, saying that abortion is not always the intentional killing. Maybe I intended not to have my body change naturally, or to get pregnant, or to have a lot of hospital visits. You force that acting on these intentions will result in death, but the death was not the intention.

What does it mean for Kant to act out of duty alone?

Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law, you act for duty's sake which is considered esteemed, worthy, and valuable.

According to lecture, what does natural selection select for, truth or behavior?

Evolution cares about behavior because that is what has survival value.

Ruse advocates for a form of moral skepticism regarding what, normative morality or metaethics?

He advocates for moral skepticism regarding metaethics because of the epistemology component. You can't be a naturalist and believe in moral realism. "I am arguing that the epistemological foundation of evolutionary ethics is a kind of moral non-realism, but that it is an important part of evolutionary ethics that we think it is a kind of moral realism."

What are the two reasons Ruse gives for thinking that naturalistic evolution cannot give us any reason to be moral realists regarding metaethics?

Hume's law with the is/ought concept tells us that there is not really an ought, only an is. It is a descriptive fact because feeling like we ought to do something does not entail the normative ought. If we have a logical reason, additional explanations are unnecessary. The evolutionary tape is another reason to negate moral realists by challenging that if we were to play the evolutionary tape backwards then different outcomes would occur, there for objective moral rules can't exist.

What is the problem of relative description for Kant's categorical imperative?

It is a problem of false positives and that the categorical imperative doesn't necessarily exclude what we know is immoral.

Is the argument in the prima facie case against abortion logically valid? If so, what does this mean?

It is logically airtight if the premises are true. And if the premises are true, the conclusion has to follow. If you deny the conclusion but accept that the premises are true then you are making a contradiction. The only way to get out of it is to deny one of the premises. This is called a deductive argument where conclusions always necessarily follow. In inductive arguments, the conclusion probably follows.

Which part of reason (i.e., practical or theoretical) issues hypothetical and categorical imperatives?

Practical reason because morality is a form of practical reason.

What is an example of a duty for Ross? Be familiar with his list.

Prima facie duties include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, non-injury, harm-prevention, beneficence, self-improvement, and justice duties.

Which actions of ours have maxims?

Rational, moral, and immoral actions.

What is reality according to lecture?

Reality is the total sum of all facts or the sum total of all things that exist.

What is the relationship between morality and rationality for Kant?

Reason comes from a rational mind and categorical imperatives are a reason of acting. Morality is unconditional and is what you must do, period.

According to Ross, how do we come to know our duties? Is it by means of some formal reasoning process like the categorical imperative or by some other means?

Ross believes our duties are self-evident and are known through intuition. We know our duties by reflecting on our moral consciousness.

In regards to our duties, what is more central for Ross: our motives or our actions?

Ross cares about the actions instead of our movies because he says "the only conclusion that can be drawn is that our duty is to do certain things, not to do them from a sense of duty."

For Ross, how does one come to decide between conflicting prima facie duties (e.g., a duty of fidelity and a duty of justice)?

Ross did not think there was a definite method for determining right action in such cases. Ross believes that "the decision rests with the perception," in that there will always be one duty that has a greater urgency or priority than the others and that will be ones duty proper.

What does she conclude form this?

That most cases of abortion are permissible even though it is a person.

What does naturalistic evolution imply about metaethics? What do we generally believe about metaethics and what does naturalistic evolution stipulate we should believe about metaethics?

That we have two illusions: the illusion of normative ethics, and the illusion that our normative ethics is not an illusion. We have duties, and we have these duties and obligations not because they are feelings, but because they are real. Moral realism is not true if you are a naturalist, you should be a moral skeptic.

What does the good will need in order to exist according to Willard? Be able to list at least two of these components.

The good will needs conscious intentional states (consciousness and intentionality), knowledge of good in human life (have to know logical relations, have the ability to make hypothetical judgements, and the ability to reach conclusions via premises), and the ability to sustain long-range intentions (choice and disposition) in order to exist.

What is non-naturalism?

The idea that non-physical things can exist. It is a denial of scientism, physicalism, and the GEM.

What does Ross say about the reality of the moral order?

The moral order is expressed in the principles of prima facie duties is just as much part of the fundamental nature of the universe as is the structure expressed in the axioms of geometry and arithmetic.

What is the notion of universalizability in Kantian ethics? What is the three-part test which Kant uses to determine whether an action is morally right, or morally wrong?

The universalization test consists of identifying the maxim, imagining a world where this maxim is universalized, and then asking "can a world living with this maxim be possible?" If yes, then it is morally permissible.

What sort of moral view would allow one to deny the first premise?

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism and any consequentialist view. If it results in a greater good, then it is justified morally.

What is one argument that Frank Beckwith gives against the Thomson case for abortion rights?

Violinist illustration is misleading, no use of surgical instruments in unplugging like there is in the killing of the fetus. It assumes moral volunteerism, that says we only have moral obligations to people if we voluntarily take on that responsibility. Thomson also can't account for our intuitions about moral things, like parenthood giving us moral obligations whether we want them or not.

What is the famous unconscious violinist analogy and how does Thomson use it to argue for abortion rights?

You are kidnapped and unconscious until you wake up hooked up to an unconscious violinist. You are hooked up because he has a deadly kidney disease and is using yours to fix his. It is only for 9 months but it was involuntary. If you unhook, he dies. Are you morally obligated? If you have no obligation to stay hooked up to the violinist, then you have no obligation to stay hooked up to the fetus. She argues that it is completely unintentional death, just foreseen.

What is Thomson's tiny house example and what does she conclude form it?

You are trapped in a tiny house with a rapidly growing child, you are already pushed up against the walls and will soon be crushed to death. It may hurt a little while he grows, but eventually he will bust open the house and walk free. Bystanders can't decide who lives and who dies therefore they have no room to intervene. The bystander can't say that you can't attack the baby to save your life. You don't have to let it take your life, you are entitled to self-defense, but the woman is the one who houses it. Attacking is not to kill the child, but to save yourself. A mother has the right to self-defense just like the person in the tiny house. Both people are innocent but can attack even though its unintentional, she has the ability to abort the baby if it is a threat to her life and wants to choose survival.

Acting solely from what motive gives an act moral worth for Kant?

duty