Ethics Final Study guide
What is moral individualism? Why might moral individualism have difficulty making sense of collective responsibility for, e.g, climate change or reparations for historic injustices?
Moral individualism says that the only legitimate moral obligations are those to which people consent to, in actual or hypothetical contract. Therefore, issues like climate change and reparations would most likely gain support from people. If people do not directly give consent to help with these issues, nobody will be morally obligated to help and they will not be fixed. (sense of personal ineffectiveness)
Explain Aristotle's point in saying that the mean, where virtue lies, is relative to us. Does this make Aristotle's theory a form of moral relativism? Why or why not?
Moral relativism states that there are some correct moral claims, but they are true only relative to some standard, and that standard is not in itself uniquely justified. Aristotle believes that there is an objective standard for morality, which is doing what the prudent person would do. His theory is not a moral relativism because the standard is not based on each individual, rather just the virtuous person in general.
The Narrative conception of the self
the belief that we each ought to make sense of our life as a story that is necessarily connected to the story of our family, community, and country
Modern Liberalism
the desire to be free from absolute standards and morals, especially those of the Scriptures
Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean
virtue is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us--"which is defined by reference to right reason=as the prudent person would define it." (ex. rashness------courage------cowardice) -courageous action may be different for different people in same situation -courageous action may be different for the same person in different situation
What does Pope Francis mean by the "technocratic paradigm" and how does he think it has contributed to our current ecological crisis? In what ways are Pope Francis's criticisms of modernity similar to that of Sandel?
"way of viewing reality" and our place in it in which the aims of science and technology pervade all aspects of life. -it has caused us to get used to: selfishness, "throw away culture", instant gratification, practical relativism, failure to reflect on good life, anthropocentrism. Sandel agrees with Aristotle's views on issues with loss of community (focus on individualism) failure to take seriously the rejection of the human good -- freedom and moral individualism and how that relates to no objective notion of the human good (part of why we lost solidarity/community). A transcendent good makes us realize that they are outside of our desires but may still be good for us
What does Sandel mean when he says that according to Aristotle "the good" is prior to "the right"? What is Aristotle's reason for thinking this is the correct way to think about justice?
(justice is about promoting virtue and the good life) The way we decide what we ought to do is by first arguing for a particular conception of happiness (justice brings about this happiness) The good life is "prior to" our claims about what justice should be. Right= duties and obligations. We must first decide what the human good is. The good comes first because we must first distinguish what the good life is before we decide what actions is right. Aristotle thinks this is correct because he is mostly concerned with eudaimonia and being a virtuous person. If virtue comes before action, we can assure that actions reflect virtue.
Do you agree with Sandel (and Aristotle)'s criticism of the modern liberal conception of justice? Why or why not?In answering this, I expect you to explain Sandel's criticism and the reasons he gives to support it, and then give an argument explaining your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with all or some of this criticism. *5 paragraph Essay Question*
*Utilitarianism* (downsides): P260 1.it makes justice and rights a matter of calculation, not principles 2. by trying to translate all human goods into a single, uniform measure of value, it flattens them, and takes not account of the qualitative differences among them *Libertarianism/Kant/Rawl* (downsides): although they take rights seriously and say justice is more then just calculation and agree on certain rights, they disagree about which rights should outweigh utilitarian considerations and they accept people's preferences as they are (don't require us to question/challenge the preferences and desires) a just society cant be achieved by maximizing utility of securing freedom of choice *supports Aristotle* (upsides)
Rawls' egalitarianism
-A just society will be in which equal dignity of persons is respected. -Rawls is interested in providing the conditions for the "perfect social contract"; whatever rational persons would agree to in an "original position of equality" (equal power) *veil of ignorance.*
According to Aristotle, what makes a society just? To what do "general justice" and "special justice" each refer? How ought goods, resources, awards, burdens, and honors be distributed according to Aristotle?
-A society is just when it cultivates virtue and deliberates about the common good. -"General justice" = all of the virtues of character as they relate to other people. It says a just society will be one that consists of and creates just people. -"Special Justice" is distributive justice as a *patterned theory* (merits depend on the thing that being distributed). *We determine the relevant merit by considering the telos of what is in question.*
Mill's Utilitarianism
-Justice is about maximizing welfare/happiness -The right action is the one that creates the greatest overall happiness (happiness is the only intrinsic value because happiness is the end of all action)
Kant's deontology
-Justice is about protecting individual freedom -Motive is what matters (not the consequences)
What are the obligations of solidarity? Why does Aristotle think such obligations exist? What distinguishes Aristotle's notion of the self from that which is presupposed by moral individualism?
-Obligations of solidarity are obligations that result from the community someone belongs to. They are not the result of consent. -These exist because virtuous people should feel morally obligated to help with issues that affect their community. -They exist because we are social animals and who we are us a matter of the social communities we inhabit and grow up in. -compared to the self-described through moral individualism who is more concerned with themselves and what they explicitly consented to.
How does Aristotle define "good"? How does he distinguish between real and apparent goods?
1. It is what everything seeks (whenever I desire/seek something, it is because it appears good to me)-- sometimes we are right (virtuous person=real goods=what I need to excel at my proper function) and sometimes we are wrong (apparent goods= what appears good to me based on my character, "wants") 2. It excels at its proper function/purpose ("that for the sake of which exists")
What are virtues, according to Aristotle? Where does virtue come from?
According to Aristotle, virtues are character traits that are good for us to have, given the kind of creatures we are. We become just by doing just actions and we become virtuous by doing virtuous actions (doing the sort of thing a virtuous person would do). prudence*
How does Aristotle define happiness? How does it differ from Mill's definition of happiness?
Aristotle defines happiness as the highest human good achievable in action. He calls it eudaimonia. The ultimate human good will be excelling at the human function, which is reasoned activity/ rational agency. Happiness is excelling at reasoned activity and deciding and acting. Decisions and actions are a result of our character. Mills describes it as the absence of pain
How might Aristotle explain the importance of a concern with environmental sustainability?
Aristotle would say it is important to be concerned with sustainability because of virtue. The environment is obviously good for all humans and if it deteriorates, so will we. He believes that as humans, our virtue should will us to have a moral obligation to save the environment for the future of ourselves and the rest of our community.
Aristotle's account of virtue
Defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean b/t extremes of deficiency and excess which are vices. We learn moral virtue through habit and practice rather than reasoning and intelligence.
Why, according to Aristotle, is it necessary that we cultivate our emotions as well as our reason? How does Aristotle's position on the role of emotion in moral decision making differ from Kant's?
For Aristotle, emotions and reason play the same role in decision making. We need both rational, practical reason and non-rational emotions and desires in order to make decisions that will guide us towards the best life. *Desires are based on emotions and rational desire comes from making decisions based on right reasons and desire together.* For Kant, emotion play no role because he says acts should be based on reason alone.
Moral Individualism
Freedom means being an independent self, unbound by prior moral ties and capable of choosing my ends (telos) for myself. to be free is to be subject only to obligations I voluntarily incur, those I consent to in actual or hypothetical contract (Kant/Rawls/Libertarianism)
Explain Aristotle's point in saying that the mean, where virtue lies, is relative to us. Does this make Aristotle's theory a form of moral relativism? Why or why not?
He is saying that the virtuous person is the objective standard for morality. It's not moral relativism because the standard is not based on each individual, rather it's just the virtuous person in general (one who does virtuous things)
Which theories of justice discussed this semester maintain that "the right" is prior to "the good"? What are the reasons given for this approach and what conception of moral obligation and the self does such an understanding of justice presuppose?
Kant, Rawls and Libertarians all maintain that the right is prior to the good and therefore we decide what is right and what is good will be whatever is right. These theories believe in this because they are all concerned with freedom and a just society should be based on consent to a social contract. Moral obligation to these theories is moral individualism or one is obligated to do whatever they voluntarily consent to whether actual or hypothetical. The self is free, self-sufficient and unbound by prior moral ties.
Explain Aristotle's point in saying that the mean, where virtue lies, is relative to us. Does this make Aristotle's theory a form of moral relativism? Why or why not?
Moral relativism states that there are some correct moral claims, but they are true only relative to some standard, and that standard is not in itself uniquely justified. Aristotle believes that there is an objective standard for morality, which is doing what the prudent person would do. His theory is not a moral relativism because the standard is not based on each individual, rather just the virtuous person in general. This standard of the prudent person is intrinsically justified because, although, the courageous action can vary, there will always be a correct action.
According to Aristotle, what is involved in choice? What is voluntary ignorance?
Our conception of what's good to do (the good life) relies on what will lead us to "the best life", this is NOT a feeling in the moment.. To decide to do something is to recognize that it is good to do in light of our conception of the good life. One's character controls how the good appears to them. Voluntary ignorance is the fact that character is the result of one's decisions over time, but those decisions are always in light of their character and conception of the good. Vicious character distorts someone's conception of the good. (ignorance of the good)
According to Aristotle, what is the purpose of politics? Why is Aristotle in favor of "moral legislation"?
Politics are essential to living a good life. Politics is a practical science which should serve to promote goodness and virtue for citizens. One reason Aristotle doesn't believe we should be neutral in competing conceptions of the good life is because if we are then we would stop engaging in politics, which is bad. Moral legislation would ensure people are acting based on the morality that was originally derived based on virtue and the telos of political institutions.
What is prudence and what is its role in virtuous living?
Prudence is practical wisdom. It is the virtue of thought and excellence of reason concerned with action and decision. If we act based on prudence, we will be living virtuously; we are acting based on virtue. *The prudent person correctly identifies the good and also, through prudence, correctly identifies the action to take to achieve that end*
What is Rawls's argument for why justice should be detached from judgments about moral desert? How would Aristotle respond to this? On what do Aristotle and Rawls disagree?
Rawls thinks that the only way for things to be fair for everyone is if judgments are not the basis for morality. Rather, he favors decisions about morality being made from behind a veil of ignorance. *Equal position* Aristotle would respond by saying that happiness is what matters and it should be based upon merit and what will help someone exceed the most at their human function (whoever will be the most excellent at their function will receive more) Rawls and Aristotle disagree whether merit based or a veil of ignorance should be used.
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics
States of character that are good for us to have are virtues. Character states are dispositions that cause us to act and feel in a certain way. They drive what is moral to someone.
Aristotle's definition of happiness (eudaimonia)
The best life (flourishing) -The ultimate good is happiness
What is Aristotle's purpose in the Nicomachean Ethics?
To tell people how best to achieve happiness. Acting according to appropriate virtue comes from prudence. We act in order to obtain eudaimonia which is the highest expression of the good life.
Voluntary ignorance (ignorance of the good)
character (virtue or vice) is the result of my decisions over time, but my decisions are always in light of my character and conception of the good, vicious character distorts my conception of the good
Cannibalism and Aristotle
engaging in cannibalism makes it easier to view a person as a thing and that viewing persons in such a way is not part of the virtuous life. *Virtue of respect* it also does not allow someone to life a virtuous life (they can't excel at their proper function) -not treating person as a social/political animal
